Consider that many kinds of sociopathy have the same kind of behavioral characteristics, but also include lack of guilt, inability to love, and parrotting of a number of emotions.
Correlation != Causation, but the relationship of risky behaviors and inabiity to learn from many kinds of mistakes also typifies the pathology of sociopaths.
If you read down thread, zero and one are usually not the leading character. Makes guessing harder. Remember when voice mail had the initial passcode as 1111? For reasons like that. Poor systems are often implemented poorly from beginning to end.
That's if there's something tied to authentication to set off an alarm. In the case of door guards, rarely is there a trap sent to an actively monitored console that would trigger such an alarm, especially in the case of many users each owning their own code. If the door won't open, that seems satisfactory to many. Can you imagine locking out a door after 3 failures? You get a huge line of teed off people waiting for someone to emerge to clear the door. Almost as much fun for some people.....
Many of the ones I've seen in airports, banks, NOCs, etc., still have the older ones. Much can be learned just by watching the finger movements as no one covers them up, just like few people mind using CC machines that don't hide your hand movements when entering one's PIN.
Those that randomize the layout of the keypad seem onerous. But they're not. Combos, like hand print and keypad are much tougher.
To get around them you need to take the door handle and jar it a bit, smearing it with greasy stuff just before it's used by someone with access. Their fingerprints will be all over the pad. It's easy to lift them, then latex them if you're really into that sort of thing.
Randomizing keypads take more stealth. Leave a short-haul cam nearby focused on the pad. Have an associate verify the focus via bluetooth whilst waiting in your secret van. Or use nice binoculars as most organizations don't think of hiding the keypads very well. A little battery-operated 'sticky' cam works wonders. Create a distraction whilst positioning it. Don't forget your fake hippie beard.
Look at the keypad. The numbers will be worn down. Look to see if it's an even wear, that means there are more than a few combos that work, but usually it's only one or two that are commonly shared.
Then look for the most worn, with the most dirt-- it's the first number. Elminate the clean bright keys from the pool. Eliminate zero and one; the remaining pool has the combination. It's probably just four numbers, could be five.
Compilers didn't. Microprocessors and external FPUs didn't work together, and there were a raft of famous Intel bugs in their own chips. The i386sx was one of those. How they could release wafers that weren't validated just shows how loose and fast they operated, trying to beat Moto and others.
Thier 'leapfrogging' resulted in recalls, compiler-writer headaches, assy code mistakes, and easily limited motherboard maker designs. True, others like HP, MIPS, and Sun had their own share of mistakes, but Intel mulitplied them with popularity.
In the interim, they made incredibly dubious marketing claims about their CPUs. Clock speed was it, baby. They never did point to bloatware, and the other incumbent problems of systems processing. Like Microsoft, they think very big of themselves yet are more of an accident of history than they would let you believe.
which is a long but interesting look at how DNA evidence can work, but also how it might be misleading (and I'm not talking about sloppy work and fraud). It's pause for thought.
Beyond a "reasonable doubt" may always be a problem, but we agree that reliance on DNA (like strands exist beyond statistical probabilities now accepted) and fingerprints (partials are dubious in some cases although forgery is also less likely)....
Nice CSI work, but before this will be admitted in a court, it'll have to go through immense amounts of testing. Soon, they'll be able to follow us by the DNA in dead skin we shed as we travel.
See Mikey? Bubba was whizzin in the woods. His DNA is all over the place....
They're unlikely to listen to external advice on marketing, but there's always the possibility. Their insular culture gives rise to the misbelief that they're going it alone, breaking new ground, and are inherently better than others.
There is no greater offensive strategy, IMHO, than gathering not only your shareholders and customers opinions, but those that can think outside of your box, as boxes are fragile. They believe that their research organization does this for them, but the results aren't what they need. They need a non-sycophantic culture shock instead of the same old shlitz. They're too fat and happy. There's a jabba-the-hut mentality over there, and WaggEd didn't improve it in any meaningful way that I can detect.
Well yeah because they're hiring someone else to do it.
Waggener Edstrom, their long-time PR company, was run by Pam Edstrom. She's married to Ballmer. See any connection in the failures here? Some of their staff are wonderful, while others are empty chairs. Hiring someone else to do the work might also mean that they'd have to listen to someone outside of their cabal.
