This is a sad feature of modern atheism; they tend to view the debate as a contest one side or the other will win. In that regard, they resemble no group so much as the evangelicals they love to mock.
Face it, atheists, atheism is a religion, with crap for holidays. How else can one be so certain about the fundamental nature of the universe. Let's remember that humanity has only had agriculture for 10,000 or so years, written language for 5,000, and a real acceptance of scientific method for 200 or so years. We're supposed to know for sure whether or not there's a god/gods?
Your company is paying the consultant, why can't she come to you?
If that's impossible, look for a solution using a remote login and a technology like Citrix; she'll be able to work on one of your company's machines, but not copy/print/easily transfer data.
As other respondents have noted, the greatest risk is not in the transfer of data, but in everything that happens after the transfer, while the data is in the control of your consultant.
Like candy. A little bit of TV or Video Games is fine, but a steady diet for a young child is a bad idea.
My kids are 8, 5, and 2. We like to make sure they get a balance of human interaction and physical activity, but once they've done that, there's nothing wrong with them spending 30 minutes or so playing Mario on the Wii, or watching TV.
Since your boss can reach you, you're not tethered to your desk. I find I am able to leave my office earlier, now that I am confident that I can address any critical issues that arise during my commute. I take a little bit of my office with me, but I get home much earlier, and more regularly.
They may not know their history, but you're missing a few things too. First prehistory: there's not much evidence of warfare pre-bronze age. This is not to suggest that human life was idyllic, but warfare simply wasn't the major driver of evolution then. In later periods, of course, it was a major factor - some historians have estimated that upwards of 50% of the population in parts of China perished during the Three Kingdoms period.
You also misunderstand "beauty" and imply that sexual selection says that aesthetic judgements of attractiveness will be reflected in evolution. It's nearly the opposite: what tends to be perceived as beauty is the visible suitability of an individual to successfully reproduce. What we see as sexiness is generally the outward signs of a reproductively healthy individual. Altruism also makes sense in those lights: an altruistic man conveys to a woman that he's likely to take care of the children he has with her. And the mere fact that he has the ability to be generous tells her he's capable of generating a surplus above his basic needs.
I don't know if this has been suggested before, but since it seems so obvious I'll apologize to whoever had this idea first:
Why don't we let ISPs decide whether they are common carriers? If they are common carriers, then net neutrality should apply as a matter of course: the key feature of a common carrier is that it doesn't distinguish between "good" and "bad" content flowing across its network, as long as the content doesn't harm the network itself. That's why you can't sue the phone company if someone slanders you while talking on their phone, and the police won't go after Verizon if someone uses FIOS to download something illegal.
On the other hand, if an ISP filters traffic in any way, they are implicitly saying "We monitor our network." Once they do this, they should assume responsibility for whatever flows across it.
I think most ISPs would choose common carrier status over perpetual civil and criminal liability for the usage of their networks.
Just because you're not being forced doesn't make it legal. Though hard-core libertarians make take offense at this, the law doesn't allow a whole range of "consensual" business arrangements, including:
sex for money
slavery
murder
full-time work for minors under a certain age (varies by location)
If legislators feel some activity is immoral on the face of it, they have the ability to make it illegal in the workplace.
1) you really believe exposure to violent games leads to a more casual attitude towards violence. I think there's evidence both for and against that theory right now, so it's not an unreasonable belief, if still unproven. And
2) You don't consider video games to be a protected form of expression -- that they're just toys, rather than artistic vehicles. Hey, they're called "games" for a reason. Maybe this is not a popular perspective on Slashdot, but again, not totally unreasonable.
Sure, the kiddies are going to download this via torrents, but Rockstar won't make any revenue from these downloads. If Rockstar doesn't profit from this game, they won't produce violent ones in the future. If you believe these things to be true, then a ban is a very effective way of influencing the future content of games.
Er, I think you have your economics a bit wrong. Of course vendors have to figure in their best guesses on theft into their equations...it's part of the cost of doing business, just like paying for utilities or rent -- except it's a little less predictable. They'd be irrational to do otherwise.
We may not notice the differences in price as consumers because most retailers are probably figuring on the same levels of loss -- everyone's prices adjust accordingly. Also, some prices are standardized nationally, like books. But if you compare prices between low and higher crime areas, you'll definitely see a difference for many goods.
I was walking down the street a few weeks ago and saw one of those guys whose job it is to wear a sign, also wearing an iPod shuffle. That was when I realized that any cachet the iPod had was gone. Personally, I could care less, but for many people, it's important.
I think Apple's trying to ensure that the iPhone doesn't start out a mass-market product. Rather they'll price it high so that people associate it with the rich, successful, first-to-own-cool-things crowd. Then when it's popular, they can reduce the price -- a bit -- so the rest of us will buy it.
