was being pejorative, and perhaps a bit of an asshole as well. I feel that the term 'Industrial Education' hides the nature of the beast; I see it as training for particular tasks in order to fill specific roles in a way that benefits those at the top of the social hierarchy more than it does those in the middle or at the bottom. To my mind 'job training' is more in keeping with what I see as the strongly utilitarian nature of Industrial Education.
Thanks for doing the additional homework to find what Classical education is. I can only request that you do the same work with Industrial Education (probably start with Prussian). The purpose of that system is not to train people for a role or job. It's purpose is to generate people capable of enough thought to follow orders but nothing more. Your term "job training" is absolutely incorrect because that is not what happens.
The apology is noted and appreciated. Like you, I want to see open dialogue and discourse on the subject. This requires that people understand the mechanics and Socratic method (Philosophy, not Sophism).
Have you read any of Morris Berman's books? If not, then I recommend 'The Reenchantment of the World' and 'Wandering God'. They have a lot to say about what human consciousness might have been like before we learned to store wealth and before we developed strongly vertical social hierarchies.
I have not read these and they may be interesting so I'll add to my list. There is not a lot of speculation required to see how things work without greed, numerous people in history have been models. Socrates and Plato immediately come to mind, and if you read the history surrounding Jesus (yes, that one) you will find numerous parallels. Compare the Dialogues of Plato with the New Testament for example.
I will add that manipulation of knowledge for the masses has been performed for thousands of years. The purpose of "The Allegory of the Cave" is to point this out and request that people take action to prevent it.
I gave you easy evidence, and you refuse to use to look at it. Interesting how you focus on the only portion of the story where you have an emotional connection (big shock) instead of looking at all of the players. If your focus had to change, you would not have the rose colored glass in front of you.
Power comes in many forms, money is an easy one to track and measure.
I'm not sure if this is a total load of bollocks, or if it doesn't actually say anything at all.
The summary is oozing with cynicism. After all, if we can sneer at those trying to improve things, then it is easier to justify doing nothing.
Those trying to improve things? Seriously, you can't be that foolish (or perhaps you can). If anything improves it's an unintentional side effect. These people care about power, which of course you can't have. Isn't it amazing how this "free" application which connects you to free resources requires Facebook to access and use. Notice how this is really 2 massive stockpiles of cash moving piles between them, while of course pulling more out of society?
The simple measure for people is to look at the wealth of those involved. If the people pushing this stuff were altruistic and worried about fair distribution, they would not be gaining wealth, but either maintaining or reducing their massive stockpiles. In all cases their wealth increases, and not by just a little bit. They didn't get it worrying about fairness, and don't continue to amass wealth by worrying at all about society.
The A-10 was not designed for Desert warfare, it was designed as a multi-theater air support platform. Sure, it works well in deserts. It also happens to work well in heavy forest, snow covered terrain, jungles, marshes, hills and low mountains, etc...
Whether or not we have another WW should not change the defense capabilities we have (offensive weapons count). Air Support is a huge area to have the best coverage in. We spend billions on Helicopters for this exact reason. The A10 is a niche weapon which gives us way more close air support, nobody else' military can compare. Military people know it's a niche weapon, including the brass that claims to want it retired. Every aircraft in use is a Niche weapon. The B52 is the "I got a lot of nukes" niche. The KC class aircraft are flying gas stations, C class aircraft only carry cargo. The AC-130 happens to be the "kill everything in a square kilometer as quickly as possible!" and "make the enemy mess their trousers niche".
I'm not sure if people remember, but prior to the Gulf war they were going to retire the A-10. Then they saw how effective it was at it's role in addition to casing the enemy to panic. They ended up reverting that decision. IMO this is just someone posturing to try and save fact on the crap which is the F35. They are hoping it can do something well, because it's first role as a cheap fighter has been a complete failure in all regards.