I used to have a similar 'argument' with my late father. He believed that within the construct of civilization, civility, and civics, that insurance modified behavior based on evolving risk pools based on cost. Mandatory insurance isn't really insurance, as visaged through the evolution of no-fault constructs. Only subsequent criminal charges or litigation that reaches over insurance to touch personal/corporate assets modifies behavior, e.g. the risk of going to jail or having a judgment of your personal assets causes people to change, was his argument.
His argument encompasses the entire 'risk pool'. I would rather drive well and safely because I don't jeopardize myself and others, not because my insurance premiums are really good. Others that drink then drive, putting themselves at risk, also face criminal charges, litigation, and so on.
So while I understand that empathize != embrasure in your context, mutual non-aggression isn't the entire crux of civility or civics, it's more an active state where embodiment and aggregation into the artificial construct of government requires embracing the whole, not just handy cost-effective constituent parts.
Social justice mandates protecting not only the rich and those perceived as 'well-behaving' but all, and all with no exceptions. As a civilization, if we don't pull those up at the bottom of existence, then all are pulled down. Enlightened self-interest is a characteristic of humanity. So is the capacity for empathy-- except those that are sociopathic. Read "The Sociopath Next Door" for an interesting view in that direction.
The cooperation and respect also entails understanding marginalization, the empathizing that insurance pools will have accidents, fall prey to bad genes, bad judgment, and hostile circumstances both witting and not.
There are so many pratfalls in a national health care system that it'll be difficult to manage, and really expensive. Yet accessibility and justice for all mandate it. I've been in Canada's system, and also the UK's, although I'm an American. I can tell you anecdotally that they both the Canadian and UK system have disadvantages and both have great needs for better oversight and quality assurance. Under both, however, there's a greater chance of enhancing the quality of life for all. Extra insurance? Sure. But a minimum needs to be established.
Your rigidity of logic is almost deafening. To embrace misanthropy is to demoralize civilization. Instead, I'll admit the seeming quixotic, even idealistically misplaced nihilism in my trying to imbue a sense of responsibility, even in those that have a sense of free-ride entitlement.
Empathy doesn't mean you have to embrace seeming sociopathy. Empathy is intellectual identification, not advocacy. You cannot embrace the unembraceable. Sorry to be all zen; but you can't change the course of a river by telling it to do so. Gravity gets in your way every time.
The "perfect right to do as they will" counters the responsibility of civics, and civilization. I can feel empathy, but I don't embrace or sympathize with the viewpoint. I can include all, but such inclusion isn't embrace. I think we agree more closely than semantics tell.
It isn't. It's civilly mandated. Lacking empathy, there is no civility. We run the government; it's not the other way around.
We look after each other. Only a femtocosmic section of humanity grows up without having depended on others for their very lives, not to mention education, housing, and so on.
There is no social justice and no civility without inclusion. We, collectively, must sustain each other. We must demand this of government. One exclusion causes a cascade of exclusions and subsequent injustices, like the many that are faced today.
You are alive because others had empathy for you and were willing to share your costs and help build you to whom you are today. Your obligation is to other humanity. Common insurance and civic maintenance isn't your obligation, of course.
Therefore, stop paying the insurance as in your perfected state, you won't need it. Beelzebub.
It's immediately possible to equate your devil's advocacy to the inability to have empathy for others.
Your good health is nice, and it is also likely to be transient for reasons other than good actions you have taken yourself. Even if you've been a bit of a slut and got HIV (or an other STD), or let yourself become obese (with incumbent diabetes and arteriosclerosis), or have smoked like a fiend, you're still a human, and we still want you to live. Really. Those that don't, having no empathy, are in fact sociopathic and by a component of its definition.
Charlie gets it right. Let's see, 18 million notebook machines. Freight each way, plus cost of labor to fix them and the materials needed. Less than $10 a machine! Great, that math stuff. Yup, a $150-200 million charge oughta do it at around $10 a machine!
Hello? This is the SEC? Hey, I have a question about an 8K I saw for NVidia. It goes like this.....
Your recipe for disaster doesn't acknowledge the fact that there are LEOs that learn to deal with the stress and the uglier sides of humanity and situations.