It's the same reason why luxury product manufacturers don't all want to sell their stuff in WalMart: while you gain volume, you lose margins and pricing power. Who wants to sell a commodity?
Not at all true. Typically contracts between parties in different legal systems (even between U.S. States) will explicitly state which laws govern disputes under the contract. That way there's less of a chance of conflicting legal systems, though it can happen -- for instance, if party B agrees to use party A's legal system and do something legal in A's jurisdiction but not in B's.
I work in the Financial industry; almost all derivatives contracts (for instance) specify English law governs the parties. If they use U.S. law, they specify New York State. It's not really that financial firms think they can get the best deal in those places, but rather that the law is most well developed for this industry there, and so there are more precedents and less ambiguity.
So no, it's probably not a case of U.S. Centrism as it is a desire to work under a predictable legal framework. If you're rolling out a service to customers in many different countries, you don't want to have to retain lawyers in each, and customize your product.
It's just as easy to imagine the alternate scenario: After two years, the 10 person team charged with rebuilding this legacy software (at a cost of $2.5 million) finally implements their solution...and it crashes. Flights are cancelled, money is lost, business and IT journalists point to the project as an example of whatever their favorite current issue is.
We often draw the wrong conclusions in the IT business, because they support the projects we like. Rather than scrap the legacy system, the head of IT could have hired a couple of programmers with some Fortran language skills (it's not ancient Akkadian, after all) to maintain the existing system. Or, if the CIO is truly budget-conscious, pay a bonus of $5,000 each to the first two developers who become proficient in the language and the system.
Of course someone has to decide what speech is protected and what isn't. A short list to refresh your memory:
- Libel/Slander laws
- False advertising claims
- "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater"
Maybe it's not entirely free, but it's close enough.
Your point #5 brushes with the real problem. I work in a large -- very large -- financial organization, and we often see users sneaking business code into various 'documents.' Their favorite is, of course, Excel.
When we ask our users, "why?" the answer is always "it's too much trouble to deal with you technology folks." They're willing to forgo robustness, auditing, data validation, etc. in order to escape the technology bureaucracy: Getting budgets and resources, all those damn planning meetings, dealing with System Administrators, and so on. They generally know the risks and limitations of using Excel but feel the advantage of getting quick results is entirely worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a sad feature of modern atheism; they tend to view the debate as a contest one side or the other will win. In that regard, they resemble no group so much as the evangelicals they love to mock. Face it, atheists, atheism is a religion, with crap for holidays. How else can one be so certain about the fundamental nature of the universe. Let's remember that humanity has only had agriculture for 10,000 or so years, written language for 5,000, and a real acceptance of scientific method for 200 or so years. We're supposed to know for sure whether or not there's a god/gods?
Beat my investment bank salary and I'm there.
Why should the data leave your control at all?
Your company is paying the consultant, why can't she come to you?
If that's impossible, look for a solution using a remote login and a technology like Citrix; she'll be able to work on one of your company's machines, but not copy/print/easily transfer data.
As other respondents have noted, the greatest risk is not in the transfer of data, but in everything that happens after the transfer, while the data is in the control of your consultant.
Like candy. A little bit of TV or Video Games is fine, but a steady diet for a young child is a bad idea.
My kids are 8, 5, and 2. We like to make sure they get a balance of human interaction and physical activity, but once they've done that, there's nothing wrong with them spending 30 minutes or so playing Mario on the Wii, or watching TV.
Since your boss can reach you, you're not tethered to your desk. I find I am able to leave my office earlier, now that I am confident that I can address any critical issues that arise during my commute. I take a little bit of my office with me, but I get home much earlier, and more regularly.
Hell, I know people who've fallen in love with a well-designed coffee table.
They may not know their history, but you're missing a few things too. First prehistory: there's not much evidence of warfare pre-bronze age. This is not to suggest that human life was idyllic, but warfare simply wasn't the major driver of evolution then. In later periods, of course, it was a major factor - some historians have estimated that upwards of 50% of the population in parts of China perished during the Three Kingdoms period.
You also misunderstand "beauty" and imply that sexual selection says that aesthetic judgements of attractiveness will be reflected in evolution. It's nearly the opposite: what tends to be perceived as beauty is the visible suitability of an individual to successfully reproduce. What we see as sexiness is generally the outward signs of a reproductively healthy individual. Altruism also makes sense in those lights: an altruistic man conveys to a woman that he's likely to take care of the children he has with her. And the mere fact that he has the ability to be generous tells her he's capable of generating a surplus above his basic needs.