You may have seen a AC-130 up close, but obviously never seen one flying or in action. An AC-130 can not replace an A10. They are not even close to the same thing. It is slow moving with no ability to boost/burst speed in flight, and it flies crooked due to the guns all hanging off the same side of the ship. It's as maneuverable as a flying battleship.
The AC-130 is a gunship. It's job is to lay down an assload of metal as quickly as possible. It does just that very well, but that's not what close air support is about. I'll let you do the homework and figure out what that role is supposed to be, and why the A-10 is the king.
If that is all you gathered from my three paragraphs you should head back to elementary school to learn how to read. I did use big words quite intentionally.
It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative.
WTF? You claimed that they 'may' have been under investigation, not I. I discounted that and you say I have to prove your lie is wrong? No, that is not how it works.
Reread what I wrote before criticizing me for writing it. I added emphasis to a part of what you quoted to direct your attention.
You lack knowledge of what a sentence is for, but write them? Come now. If you had made two separate statements I would not have said a word. As written it provides an opinion for me which was not provided by me.
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished.
If this was two separate statements with one including your opinion it would have been written similar to
You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished.
Do you see the massive difference there? Oh, I'm sure you had it before and were either defending your poor use if language or attempting to insist you were fine to assert my opinion for me.
If you are still confused ask a elementary school teacher help you with Sentences and structure. Then you can move on to paragraphs!
Being the most popular does not mean the best choice, especially in Amazon's cloud where most people would be using it for development and testing, not necessarily production. The last few places I worked production was all RHEL. Development and testing projects went to EC2 and CentOS. This was not a "CentOS is better" consideration, it was exclusively a pricing consideration. Ubuntu is the same, where it's mostly free and lots of the fad followers still think Ubuntu is better than other OSes because it's simple to setup. For a workstation I'd agree that it's easier for a non Admin to setup. There is no advantages and some disadvantages when using it for a server other than a simple Web/DB server.
IMHO the problem with any of these statistics reports is that it does not demonstrate reality in any way, shape, or form. Like all statistics, it's intentionally worded to mislead people. From the title, you would think that the Hyper-visor is Ubuntu but it's not. TFA also makes a wild ass guess because Amazon said it's the most used for them and they own 57% of the cloud market. You don't have to be a math wizard to see how that speculation could easily be wrong (Amazon never said that 98% of their client nodes are running Ubuntu).
Personally, I see Ubuntu exactly like MS. It's controlled by the Brits who have more intrusion ability by the Government than the US (with US help of course). I don't trust either, and won't use either. That does not mean I'm running out to pay for RHEL licenses. I'll use a good trusted free OS like Debian or CentOS over MS or Canonical's Ubuntu. Sometimes free makes lots of sense, and other times you want the pay for support.
I'm not so sure that nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. Just because there wasn't front-page news about such an action doesn't mean it wasn't being done. The wheels of justice don't always turn quickly, and fraud investigations in particular are seldom quick.
First, you would need to prove this. We know they were acting illegally, no need for that proof. Second, delays in law are generally a corruption and no different than no charges. This tactic has been used for decades to my knowledge with US Politicians and uber wealthy people, but I study history and this was also done throughout our written history. More often in the most corrupt societies, less often after revolutions and cleaner societies.
Intentionally dragging feet leads to vigilantism for the same exact reason a lack of action does.
I have seen far more people celebrating the vigilantes than people searching for them. For that matter, more people seem to be searching for them to celebrate them than to seek them to be prosecuted for themselves breaking the law. This sets a bad precedent for future vigilante hacking.
Where, here and on Reddit? Okay, I'll give you that social media has some vocal support for these guys. Corporate media has only provided an anti-hacker message and has never to my knowledge mentioned AM's illegal activities. The only negative discussion has been "most people on the site were men" and "many of the female accounts were fake". No mention of them baiting people for cash, having employees commit fraud to gain cash, etc...
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished. He did not deserve to die but he made that choice himself. These hackers are comparable to him, but neither are comparable to Snowden or Manning.
