Nor do I understand why anyone believes they can perform a task at which they are incompetent and expect good results, to the point where they are willing to bet their life on it.
"...to the point where they are willing to bet their life on it." -- probably true. However, it begs the question: how does one get good at a task at which they are incompetent without performing the task over and over until they get it right?
I'm not saying that everyone should go download the latest iPhone navigation app and head for Death Valley, but still...you've got to fall off the bike once or twice if you're going to learn to ride.
I mean no offense, but that's such a basic question that I can't help but wonder if you're trolling.
You've never learned anything in your life where failure can have a severe penalty? You do drive, don't you?
Basic navigation with a map and compass is an incredibly easy skill to learn. If you are a decent learner with an average memory you could do it in an afternoon. Just like you didn't start learning how to drive by suddenly being placed on a high-speed eight-lane highway during rush-hour traffic, you don't start learning how to use a map and compass by having a helicopter drop you off in a remote jungle somewhere with the pilot saying "good luck, hope you make it." You can learn basic navigation in the suburbs for that matter -- they have landmarks too. If you want to learn it in the forest, you could do something obvious like travel with someone who already has the skill and is able to supervise you. Really this doesn't require a lot of imagination.
The concepts are the same whether it's tundra or suburbia. This notion of pretending like those who are competent at basic skills have some kind of unfair advantage over the rest of us, or special dispensation, or have done anything the rest of us couldn't also do... it's pathological and seriously needs to be eliminated. It's the very best way to sell yourself short that I can name. It appears to be contagious, too.
Satisfied customers who think you're better than your competition would be a good start.
Cell phone company (and ISP) executives don't talk about customer satisfaction (they leave that to marketing), they talk about churn. Churn rate only considers customer satisfaction as an abstract factor. They expect customers to move from provider to provider. Rather than worrying about keeping their own customers happy, they talk about ways they can poach their competition's customers. They'll call for more 'can you hear me now' commercials, say they have the fastest network, and offer the new, hot wireless device. Every year there are millions of new customers, and all those disgruntled customers were probably over consuming support time anyway. Or to put it more bluntly, all those new towers and network upgrades show up on the balance sheet in black and white. Lost customers are amorphous and churn is seen as a fact of life.
On the one hand I think you're right and that you have quite accurately described the way this industry works.
On the other hand, I wish you were wrong but there's no use pretending.
I wonder why they would do that, given the known lack of correlation between the harshness of penalties and the occurence of crimes.
Because mandatory minimum sentences and other "crackdown" measures mean more business for your lobbyist buddies in the private prison industry. They, in turn, will show their gratitude the next time you run a campaign.
Any effect on the crime rate or the recidivism rate is incidental.
I agree completely. I was just trying to make the comment as general as possible.
By making it so general that you tried to apply it where it is not valid?
I guess "I agree completely" is a sudden change of heart for you then, a nice face-saving way of saying "hey, I was wrong and have now changed my mind." Noted.
But the content of the speech still matters. If it's a matter of public concern, that's one thing.
The person listening to the speech is in the best position to determine that. If the listener thinks it's a public concern, they'll vote accordingly, write their representatives, spread the word, etc. If they don't think it's a public concern, they'll go play a video game or something.
If it's just bitching about the job, or personality conflicts with the boss or co-workers, I don't think it belongs in public.
Then don't listen to it, stop reading it, go to another site, stop voluntarily subjecting yourself to something you have any sort of problem with. Let others have the same choice instead of allowing government to play the "we know what's best for you" card and censoring the source in order to deprive them of that choice.
We have to remember that things like Facebook and Twitter are less like talking to a friend in your living room, than they are like holding up a sign on a streetcorner.
Other than attempts to slander, incite violence, or yell "fire!" in a theater when there is no fire, neither should be censored or punished by any government agency. That's what they have in common. Compared to that common nature, I'm a lot less impressed by the difference in scale.
Otherwise, at what point do you think censorship is okay? If there are more than 20 people in a big living room, treat it like a Facebook page and censor it because each of those 20 might talk to 20 others and soon a lot of people know about the conversation? After all that could potentially spread the information like a semi-public Facebook page, just more slowly. If there is only one other person in the living room, don't censor it because then it's your word against theirs. Maybe you could make it mandatory for government agents to attend all living-room meetings to ensure complaince. See how ridiculous this is?