Sometimes the stress gets to be too much, and LEOs go over the top, and consistently. Psych evals are often useful, but they're difficult and many people (let alone LEOs) reject them. Citizen review boards, as well as an open and clear response to complaint system seems to help. Not being an abject proctological orifice when confronted with a LEO also is a nice survival tactic.
Those in need of anger management on both sides of the badge need to address that problem, because it gets out of control easily in tense situations. You never know what a LEO might have had to face before he/she got to you.
And you found two rotten apples. Get their badge numbers. Do what you can to get their hostility issues dealt with. They only get up on the radar for fixing if there's a list of complaints. It starts with you. Be honest, non-judgmental, and rational in your complaint and it will get aired. If you get harrassed, that's a felony of its own. Document it all. Don't get reduced to hating because you had two successive turkeys intimidate you.
This presumes that I and others desire child pornography. I don't, and believe that a huge majority would agree.
As far as destroying their common carrier status, the point seems largely moot today anyway. Like the IP companies, the telcos get what they want from a fawning congress.
What makes you think that I haven't been? What makes you think I haven't seen it? Nothing in my reply says that it's justified to be an asshole with a LEO and vice-versa.
Instead, it's fine to film, should you be so inclined. I'm guessing that there's a class of people that look for trouble, and then, qu'elle surprise!, find it! You'd be amazed at the number of clearly dangerous people that police officers have to deal with on a daily basis. You wonder why they might be a little apprehensive and reactive when someone gives them a bullshit response? Abuse is still abuse, and a police officer is still confined (albeit this is too often unenforced) to be civil, and yes, sometimes they go over the top. Some are clearly in need of anger management, but so are a vast number of people that they're forced to confront on every shift. It's a shitty job, like the one where the teacher gets to babysit children that parents can't parent.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Consider that many kinds of sociopathy have the same kind of behavioral characteristics, but also include lack of guilt, inability to love, and parrotting of a number of emotions.
Correlation != Causation, but the relationship of risky behaviors and inabiity to learn from many kinds of mistakes also typifies the pathology of sociopaths.
If you read down thread, zero and one are usually not the leading character. Makes guessing harder. Remember when voice mail had the initial passcode as 1111? For reasons like that. Poor systems are often implemented poorly from beginning to end.
That's if there's something tied to authentication to set off an alarm. In the case of door guards, rarely is there a trap sent to an actively monitored console that would trigger such an alarm, especially in the case of many users each owning their own code. If the door won't open, that seems satisfactory to many. Can you imagine locking out a door after 3 failures? You get a huge line of teed off people waiting for someone to emerge to clear the door. Almost as much fun for some people.....
In retrospect, I meant to say 0 or 1 as starting numbers. Rare to do that. 456 are the most frequent starters, but not always so.
Many of the ones I've seen in airports, banks, NOCs, etc., still have the older ones. Much can be learned just by watching the finger movements as no one covers them up, just like few people mind using CC machines that don't hide your hand movements when entering one's PIN.
Those that randomize the layout of the keypad seem onerous. But they're not. Combos, like hand print and keypad are much tougher.
To get around them you need to take the door handle and jar it a bit, smearing it with greasy stuff just before it's used by someone with access. Their fingerprints will be all over the pad. It's easy to lift them, then latex them if you're really into that sort of thing.
Randomizing keypads take more stealth. Leave a short-haul cam nearby focused on the pad. Have an associate verify the focus via bluetooth whilst waiting in your secret van. Or use nice binoculars as most organizations don't think of hiding the keypads very well. A little battery-operated 'sticky' cam works wonders. Create a distraction whilst positioning it. Don't forget your fake hippie beard.
Fool.
Look at the keypad. The numbers will be worn down. Look to see if it's an even wear, that means there are more than a few combos that work, but usually it's only one or two that are commonly shared.
Then look for the most worn, with the most dirt-- it's the first number. Elminate the clean bright keys from the pool. Eliminate zero and one; the remaining pool has the combination. It's probably just four numbers, could be five.
Now take your Timex/Sinclair and do the math.
Oh, there were problems.
Compilers didn't. Microprocessors and external FPUs didn't work together, and there were a raft of famous Intel bugs in their own chips. The i386sx was one of those. How they could release wafers that weren't validated just shows how loose and fast they operated, trying to beat Moto and others.
