That's a very good question, actually. After all, they didn't have the presence of mind to have a contingency plan for their passwords. Did they even think about their passwords at all?
It can be hard to foresee how people will take certain opinions. I suspect there are too many people here who self-identify with a sys-admin protecting passwords. I mean, founded or not, why not ask the hard questions? you even provided a source.
For a far more extreme example, you see the same kind of behavior throughout the country with citizens rooting on wanted criminals. They somehow feel that they are closer to the criminal than to the cops, even in cases where nothing could be further than the truth. They find it easy to fall into the us-versus-them mentality. Reality is just not that simple.
Knowledge of company intellectual property (trade secrets, business practices, etc) must be kept to one self based on law and contract, but unless there are specific contractual terms, there is nothing to compel someone to regurgitate knowledge for a previous employer. (There ought to be with passwords, etc, but if legal council forgets to put it in the contract, tough luck.) I'm not that kind of jerk, but I quite understand people who insist on being paid to actively assist in replacing themselves.
That is a double edged sword, isn't it. I think Guido believed people would adapt as soon as they could (following updates to 3rd party modules, etc). Still, I think that the time will come when the 2.x line will be officially deprecated and people will move. (Again, I just don't see a fork.)
Quite the contrary, there were a number of people who knew exactly what was going on, and would really like to take their "earnings" and claim that they were totally oblivious. The meltdown was inevitable based on the possition the market was in, and those with sufficient experience and resources could understand what was about to happen. (Many who could have, foolishly didn't... including federal regulators.)
Three terms for you: loophole, backdoor, and garbage-in/garbage-out.
Judges running wild is one thing. On the other hand, jury nullification is an important safety valve that we cannot afford to eliminate. It is marginalized, misunderstood, underused, and abused, but we'd be ultimately worse off without it.
Occam's Razor applied to finance: Somebody is taking advantage of somebody else for profit.
It is thus inevitable that someone will create a condition which can be best capitalized on by someone else by playing along. It is equally likely that somebody else will think that they can best capitalize on a situation by playing along, and will become a patsy. (Extrapolate this, and you have a speculation bubble.) Like plays in a chess game, those who understand what's really going on and can predict X steps ahead will put themselves in corresponding favorable positions.
I think Occam's Razor is an invaluable tool in understanding finance. I would hate to try to figure it out otherwise.
(And if you bring up obscure specifics, have the decency to provide links. It's one think when a 5 second google provides an explanation, it's something else when that fails and 5 minutes arguing with sec.gov provides nothing.)
I realize their desire for better consistency in the language. Still, parenthesis give specificity at the cost of readability and writing speed. I think there ought to be fewer parenthesis required in programming, not more. (And no calls for Perl, please. Other parts of the language drive me nuts.)
No, it was. With Python 3, it's now: print("$1.00")
Granted, various versions of Python 2 are still very much alive and kicking. As time progresses, Python 3 gradually will take over. (The only thing that could avoid this would be a code fork, and I see no sign of that.)
Great. A site of anecdotes, which disclaimes itself thus:"Driver distraction is a leading cause of crashes, although the exact figures are difficult to gage because of the unreliability of the data."
And what does it say about radios and CD players?
...looking at the cd player while driving.
I was trying to find my favorite cd to put in and I was reaching for it keeping my eyes on the road. I felt it but couldn't reach it.
I was busy looking for a cd
I don't know exactly what happened that caused the accident, but I do remember reaching over my head to the CD wallet on the sunvisor for a new CD.
I looked down at the stereo to turn up the music.
So don't fiddle with the thing when the car is moving! If you can manipulate the thing by touch (keeping your eyes on the road), then great. Otherwise, you're being irresponsible.
Why do you want a nanny state? Next you're going to tell me that I can't sing to myself even without the radio. (Coming back to my point, watching lips is still not a cause to pull someone over.)
Or do they have a moral obligation to their shareholders to not spend money if they don't have to (keep up the bottom line)? Or do they have an ethical obligation?
Neither. They have a legal obligation to look after that bottom line. That means working to keep the company healthy in the long term. They could also hire bank robbers and cat-burglars to prop up the bottom line, but the long term effects on the company will be quite negative.