Thanks for letting me know what my opinion was instead of asking. I didn't give an opinion positive or negative, I simply stated that these hackers are not very different from those people.
Ashley Madison was not intentionally deceiving people to make money? The Police were all over them ensuring prosecution for fraud? Regulators were investigating? AM had no notice to come clean long before the breach? None of those are true and you know it.
So what you are saying is those guys can lie for some reason. Is it because they have lots of money? You happen to have morality that sympathizes with cheaters? Sorry, I don't see them as any better than the people selling "grow 3 inches" medicine. Lies are lies, and deceit is deceit. _YOU_ can attempt to rationalize it all you like, but I won't agree.
You do a good job covering the "Two wrongs don't make a right" argument, but that does not excuse AM from it's wrong doing. Look at this from a slightly different perspective.
AM doing shitty things resulted in vigilantism because these people are operating illegally (AFAIK at least) and nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. I'm sure that Canada has laws to protect consumers from deceptive advertising tactics and fraud. If not, the US could request that Canada extradite the people responsible and provide full criminal prosecution. That latter part gets completely overlooked because people are too busy looking for the vigilante to see why someone thought it necessary.
While I surely don't put these hackers on any high moral ground I see them "not so" different from Snowden, Manning, Schwartz, etc... Their cause may not match your morality, but yours may not match theirs either.
I agree with you, but it misses the crud (my opinion) which is TFA. TFA claims that we are all responsible for being good citizens and policing the internet because IoT and such. Which is crud because it lacks a sense of reality. Bad guys do exist, and people do bad things, regardless of how the rest of society is living.
If what TFA said was true, simply agreeing to give banks the ability to build vaults would have stopped all robberies. Countries that have outlawed guns for citizens would be completely free of gun crimes. And those are two really simple examples, human nature extends well beyond this.
The answer is for anything on the Internet to be protected, and if it can't be protected it should not be on the Internet.
How many of these people responding with "I have never used this service" are actually saying "I don't have this available in my car"?
From personal anecdote, probably very few. The people wanting the high tech and self driving cars are the same people walking around with their faces mashed into a cell phone screen. Those people surely exist, but are not a large segment of society. A vocal minority is still a minority.
I have no idea why you would want to call "classical education" something other than the name it has held for centuries. I also have no idea why you would call the Industrial system something other than it's name for nearly a century (it was the Prussian system prior). I perceive it as pompous, and believe it only muddies the waters for a rational discussion.
The last part I agree with, and will simply say this is a historical normal. Knowledge is power, and just like other forms of power certain people attempt to hoard and prevent access to others.
Dear Jesus, I hope you don't teach your kid that the only thing they ever need to know is right and wrong. If you do, that's a damn shame and failure. I had taught my kid what an appeal to emotion was before he was 6, but that does not mean he ran into every instance where someone would use that appeal to sway his opinion. He knew what an appeal to authority was not long after that, but even those simple fallacies are not all that's required for critical thinking.
Amazingly, there is very little "true/false" or "right/wrong" in the world. Almost everything is an educated opinion, and sometimes that opinion runs counter to what you would think for numerous reasons.
In simple terms Critical thinking is a mixture of "a great bullshit detector", "universal dissection kit", "crystal ball", and "education". Critical thinking is not one of those, it's all of them working in harmony (or as well as possible together).
I like your choice of wording there, because obsession is a good description. Simply saying "I disagree with that" is now a micro-aggression with racist and/or misogynistic intent.
That said, I don't believe that "science-as-religion" is new. We seem to run through cycles of this in history. Balance always shifts back and forth.
Too many people will simply be turned off by the name. I fully agree that we are ignorant, but most people refuse to admit their own. We don't teach people to check facts or even show them how. We teach them to "Google" which returns the popular answer and that may not be correct (and probably is not).