Thier 'leapfrogging' resulted in recalls, compiler-writer headaches, assy code mistakes, and easily limited motherboard maker designs. True, others like HP, MIPS, and Sun had their own share of mistakes, but Intel mulitplied them with popularity.
In the interim, they made incredibly dubious marketing claims about their CPUs. Clock speed was it, baby. They never did point to bloatware, and the other incumbent problems of systems processing. Like Microsoft, they think very big of themselves yet are more of an accident of history than they would let you believe.
Not so fast on that 1 in 10 billion number.
I saw an article in an admittedly unscientific publication, the LA Times recently:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dna20-2008jul20,0,5133446.story
which is a long but interesting look at how DNA evidence can work, but also how it might be misleading (and I'm not talking about sloppy work and fraud). It's pause for thought.
Beyond a "reasonable doubt" may always be a problem, but we agree that reliance on DNA (like strands exist beyond statistical probabilities now accepted) and fingerprints (partials are dubious in some cases although forgery is also less likely)....
Nice CSI work, but before this will be admitted in a court, it'll have to go through immense amounts of testing. Soon, they'll be able to follow us by the DNA in dead skin we shed as we travel.
See Mikey? Bubba was whizzin in the woods. His DNA is all over the place....
They're unlikely to listen to external advice on marketing, but there's always the possibility. Their insular culture gives rise to the misbelief that they're going it alone, breaking new ground, and are inherently better than others.
There is no greater offensive strategy, IMHO, than gathering not only your shareholders and customers opinions, but those that can think outside of your box, as boxes are fragile. They believe that their research organization does this for them, but the results aren't what they need. They need a non-sycophantic culture shock instead of the same old shlitz. They're too fat and happy. There's a jabba-the-hut mentality over there, and WaggEd didn't improve it in any meaningful way that I can detect.
Well yeah because they're hiring someone else to do it.
Waggener Edstrom, their long-time PR company, was run by Pam Edstrom. She's married to Ballmer. See any connection in the failures here? Some of their staff are wonderful, while others are empty chairs. Hiring someone else to do the work might also mean that they'd have to listen to someone outside of their cabal.
Perish the thought.
I used to have a similar 'argument' with my late father. He believed that within the construct of civilization, civility, and civics, that insurance modified behavior based on evolving risk pools based on cost. Mandatory insurance isn't really insurance, as visaged through the evolution of no-fault constructs. Only subsequent criminal charges or litigation that reaches over insurance to touch personal/corporate assets modifies behavior, e.g. the risk of going to jail or having a judgment of your personal assets causes people to change, was his argument.
His argument encompasses the entire 'risk pool'. I would rather drive well and safely because I don't jeopardize myself and others, not because my insurance premiums are really good. Others that drink then drive, putting themselves at risk, also face criminal charges, litigation, and so on.
So while I understand that empathize != embrasure in your context, mutual non-aggression isn't the entire crux of civility or civics, it's more an active state where embodiment and aggregation into the artificial construct of government requires embracing the whole, not just handy cost-effective constituent parts.
Social justice mandates protecting not only the rich and those perceived as 'well-behaving' but all, and all with no exceptions. As a civilization, if we don't pull those up at the bottom of existence, then all are pulled down. Enlightened self-interest is a characteristic of humanity. So is the capacity for empathy-- except those that are sociopathic. Read "The Sociopath Next Door" for an interesting view in that direction.
The cooperation and respect also entails understanding marginalization, the empathizing that insurance pools will have accidents, fall prey to bad genes, bad judgment, and hostile circumstances both witting and not.
There are so many pratfalls in a national health care system that it'll be difficult to manage, and really expensive. Yet accessibility and justice for all mandate it. I've been in Canada's system, and also the UK's, although I'm an American. I can tell you anecdotally that they both the Canadian and UK system have disadvantages and both have great needs for better oversight and quality assurance. Under both, however, there's a greater chance of enhancing the quality of life for all. Extra insurance? Sure. But a minimum needs to be established.
Your rigidity of logic is almost deafening. To embrace misanthropy is to demoralize civilization. Instead, I'll admit the seeming quixotic, even idealistically misplaced nihilism in my trying to imbue a sense of responsibility, even in those that have a sense of free-ride entitlement.