Anytime a company decides to make short term cuts at the cost of long term gains (to spare the bottom line) they "can't see the forest through the trees."
Newsflash, it's 2010 and Bush is no longer in office. I know you've fought long and hard to keep his reputation tarnished and his office impotent, but it's OK. It's over now. We can focus on politicians who are actually in office and capable of creating further chaos and suffering. Please be sure to select some Republicans and Democrats for consideration. There are plenty to choose from.
If they're not sure of what's an RPG and what's a camera, they shouldn't fire. It's that simple.... How could they be mistaken for insurgents? Because they were in a street?...
I haven't seen the video yet, but your comment sounds ludicrous. Who is going to be in the streets in a war zone? Almost entirely combatants and civilians scrambling for safety. Who's going to stop to aim a shoulder mounted device? Almost entirely enemy combatants. How long does it take to fire an RPG? A lot less time than it takes to carefully examine someone from a distance. War is kill or be killed. It is "shoot first, ask questions later". It is an ugly, ugly thing. That is the very nature of it.
I'm not excusing these particular soldiers. I'm just speaking generally like you seem to be. I don't think you understand war.
Regardless of what judges may think, criminals ought to be held responsible for things that can be reasonably foreseen. If you sell personal info online, you should be one party held accountable for the effects of identity theft. On the other hand, one cannot reasonably predict that something will reach 4chan. (under normal circumstances)
I've now found and watched the episode. Thank you for that. I found it very informative, and agree with his results and solution*. The American "expert" at the end absolutely appalled me. There is no just reason to intentionally inflict pain during execution. I know there are others who agree with him, but I hope they aren't any kind of majority.
*(Subject to counter argument, of course. He was extremely compelling, but episodes like this are hardly comprehensive.)
Unless they uploaded the pictures to 4chan themselves, they can hardly be held responsible for that particular group of abuses. (The department should certainly discipline them, though.)
In response to the paralytic, specifically, I agree. It is neither needed nor desired. It is a common combination during surgery. If a patient becomes conscious, you still don't want them to move while under the knife. It is rational to think that the practice simply carried over along with the anesthesiologists. That doesn't make it acceptable, merely understandable.
I'll see if I can find the program you linked. It looks mildly interesting, but the BBC won't let foreigners (ex: Americans) stream their shows. I do disagree with the premise that some pain is necessarily cruel while ending someone's life. Let's keep things in perspective, really.
No problem. I am, of course, just reiterating my take on things that I've heard and been taught.
I think it varies from state to state. I think murder is usually tried in state court according to state law, not federal court. That's how some states can allow execution while others have banned it. If it was federal law being enforced, the States would have no say either way.
And I think it is reprehensible when "life without the possibility of parole" doesn't mean just that. That should only be given out when there is no reasonable expectation of reform. Such people are a danger to society, and it is irresponsible to free them. Sorry for the rant.
You haven't made the connection yet. People have trouble grasping it, but it's worth it.
What is punishment? What is it really? Punishment is an undesirable response to an undesired behavior. In other words: negative feedback. Now some punishment is meted out for the purpose of satisfying anger. This is inevitable, but unhealthy. Other punishment is given in order to correct a problem and encourage a change. This is what we must focus on.
Are improportionate punishments effective at changing behavior? Sure, but as a people we've decided that it is unnecessary and frequently cruel.
We've also decided that it's unfair to punish people who have yet to commit a crime. This isn't because they don't yet have something to pay for. Rather, it is to protect those who will never break the law. We do however often assign punishment based on predicted future actions. Why otherwise are some required to take anger management or driving school? It is to prevent future problems, not to exact repayment.
The philosophy of repaying a debt can be quite unhealthy for the offender. There is no need to change if there is a zero balance. The emphasis then is on not getting caught, not reform to avoid being sought.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very good question, actually. After all, they didn't have the presence of mind to have a contingency plan for their passwords. Did they even think about their passwords at all?
It can be hard to foresee how people will take certain opinions. I suspect there are too many people here who self-identify with a sys-admin protecting passwords. I mean, founded or not, why not ask the hard questions? you even provided a source.