I could spend hours discussing "Classical" versus Industrial education. I could spend days explaining why teaching a rounded education is necessary and teaching only specialties runs counter to education. Liberal Arts (PHI) is essential, but most kids get a couple semesters of history instead.. and we wonder why people can't think critically, defend their own position, and perceive that disagreements with their opinions are personal attacks.
Yeah, I got a college age kid so I see what's been happening.
Some corporations are trying today, but this comes after decades of cost cutting at the expense of the customer. People quickly forgot about the Melissa virus and how it killed companies.
Executives tend to make the decisions which make them and their companies the most amount of profit and maintain customer content. That last part does not imply that the company really gives a shit about the customers data, but may worry about continued revenue from a particular customer.
Without the Guardian, Intercept, and other uncontrolled media sources you might not have heard about the AM breach.
If the management removed all the locks from the doors to save money and get bigger bonuses YES they should be on the hook. You, and the other people, keep ignoring the negligence which results in these massive hacks.
You missed at least a couple. Fox Technologies has a product called Boks for this, Oracle LDAP (formerly SunOne) is very good and has all of the API capabilities of any LDAP solution. If you wanted a different *NIX auth back end you could run P-GINA on your WIndows hosts and hae them auth elsewhere.
The reason these solutions are "meh" is nromally related to the huge disparitity in HR solutions and their implementations. Pluggine in to inventory systems creates more unique challenges.
You suck at analogy too! I'll give one more. Past here you are either not trying intentionally or a complete flipping moron who is beyond help.
If a bank manager is negligent and it results in you losing your money should the bank manager be held accountable? YES! If his negligence made him rich should he be forced to give back all of the money he made using ill gotten means? YES!
This is not rocket science, though one may begin to think so. There is a huge difference between the scenario above and what you said. You figure it out and tell people the difference.
"Objective" does not mean what you think it does. Now go on back to your fantasy about how your opinion is so much better than everyone else and let the grown ups talk.
Slashdot Mirror
was being pejorative, and perhaps a bit of an asshole as well. I feel that the term 'Industrial Education' hides the nature of the beast; I see it as training for particular tasks in order to fill specific roles in a way that benefits those at the top of the social hierarchy more than it does those in the middle or at the bottom. To my mind 'job training' is more in keeping with what I see as the strongly utilitarian nature of Industrial Education.
Thanks for doing the additional homework to find what Classical education is. I can only request that you do the same work with Industrial Education (probably start with Prussian). The purpose of that system is not to train people for a role or job. It's purpose is to generate people capable of enough thought to follow orders but nothing more. Your term "job training" is absolutely incorrect because that is not what happens.
The apology is noted and appreciated. Like you, I want to see open dialogue and discourse on the subject. This requires that people understand the mechanics and Socratic method (Philosophy, not Sophism).
Have you read any of Morris Berman's books? If not, then I recommend 'The Reenchantment of the World' and 'Wandering God'. They have a lot to say about what human consciousness might have been like before we learned to store wealth and before we developed strongly vertical social hierarchies.
I have not read these and they may be interesting so I'll add to my list. There is not a lot of speculation required to see how things work without greed, numerous people in history have been models. Socrates and Plato immediately come to mind, and if you read the history surrounding Jesus (yes, that one) you will find numerous parallels. Compare the Dialogues of Plato with the New Testament for example.
I will add that manipulation of knowledge for the masses has been performed for thousands of years. The purpose of "The Allegory of the Cave" is to point this out and request that people take action to prevent it.
You really should find reality. There are surely options for replacing the A-10, but the AC130 is not one of them.
If you have $79billion in the bank you will be earning a few billion a year without doing anything.
False, but thanks for playing the "can I repeat propaganda?" game. This is not a difficult fact to figure out, if you had bothered to try.
I gave you easy evidence, and you refuse to use to look at it. Interesting how you focus on the only portion of the story where you have an emotional connection (big shock) instead of looking at all of the players. If your focus had to change, you would not have the rose colored glass in front of you.
Power comes in many forms, money is an easy one to track and measure.