You either support free speech with no government censorship even when that includes things you might not personally choose to listen to or you don't support free speech with no government censorship. Free speech free from government interference is good though, because the government is not going to force you to listen. That's why the government doesn't have to force someone else to stop speaking. It balances out.
Doesn't matter. If an employer wants me to work 40 hours per week, then I will want a certain salary. If the employer wants to control every moment of my life, I will demand a much larger salary. Period, end of story.
You'll have a wide diversity of truly different choices from competing sources, sort of like wireless phone plans. Those plans are largely uniform and cookie-cutter, despite competition, you say? Oh. Well, I'm sure employment will be radically different especially during a time of such high levels of unemployment... somehow.
Hint: it's not the "end of story" just because you declare it, and you look both foolish and pompous trying to pre-emptively end a discussion when there is more to say.
Why not just install cell phone jammers in all prisons?
Because that would be a logical, one-shot solution that would end the problem. That's no good for a politician. They want an ongoing issue they can pull out from time to time, whenever they need a distraction. There's little profit for your buddies and political capital for yourself from solving problems; there's lots to be made from prolonging them.
They'll integrate the prison guards into the DHS and hire thousands more of them to look for cell phones before they'll do something as simple and effective as installing jammers.
I'm the CEO of Verizon Wireless. I'm intrigued by your idea. Just one question: how does your plan make us more money?
Satisfied customers who think you're better than your competition would be a good start. That's if long-term viability and profitability is something you want to cultivate. Otherwise, go ahead and screw them over as much as you can to pad this quarter's results, then watch them jump ship at the first opportunity.
The post to which you are responding, in addition to this post of mine and this other post of mine is your coherent explanation for why this is not a straw man.
To recap:
1) Private employers can and should have choices available to them that gov't employers do not.
2) We do not live under a free-for-all where no one ever has to hire anyone they don't want to hire. We do have some cases where we require an employer to hire an employee even if the employer doesn't wish to. For private corporations, this should be restricted to actual discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. For government organizations, we are all better off for a wide variety of reasons if the additional restriction of no censorship is applied. The only interests that does not serve are those politicians with either corruption or embarassment to hide, and I can't say I care about what they want. They voluntarily chose to become public figures.
3) Private employers might lose customers. Government entities take their revenue by threat of force, so the concern about loss of revenue due to defamation is nullified.
I'm glad I am in a civilization that acknowledges reasons why government is not at all like a private company.
I take it, then, that you do not live in the United States. There are plenty of politicians here who want to run the government more like a private company.
My previous post was nothing if not an explanation of why I recognize that as a problem.
If I hire someone to work for me, and that person is publicly badmouthing or debasing me, I reserve the right to fire that person.
If you are talking about a private company, I fully agree with you. This should not apply to government, and I'll use your next line to explain why.
You claim that if I could not fire them, and had to pay them to continue working even though they are costing me customers, is actually more civilized?
Governments don't obtain their revenues from customers. Governments obtain their revenues from taxpayers. It is a system of confiscatory taxation -- the taxpayers do not have a legal right to refuse to pay taxes. That's why your logic is perfectly valid for a private company that really could lose customers but does not apply to a government.
If so, I am glad I don't belong to the same civilization that you do.
I'm glad I am in a civilization that acknowledges reasons why government is not at all like a private company. Governments have a legal right to use force to achieve their goals. Private companies don't. Governments have confiscatory taxation. Private companies must convince customers to willingly do business with them or they fail. They do and should operate under a different set of rules.
It would be pathological and detrimental to society to blur that distinction. This censorship movement is a step in that direction. Unfortunately, it will succeed and become enshrined in law if we forget these basic principles and start passionately making excuses for it.
Mod parent up.
That is an issue should be brought up more often: if an employer wants to have control over what I do when I am not at the office, then the employer can damned well pay me for that time, too.
The cynicism that remains within me says that this would only cause more hourly employees to be shifted to salary.
I think we have to separate that and call it a separate issue. Badmouthing your employer is one thing; blowing the whistle on wrongdoing is quite another.