Empathy doesn't mean you have to embrace seeming sociopathy. Empathy is intellectual identification, not advocacy. You cannot embrace the unembraceable. Sorry to be all zen; but you can't change the course of a river by telling it to do so. Gravity gets in your way every time.
The "perfect right to do as they will" counters the responsibility of civics, and civilization. I can feel empathy, but I don't embrace or sympathize with the viewpoint. I can include all, but such inclusion isn't embrace. I think we agree more closely than semantics tell.
It isn't. It's civilly mandated. Lacking empathy, there is no civility. We run the government; it's not the other way around.
We look after each other. Only a femtocosmic section of humanity grows up without having depended on others for their very lives, not to mention education, housing, and so on.
There is no social justice and no civility without inclusion. We, collectively, must sustain each other. We must demand this of government. One exclusion causes a cascade of exclusions and subsequent injustices, like the many that are faced today.
Right. Empathy==not using my funds.
You are alive because others had empathy for you and were willing to share your costs and help build you to whom you are today. Your obligation is to other humanity. Common insurance and civic maintenance isn't your obligation, of course.
Therefore, stop paying the insurance as in your perfected state, you won't need it. Beelzebub.
It's immediately possible to equate your devil's advocacy to the inability to have empathy for others.
Your good health is nice, and it is also likely to be transient for reasons other than good actions you have taken yourself. Even if you've been a bit of a slut and got HIV (or an other STD), or let yourself become obese (with incumbent diabetes and arteriosclerosis), or have smoked like a fiend, you're still a human, and we still want you to live. Really. Those that don't, having no empathy, are in fact sociopathic and by a component of its definition.
So, Satan, fsck off.
Bad idea. Nice experiment. Invent the future, not fix the past.
Amen.
One more crack in the wall attempt by the paranoid g00bs of the Bush administration.
There is no valid excuse for this breach of liberties. The Department of Horrible Stupidities becomes the enemy within.
Exactly my point.
waiting to form.
Charlie gets it right. Let's see, 18 million notebook machines. Freight each way, plus cost of labor to fix them and the materials needed. Less than $10 a machine! Great, that math stuff. Yup, a $150-200 million charge oughta do it at around $10 a machine!
Hello? This is the SEC? Hey, I have a question about an 8K I saw for NVidia. It goes like this.....
Your recipe for disaster doesn't acknowledge the fact that there are LEOs that learn to deal with the stress and the uglier sides of humanity and situations.
Sometimes the stress gets to be too much, and LEOs go over the top, and consistently. Psych evals are often useful, but they're difficult and many people (let alone LEOs) reject them. Citizen review boards, as well as an open and clear response to complaint system seems to help. Not being an abject proctological orifice when confronted with a LEO also is a nice survival tactic.
Those in need of anger management on both sides of the badge need to address that problem, because it gets out of control easily in tense situations. You never know what a LEO might have had to face before he/she got to you.
And you found two rotten apples. Get their badge numbers. Do what you can to get their hostility issues dealt with. They only get up on the radar for fixing if there's a list of complaints. It starts with you. Be honest, non-judgmental, and rational in your complaint and it will get aired. If you get harrassed, that's a felony of its own. Document it all. Don't get reduced to hating because you had two successive turkeys intimidate you.
This presumes that I and others desire child pornography. I don't, and believe that a huge majority would agree.
As far as destroying their common carrier status, the point seems largely moot today anyway. Like the IP companies, the telcos get what they want from a fawning congress.
What makes you think that I haven't been? What makes you think I haven't seen it? Nothing in my reply says that it's justified to be an asshole with a LEO and vice-versa.
Instead, it's fine to film, should you be so inclined. I'm guessing that there's a class of people that look for trouble, and then, qu'elle surprise!, find it! You'd be amazed at the number of clearly dangerous people that police officers have to deal with on a daily basis. You wonder why they might be a little apprehensive and reactive when someone gives them a bullshit response? Abuse is still abuse, and a police officer is still confined (albeit this is too often unenforced) to be civil, and yes, sometimes they go over the top. Some are clearly in need of anger management, but so are a vast number of people that they're forced to confront on every shift. It's a shitty job, like the one where the teacher gets to babysit children that parents can't parent.