I'm not sure if this is a total load of bollocks, or if it doesn't actually say anything at all.
The summary is oozing with cynicism. After all, if we can sneer at those trying to improve things, then it is easier to justify doing nothing.
Those trying to improve things? Seriously, you can't be that foolish (or perhaps you can). If anything improves it's an unintentional side effect. These people care about power, which of course you can't have. Isn't it amazing how this "free" application which connects you to free resources requires Facebook to access and use. Notice how this is really 2 massive stockpiles of cash moving piles between them, while of course pulling more out of society?
The simple measure for people is to look at the wealth of those involved. If the people pushing this stuff were altruistic and worried about fair distribution, they would not be gaining wealth, but either maintaining or reducing their massive stockpiles. In all cases their wealth increases, and not by just a little bit. They didn't get it worrying about fairness, and don't continue to amass wealth by worrying at all about society.
The A-10 was not designed for Desert warfare, it was designed as a multi-theater air support platform. Sure, it works well in deserts. It also happens to work well in heavy forest, snow covered terrain, jungles, marshes, hills and low mountains, etc...
Whether or not we have another WW should not change the defense capabilities we have (offensive weapons count). Air Support is a huge area to have the best coverage in. We spend billions on Helicopters for this exact reason. The A10 is a niche weapon which gives us way more close air support, nobody else' military can compare. Military people know it's a niche weapon, including the brass that claims to want it retired. Every aircraft in use is a Niche weapon. The B52 is the "I got a lot of nukes" niche. The KC class aircraft are flying gas stations, C class aircraft only carry cargo. The AC-130 happens to be the "kill everything in a square kilometer as quickly as possible!" and "make the enemy mess their trousers niche".
I'm not sure if people remember, but prior to the Gulf war they were going to retire the A-10. Then they saw how effective it was at it's role in addition to casing the enemy to panic. They ended up reverting that decision. IMO this is just someone posturing to try and save fact on the crap which is the F35. They are hoping it can do something well, because it's first role as a cheap fighter has been a complete failure in all regards.
and 2/3rds the speed (on paper)
You may have seen a AC-130 up close, but obviously never seen one flying or in action. An AC-130 can not replace an A10. They are not even close to the same thing. It is slow moving with no ability to boost/burst speed in flight, and it flies crooked due to the guns all hanging off the same side of the ship. It's as maneuverable as a flying battleship.
The AC-130 is a gunship. It's job is to lay down an assload of metal as quickly as possible. It does just that very well, but that's not what close air support is about. I'll let you do the homework and figure out what that role is supposed to be, and why the A-10 is the king.
If that is all you gathered from my three paragraphs you should head back to elementary school to learn how to read. I did use big words quite intentionally.
It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative.
WTF? You claimed that they 'may' have been under investigation, not I. I discounted that and you say I have to prove your lie is wrong? No, that is not how it works.
Reread what I wrote before criticizing me for writing it. I added emphasis to a part of what you quoted to direct your attention.
You lack knowledge of what a sentence is for, but write them? Come now. If you had made two separate statements I would not have said a word. As written it provides an opinion for me which was not provided by me.
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished.
If this was two separate statements with one including your opinion it would have been written similar to
You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished.
Do you see the massive difference there? Oh, I'm sure you had it before and were either defending your poor use if language or attempting to insist you were fine to assert my opinion for me.
If you are still confused ask a elementary school teacher help you with Sentences and structure. Then you can move on to paragraphs!
Being the most popular does not mean the best choice, especially in Amazon's cloud where most people would be using it for development and testing, not necessarily production. The last few places I worked production was all RHEL. Development and testing projects went to EC2 and CentOS. This was not a "CentOS is better" consideration, it was exclusively a pricing consideration. Ubuntu is the same, where it's mostly free and lots of the fad followers still think Ubuntu is better than other OSes because it's simple to setup. For a workstation I'd agree that it's easier for a non Admin to setup. There is no advantages and some disadvantages when using it for a server other than a simple Web/DB server.