There are lots of ways an employer can treat people like crap without actually breaking the law. In an open, honest system this is where public embarassment could accomplish what a lawsuit could not. That's where these otherwise separate issues converge.
As a lover of freedom, I maintain that the peoples' right to know what their public servants are doing overrides the city government's desire to remove employees whose willingness to speak out makes it less convenient to be bureaucratic assholes. The goal of this censorship is to create a chilling effect against employees who would do this. The threat of joining the many unemployed who cannot find work is just a form of intimidation in this case, and I cannot in good conscience support that. The ends are not noble, but even if they were, they would not justify the means.
So you have a right to insist that someone keep you employed when they no longer wish to employ you? Awesome! I'm gonna use that to my advantage from now on. I'll never be out of work again!
In some cases, yes. That's the basis of anti-discrimination lawsuits.
Do you believe that an employer (especially gov't) should be able to choose to never hire black people? If not, then you have to acknowledge that there are valid reasons to insist on someone keeping you employed when they don't wish to employ you. The debate, then, is whether this is among those valid reasons.
Your objection isn't the instant slam-dunk dismissal you seemed to have been hoping for. Those tend to be extremely overrated and unenlightening anyway -- the eagerness for them usually reflects nothing other than a failure to appreciate the matter at hand. The reality isn't so conveniently black-and-white.
So, here is the question: why is it okay to require an employer to hire someone with a skin color they don't like, but not okay to require an employer to hire someone with an opinion they don't like, who expressed that opinion during their own unpaid time, without using company/organizational resources, without claiming to be making an official statement representing the company/organization? I'd like to know your answer, because that's what is happening here.
I would argue that that my criticisms were not directed at the "city" or "company" but rather at the directors, management, councilcritter, and that my criticism in no way brings "Disrepute" to the city, but rather the actions of those whom I'm criticizing are what are bringing the disrepute.
It is all about being smarter than they are. Not that will help you when they can you for being a smart ass.
All of this is only going to have one realistic effect: it will encourage people to share such information anonymously.
When that becomes more common it's going to weaken that tired old excuse for dismissing something without examination which is usually rendered as "how can I trust someone who refuses to sign their name to what they say." The intellectually lazy do love excuses like that. It makes them feel more comfortable living in a world where every important issue can be condensed into a 30-second soundbite that can be accepted as true on someone's authority. The reality is that the only way to know the veracity of an important, non-trivial claim is to investigate it yourself.
When an organization like a city government (not exactly top-secret material here) is supposed to be reasonably open and transparent and starts taking actions like this, it makes them look like they have embarassing information to hide. If they are honest and open, what would they have to fear? The old justification "you shouldn't mind surrendering privacy if you have nothing to hide" is a bullshit excuse when applied to private individuals; it is a perfectly reasonable position when applied to public servants who are on the public payroll.
If this continues to gain momentum, I foresee three eventualities that will unfold: 1) yet more people will be suspicious of their government, only for a change it won't be the federal government, 2) more whistleblowers will maintain their anonymity, 3) more people will exercise critical thinking in the face of untrustworthy government on the one hand and anonymous whistleblowers on the other. All of these things serve to make it more difficult to be a corrupt politician.
Authoritarian types may think that their actions don't have consequences, that by fiat they can neutralize these three effects. The reality is that if they truly have something to fear from disclosure, this is just about the dumbest move they can make.
Nor do I understand why anyone believes they can perform a task at which they are incompetent and expect good results
They are told so, e.g. "there is an app for it".
CC.
May $DEITY help them if they're dumb enough to automatically believe everything they're told, because no one else is going to.
i couldn't navigate until Platoon Leader's Development Course in the US Army and now i can look at any map and find my way easily. never use a GPS. even learned to navigate using the terrain in a few days.
half the battle is just looking at your watch and the sun to figure out where north, south, east and west are
It wasn't difficult to learn how to use a map and compass and then to learn several ways to find general directions without a compass. Until I learned those things, plus some (very basic) survival skills, I felt I had no business hiking and backpacking. I have no idea why anyone would believe that they are somehow exempt from this self-evident truth. Nor do I understand why anyone believes they can perform a task at which they are incompetent and expect good results, to the point where they are willing to bet their life on it.