For a far more extreme example, you see the same kind of behavior throughout the country with citizens rooting on wanted criminals. They somehow feel that they are closer to the criminal than to the cops, even in cases where nothing could be further than the truth. They find it easy to fall into the us-versus-them mentality. Reality is just not that simple.
Knowledge of company intellectual property (trade secrets, business practices, etc) must be kept to one self based on law and contract, but unless there are specific contractual terms, there is nothing to compel someone to regurgitate knowledge for a previous employer. (There ought to be with passwords, etc, but if legal council forgets to put it in the contract, tough luck.) I'm not that kind of jerk, but I quite understand people who insist on being paid to actively assist in replacing themselves.
That is a double edged sword, isn't it. I think Guido believed people would adapt as soon as they could (following updates to 3rd party modules, etc). Still, I think that the time will come when the 2.x line will be officially deprecated and people will move. (Again, I just don't see a fork.)
... and no one player knew all that much of it.
Quite the contrary, there were a number of people who knew exactly what was going on, and would really like to take their "earnings" and claim that they were totally oblivious. The meltdown was inevitable based on the possition the market was in, and those with sufficient experience and resources could understand what was about to happen. (Many who could have, foolishly didn't... including federal regulators.)
Three terms for you: loophole, backdoor, and garbage-in/garbage-out.
Judges running wild is one thing. On the other hand, jury nullification is an important safety valve that we cannot afford to eliminate. It is marginalized, misunderstood, underused, and abused, but we'd be ultimately worse off without it.
Occam's Razor applied to finance: Somebody is taking advantage of somebody else for profit.
It is thus inevitable that someone will create a condition which can be best capitalized on by someone else by playing along. It is equally likely that somebody else will think that they can best capitalize on a situation by playing along, and will become a patsy. (Extrapolate this, and you have a speculation bubble.) Like plays in a chess game, those who understand what's really going on and can predict X steps ahead will put themselves in corresponding favorable positions.
I think Occam's Razor is an invaluable tool in understanding finance. I would hate to try to figure it out otherwise.
(And if you bring up obscure specifics, have the decency to provide links. It's one think when a 5 second google provides an explanation, it's something else when that fails and 5 minutes arguing with sec.gov provides nothing.)
Addendum:
I realize their desire for better consistency in the language. Still, parenthesis give specificity at the cost of readability and writing speed. I think there ought to be fewer parenthesis required in programming, not more. (And no calls for Perl, please. Other parts of the language drive me nuts.)
No, it was. With Python 3, it's now: print("$1.00")
Granted, various versions of Python 2 are still very much alive and kicking. As time progresses, Python 3 gradually will take over. (The only thing that could avoid this would be a code fork, and I see no sign of that.)
Great. A site of anecdotes, which disclaimes itself thus :"Driver distraction is a leading cause of crashes, although the exact figures are difficult to gage because of the unreliability of the data."
And what does it say about radios and CD players?
...looking at the cd player while driving.
I was trying to find my favorite cd to put in and I was reaching for it keeping my eyes on the road. I felt it but couldn't reach it.
I was busy looking for a cd
I don't know exactly what happened that caused the accident, but I do remember reaching over my head to the CD wallet on the sunvisor for a new CD.
I looked down at the stereo to turn up the music.
So don't fiddle with the thing when the car is moving! If you can manipulate the thing by touch (keeping your eyes on the road), then great. Otherwise, you're being irresponsible.
Why do you want a nanny state? Next you're going to tell me that I can't sing to myself even without the radio. (Coming back to my point, watching lips is still not a cause to pull someone over.)
Or do they have a moral obligation to their shareholders to not spend money if they don't have to (keep up the bottom line)? Or do they have an ethical obligation?
Neither. They have a legal obligation to look after that bottom line. That means working to keep the company healthy in the long term. They could also hire bank robbers and cat-burglars to prop up the bottom line, but the long term effects on the company will be quite negative.
Anytime a company decides to make short term cuts at the cost of long term gains (to spare the bottom line) they "can't see the forest through the trees."
Nope. Some people sing to the radio. For that matter, some people talk to the radio.