IMHO the problem with any of these statistics reports is that it does not demonstrate reality in any way, shape, or form. Like all statistics, it's intentionally worded to mislead people. From the title, you would think that the Hyper-visor is Ubuntu but it's not. TFA also makes a wild ass guess because Amazon said it's the most used for them and they own 57% of the cloud market. You don't have to be a math wizard to see how that speculation could easily be wrong (Amazon never said that 98% of their client nodes are running Ubuntu).
Personally, I see Ubuntu exactly like MS. It's controlled by the Brits who have more intrusion ability by the Government than the US (with US help of course). I don't trust either, and won't use either. That does not mean I'm running out to pay for RHEL licenses. I'll use a good trusted free OS like Debian or CentOS over MS or Canonical's Ubuntu. Sometimes free makes lots of sense, and other times you want the pay for support.
I'm not so sure that nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. Just because there wasn't front-page news about such an action doesn't mean it wasn't being done. The wheels of justice don't always turn quickly, and fraud investigations in particular are seldom quick.
First, you would need to prove this. We know they were acting illegally, no need for that proof. Second, delays in law are generally a corruption and no different than no charges. This tactic has been used for decades to my knowledge with US Politicians and uber wealthy people, but I study history and this was also done throughout our written history. More often in the most corrupt societies, less often after revolutions and cleaner societies.
Intentionally dragging feet leads to vigilantism for the same exact reason a lack of action does.
I have seen far more people celebrating the vigilantes than people searching for them. For that matter, more people seem to be searching for them to celebrate them than to seek them to be prosecuted for themselves breaking the law. This sets a bad precedent for future vigilante hacking.
Where, here and on Reddit? Okay, I'll give you that social media has some vocal support for these guys. Corporate media has only provided an anti-hacker message and has never to my knowledge mentioned AM's illegal activities. The only negative discussion has been "most people on the site were men" and "many of the female accounts were fake". No mention of them baiting people for cash, having employees commit fraud to gain cash, etc...
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished. He did not deserve to die but he made that choice himself. These hackers are comparable to him, but neither are comparable to Snowden or Manning.
Thanks for letting me know what my opinion was instead of asking. I didn't give an opinion positive or negative, I simply stated that these hackers are not very different from those people.
Ashley Madison was not intentionally deceiving people to make money? The Police were all over them ensuring prosecution for fraud? Regulators were investigating? AM had no notice to come clean long before the breach? None of those are true and you know it.
So what you are saying is those guys can lie for some reason. Is it because they have lots of money? You happen to have morality that sympathizes with cheaters? Sorry, I don't see them as any better than the people selling "grow 3 inches" medicine. Lies are lies, and deceit is deceit. _YOU_ can attempt to rationalize it all you like, but I won't agree.
You do a good job covering the "Two wrongs don't make a right" argument, but that does not excuse AM from it's wrong doing. Look at this from a slightly different perspective.
AM doing shitty things resulted in vigilantism because these people are operating illegally (AFAIK at least) and nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. I'm sure that Canada has laws to protect consumers from deceptive advertising tactics and fraud. If not, the US could request that Canada extradite the people responsible and provide full criminal prosecution. That latter part gets completely overlooked because people are too busy looking for the vigilante to see why someone thought it necessary.
While I surely don't put these hackers on any high moral ground I see them "not so" different from Snowden, Manning, Schwartz, etc... Their cause may not match your morality, but yours may not match theirs either.
I agree with you, but it misses the crud (my opinion) which is TFA. TFA claims that we are all responsible for being good citizens and policing the internet because IoT and such. Which is crud because it lacks a sense of reality. Bad guys do exist, and people do bad things, regardless of how the rest of society is living.
If what TFA said was true, simply agreeing to give banks the ability to build vaults would have stopped all robberies. Countries that have outlawed guns for citizens would be completely free of gun crimes. And those are two really simple examples, human nature extends well beyond this.