How many stories like this does someone require to understand there is a risk that some preparedness can mitigate? You'd think one example would be enough to make the point. I have to admit, all the posts stating that this is natural selection at work ring true. Some may think that's callous, but it's not. It's just an ugly reality.
The funny thing is those papers are used in semiconductor bulk packaging to serve as a warning, not that the parts are unusable due to water but that a pre-bake may be necessary to drive water out that entered the packaging as a result of ambient humidity.
So yeah, anything that involves thermal shifts resulting in possible condensation can set these off while not harming the phone in the slightest. I don't know why anyone thinks these are in any way reliable.
A co-worker of mine has a waterproof phone. He can literally immerse it in a sink of water, hose it down, take underwater pictures in a swimming pool, etc. with no concern about damaging it. I forgot what model he has, but it was not particularly expensive.
I doubt it would be infeasible for Apple to just make their iPhones waterproof like this. It should be easier than worrying about all of these unreliable sensors, defending against a lawsuit, and dealing with angry customers who expect warranty service. At least, one would think.
Note: I have no doubt the Government ALREADY has the means to cause a similar shutdown at their disposal, its just that doing so would be illegal. It would only take a little bit of BGP route poisoning to accomplish the same thing.
I suspect this is a lot like Bush's warrentless wiretapping: it has been there for a long time now -- the legislation in question is merely a formality attempting to legitimize it. Consider it "retroactive immunity" for the possession of an Internet kill-switch.
In that case it is all checks and balances, kill switch fine but if it was unwarranted then prison time for those that infringed the constitution and no national security 'we aren't telling you the truth bull crap'.
Simple adhere to the law in all regards, with heavy penalties for illegal use of the 'kill switch' giving in the legislation, target not only at government but also at 'private interests'.
If it were up to me, any politician who ever introduces, supports, advocates, or votes for a law which is later found to be un-Constitutional would be tried for treason. Almost all of them are lawyers. Definitely all of them took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.
I really don't care what the downsides of this would be. Whatever they'd be, they would be worth it. The result? Politicians would hurry to distance themselves from anything that might even resemble an un-Constitutional law. That's what I want. If they cannot find an enumerated power in the Constitution that clearly and unambiguously grants them the legitimate authority to implement a law, I don't want that law on the books. This would likely result in most of our experience with government coming from the state and local levels, which is exactly the point of federalism and what the Founders intended.
So what you're saying is that, if some kid were to walk out into the road completely unexpectedly from behind a parked car
The first question I'd be asking in that scenario is: "where were his parents and why weren't they watching him?" That's if the kid is so young he can't yet be expected to understand that running out into traffic is a really bad idea. I know, it may sound crazy, but actually being a responsible parent, while difficult, is much easier than trying to control every possible vehicle that might pass through a given area. I know if I were a parent, I'd take responsibility for my children's safety and would not leave young children unattended near traffic and expect random strangers to always do the right thing. However nice that would be if they did, it just isn't realistic and all the wishing in the world won't change that.
Besides which, you can pull out all the edge cases you like. The fact is, most speeding tickets are not issued in residential areas where there are children and parked cars. Most are issued on highways that have speed limits of 55mph and above. In fact I don't believe I have ever once witnessed a cop parked in a 25mph residential area running radar.
Do you know why that might be? Well, I have a little theory. It's because most people don't drive crazy-fast though residential areas where children may be playing. Most people do exceed the highway speed limit at one time or another. The cops are running radar where they are most likely to score tickets, not where issuing tickets could do the most good to enhance safety. It's revenue generation, plain and simple. The cops' own priorities reveal this. What do you require, an official statement from the chief of police saying "we don't much care about your safety" before you'll realize that the way they behave reveals what is and isn't important to them? Personally, I ignore their words and I listen to their actions -- the communication is much more honest that way.
You might have personal issues with believing that your government can talk such a good game about safety while only really caring about taking your money, but I have no such qualms and have seen many examples of this. It's got nothing to do with whether I would like to believe it. It has to do with whether it fits the facts. For the record, I really don't like the idea that officials routinely lie to us, but my feelings about it have no bearing on whether it happens.