Why don't we let ISPs decide whether they are common carriers? If they are common carriers, then net neutrality should apply as a matter of course: the key feature of a common carrier is that it doesn't distinguish between "good" and "bad" content flowing across its network, as long as the content doesn't harm the network itself. That's why you can't sue the phone company if someone slanders you while talking on their phone, and the police won't go after Verizon if someone uses FIOS to download something illegal.
On the other hand, if an ISP filters traffic in any way, they are implicitly saying "We monitor our network." Once they do this, they should assume responsibility for whatever flows across it.
I think most ISPs would choose common carrier status over perpetual civil and criminal liability for the usage of their networks.
Just because you're not being forced doesn't make it legal. Though hard-core libertarians make take offense at this, the law doesn't allow a whole range of "consensual" business arrangements, including:
sex for money
slavery
murder
full-time work for minors under a certain age (varies by location)
If legislators feel some activity is immoral on the face of it, they have the ability to make it illegal in the workplace.
Devil's advocate here:
Suppose
1) you really believe exposure to violent games leads to a more casual attitude towards violence. I think there's evidence both for and against that theory right now, so it's not an unreasonable belief, if still unproven. And
2) You don't consider video games to be a protected form of expression -- that they're just toys, rather than artistic vehicles. Hey, they're called "games" for a reason. Maybe this is not a popular perspective on Slashdot, but again, not totally unreasonable.
Sure, the kiddies are going to download this via torrents, but Rockstar won't make any revenue from these downloads. If Rockstar doesn't profit from this game, they won't produce violent ones in the future. If you believe these things to be true, then a ban is a very effective way of influencing the future content of games.
Er, I think you have your economics a bit wrong. Of course vendors have to figure in their best guesses on theft into their equations...it's part of the cost of doing business, just like paying for utilities or rent -- except it's a little less predictable. They'd be irrational to do otherwise.
We may not notice the differences in price as consumers because most retailers are probably figuring on the same levels of loss -- everyone's prices adjust accordingly. Also, some prices are standardized nationally, like books. But if you compare prices between low and higher crime areas, you'll definitely see a difference for many goods.
Take that, India!
I was walking down the street a few weeks ago and saw one of those guys whose job it is to wear a sign, also wearing an iPod shuffle. That was when I realized that any cachet the iPod had was gone. Personally, I could care less, but for many people, it's important. I think Apple's trying to ensure that the iPhone doesn't start out a mass-market product. Rather they'll price it high so that people associate it with the rich, successful, first-to-own-cool-things crowd. Then when it's popular, they can reduce the price -- a bit -- so the rest of us will buy it. It's the same reason why luxury product manufacturers don't all want to sell their stuff in WalMart: while you gain volume, you lose margins and pricing power. Who wants to sell a commodity?
Not at all true. Typically contracts between parties in different legal systems (even between U.S. States) will explicitly state which laws govern disputes under the contract. That way there's less of a chance of conflicting legal systems, though it can happen -- for instance, if party B agrees to use party A's legal system and do something legal in A's jurisdiction but not in B's. I work in the Financial industry; almost all derivatives contracts (for instance) specify English law governs the parties. If they use U.S. law, they specify New York State. It's not really that financial firms think they can get the best deal in those places, but rather that the law is most well developed for this industry there, and so there are more precedents and less ambiguity. So no, it's probably not a case of U.S. Centrism as it is a desire to work under a predictable legal framework. If you're rolling out a service to customers in many different countries, you don't want to have to retain lawyers in each, and customize your product.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if they block a VOIP call to 911 and it's provable. Oh, that'll be a good lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Void
We often draw the wrong conclusions in the IT business, because they support the projects we like. Rather than scrap the legacy system, the head of IT could have hired a couple of programmers with some Fortran language skills (it's not ancient Akkadian, after all) to maintain the existing system. Or, if the CIO is truly budget-conscious, pay a bonus of $5,000 each to the first two developers who become proficient in the language and the system.
Of course someone has to decide what speech is protected and what isn't. A short list to refresh your memory: - Libel/Slander laws - False advertising claims - "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" Maybe it's not entirely free, but it's close enough.
If they were really worth nothing then your company should hand them out for free, on demand. I have a feeling they won't.
Your point #5 brushes with the real problem. I work in a large -- very large -- financial organization, and we often see users sneaking business code into various 'documents.' Their favorite is, of course, Excel.
When we ask our users, "why?" the answer is always "it's too much trouble to deal with you technology folks." They're willing to forgo robustness, auditing, data validation, etc. in order to escape the technology bureaucracy: Getting budgets and resources, all those damn planning meetings, dealing with System Administrators, and so on. They generally know the risks and limitations of using Excel but feel the advantage of getting quick results is entirely worth it.