The answer is for anything on the Internet to be protected, and if it can't be protected it should not be on the Internet.
How many of these people responding with "I have never used this service" are actually saying "I don't have this available in my car"?
From personal anecdote, probably very few. The people wanting the high tech and self driving cars are the same people walking around with their faces mashed into a cell phone screen. Those people surely exist, but are not a large segment of society. A vocal minority is still a minority.
I have no idea why you would want to call "classical education" something other than the name it has held for centuries. I also have no idea why you would call the Industrial system something other than it's name for nearly a century (it was the Prussian system prior). I perceive it as pompous, and believe it only muddies the waters for a rational discussion.
The last part I agree with, and will simply say this is a historical normal. Knowledge is power, and just like other forms of power certain people attempt to hoard and prevent access to others.
Dear Jesus, I hope you don't teach your kid that the only thing they ever need to know is right and wrong. If you do, that's a damn shame and failure. I had taught my kid what an appeal to emotion was before he was 6, but that does not mean he ran into every instance where someone would use that appeal to sway his opinion. He knew what an appeal to authority was not long after that, but even those simple fallacies are not all that's required for critical thinking.
Amazingly, there is very little "true/false" or "right/wrong" in the world. Almost everything is an educated opinion, and sometimes that opinion runs counter to what you would think for numerous reasons.
In simple terms Critical thinking is a mixture of "a great bullshit detector", "universal dissection kit", "crystal ball", and "education". Critical thinking is not one of those, it's all of them working in harmony (or as well as possible together).
I like your choice of wording there, because obsession is a good description. Simply saying "I disagree with that" is now a micro-aggression with racist and/or misogynistic intent.
That said, I don't believe that "science-as-religion" is new. We seem to run through cycles of this in history. Balance always shifts back and forth.
Too many people will simply be turned off by the name. I fully agree that we are ignorant, but most people refuse to admit their own. We don't teach people to check facts or even show them how. We teach them to "Google" which returns the popular answer and that may not be correct (and probably is not).
I could spend hours discussing "Classical" versus Industrial education. I could spend days explaining why teaching a rounded education is necessary and teaching only specialties runs counter to education. Liberal Arts (PHI) is essential, but most kids get a couple semesters of history instead.. and we wonder why people can't think critically, defend their own position, and perceive that disagreements with their opinions are personal attacks.
Yeah, I got a college age kid so I see what's been happening.
Some corporations are trying today, but this comes after decades of cost cutting at the expense of the customer. People quickly forgot about the Melissa virus and how it killed companies.
Executives tend to make the decisions which make them and their companies the most amount of profit and maintain customer content. That last part does not imply that the company really gives a shit about the customers data, but may worry about continued revenue from a particular customer.
Without the Guardian, Intercept, and other uncontrolled media sources you might not have heard about the AM breach.
If the management removed all the locks from the doors to save money and get bigger bonuses YES they should be on the hook. You, and the other people, keep ignoring the negligence which results in these massive hacks.
You missed at least a couple. Fox Technologies has a product called Boks for this, Oracle LDAP (formerly SunOne) is very good and has all of the API capabilities of any LDAP solution. If you wanted a different *NIX auth back end you could run P-GINA on your WIndows hosts and hae them auth elsewhere.
The reason these solutions are "meh" is nromally related to the huge disparitity in HR solutions and their implementations. Pluggine in to inventory systems creates more unique challenges.
You suck at analogy too! I'll give one more. Past here you are either not trying intentionally or a complete flipping moron who is beyond help.
If a bank manager is negligent and it results in you losing your money should the bank manager be held accountable? YES! If his negligence made him rich should he be forced to give back all of the money he made using ill gotten means? YES!
This is not rocket science, though one may begin to think so. There is a huge difference between the scenario above and what you said. You figure it out and tell people the difference.
"Objective" does not mean what you think it does. Now go on back to your fantasy about how your opinion is so much better than everyone else and let the grown ups talk.