Newsflash, it's 2010 and Bush is no longer in office. I know you've fought long and hard to keep his reputation tarnished and his office impotent, but it's OK. It's over now. We can focus on politicians who are actually in office and capable of creating further chaos and suffering. Please be sure to select some Republicans and Democrats for consideration. There are plenty to choose from.
If they're not sure of what's an RPG and what's a camera, they shouldn't fire. It's that simple. ... How could they be mistaken for insurgents? Because they were in a street? ...
I haven't seen the video yet, but your comment sounds ludicrous. Who is going to be in the streets in a war zone? Almost entirely combatants and civilians scrambling for safety. Who's going to stop to aim a shoulder mounted device? Almost entirely enemy combatants. How long does it take to fire an RPG? A lot less time than it takes to carefully examine someone from a distance. War is kill or be killed. It is "shoot first, ask questions later". It is an ugly, ugly thing. That is the very nature of it.
I'm not excusing these particular soldiers. I'm just speaking generally like you seem to be. I don't think you understand war.
You're responding to an AC troll. You're not going to be able to reason with him.
You think they don't? Regularly? Whether the local media bites or not is besides the point.
Regardless of what judges may think, criminals ought to be held responsible for things that can be reasonably foreseen. If you sell personal info online, you should be one party held accountable for the effects of identity theft. On the other hand, one cannot reasonably predict that something will reach 4chan. (under normal circumstances)
I've now found and watched the episode. Thank you for that. I found it very informative, and agree with his results and solution*. The American "expert" at the end absolutely appalled me. There is no just reason to intentionally inflict pain during execution. I know there are others who agree with him, but I hope they aren't any kind of majority.
*(Subject to counter argument, of course. He was extremely compelling, but episodes like this are hardly comprehensive.)
Unless they uploaded the pictures to 4chan themselves, they can hardly be held responsible for that particular group of abuses. (The department should certainly discipline them, though.)
History. Have you paid attention to it at all?
Do we really need to Godwin the thread so quickly?
To rephrase: it is assumed that a normal distribution is normal. Besides, there are always things that are abnormal.
I have yet to see a research article actually verify or check to see if that assumption is true.
In response to the paralytic, specifically, I agree. It is neither needed nor desired. It is a common combination during surgery. If a patient becomes conscious, you still don't want them to move while under the knife. It is rational to think that the practice simply carried over along with the anesthesiologists. That doesn't make it acceptable, merely understandable.
I'll see if I can find the program you linked. It looks mildly interesting, but the BBC won't let foreigners (ex: Americans) stream their shows. I do disagree with the premise that some pain is necessarily cruel while ending someone's life. Let's keep things in perspective, really.
How about judges that aren't appointed by royalty and enforce laws approved by congress?
It's hardly my idea, though.
No problem. I am, of course, just reiterating my take on things that I've heard and been taught.
I think it varies from state to state. I think murder is usually tried in state court according to state law, not federal court. That's how some states can allow execution while others have banned it. If it was federal law being enforced, the States would have no say either way.
And I think it is reprehensible when "life without the possibility of parole" doesn't mean just that. That should only be given out when there is no reasonable expectation of reform. Such people are a danger to society, and it is irresponsible to free them. Sorry for the rant.
You haven't made the connection yet. People have trouble grasping it, but it's worth it.
What is punishment? What is it really? Punishment is an undesirable response to an undesired behavior. In other words: negative feedback. Now some punishment is meted out for the purpose of satisfying anger. This is inevitable, but unhealthy. Other punishment is given in order to correct a problem and encourage a change. This is what we must focus on.
Are improportionate punishments effective at changing behavior? Sure, but as a people we've decided that it is unnecessary and frequently cruel.
We've also decided that it's unfair to punish people who have yet to commit a crime. This isn't because they don't yet have something to pay for. Rather, it is to protect those who will never break the law. We do however often assign punishment based on predicted future actions. Why otherwise are some required to take anger management or driving school? It is to prevent future problems, not to exact repayment.
The philosophy of repaying a debt can be quite unhealthy for the offender. There is no need to change if there is a zero balance. The emphasis then is on not getting caught, not reform to avoid being sought.