In conditions not suited for it, excess speed carries increased risk of accidents and death in accidents, which is one of the reasons speed limits are imposed and also ostensibly why they are enforced.
Consider that "exceeding the speed limit" and "driving too fast for conditions" are two entirely separate violations (the second is much more severe). The latter really does make sense as a safety issue. The former is a revenue generator for the state that has nothing whatsoever to do with safety.
The real issue: software industry releases insecure products and blames ordinary users for not being IT security experts which is what it takes to be truly secure.
The bar could be raised far higher than it is now without even beginning to approach expertise. That's the part that is often underappreciated.
"Truly secure" in an absolute sense is rarely if ever attained by anyone, and almost never necessary. What you really need to achieve is "unprofitable to compromise". It's security in a relative sense and much more realistic.
I don't really disagree with your assessment of the average quality coming from the software industry. The users are not typically blamed for that, even though they're collectively responsible for creating a market where shoddy quality sells. That responsibility is indirect and spread out among large numbers of people.
The users are more often blamed for not even trying to protect themselves, for not making even a token effort to understand the risks. That decision is more immediate and individual. For this reason average users are often characterized as stupid.
I'm personally more inclined to believe that they could do better if they wanted to. I've seen the mentality many times because there is such an overabundance of examples (and not just in computing). It's not stupidity in the normal sense, though you could call it a kind of stupidity because it tends to act against one's own interests. It's more like an intellectual laziness combined with an entitlement mentality which insists that things like security must always be "someone else's problem" even though it won't be "someone else" who suffers any insecurity.
Like any entitlement mentality it has to have an excuse to function, to seem like a believable position one does not wish to abandon. In this case it's the excluded middle: the notion that users are either drooling idiots or highly skilled experts with no intermediary states. That enables the afflicted to respond to recommendations for how they may improve by becoming offended instead of assessing the feasibility of the suggestion. The intellectual laziness component comes from institutional schooling's lesson that learning is hard and full of toil and cannot be a joyful process of discovery and fascination.
You combine those things and you get a user who is nearly impervious to even the most basic, most easily understood advice especially concerning topics like security. Even when it's in their own interests to listen to it. Even when implementing it would be easier than their current practices. The rest of us get a degraded Internet in the form of spam and DDoS attacks and worse that so many compromised machines facilitate, thanks to network effects.
The case against the mentality of the average user has a solid foundation, primarily because most of them could choose differently.
Only if they weren't "attacks". They often include theft, including theft of money and private information. They're often expensive to repair, They often break or impedes other computer services, and the most common forms of them are for illegal activity (such as spam running DDOS attachs). Or have you failed to look at what botnets are and how they are run?
Because such attacks far outnumer mere "exploitation attempts", and because even a mere "exploitation attempt" involves theft of computer resources or private data, yes, it's reasonable to call them "attacks".
If you leave your car unattended and some asshat criminal steals it, would you say he attacked you, or would you say he has stolen from you?
If you leave your ATM card in the ATM and some asshat criminal drains all the money from your account, would you say he attacked you or would you say he committed fraud and/or larceny?
If you leave a candy bar at your desk and an asshat coworker swipes it and eats it without asking you if he may have it, would you say he attacked you or would you say he swiped your candy bar?
If all of the above are attacks then what do you call it when one person physically assaults another person? We used to have a neat solution for the problem of making this distinction, in the form of specific words like "attack" that have a specific meaning. Sure, we can reject that and blur all distinctions so we can sensationalize and play up the hyperbole of comparing everything to violent assault, and justify it by saying "it's a LIVING language", but have you thought this through? Is using the correct word such an unreasonable burden, is supporting this kind of sensationalism so desirable, that it's worth introducing artificial ambiguity? I for one don't believe so.
Except wrapped up in this Kelin-Bottle mess is that Facebook managed to be the first non-email company to convince "Middle America" that they should put their whole lives on it, "because everyone is doing it". So one day when Facebook goes wrong, that database will be the biggest identity theft risk ever known.
Yes, it will. That's why I said it separates fools from their privacy. They're fools because they don't think of these things.
If something bad becomes of it, it is because they brought it upon themselves. There's no victim here, only people making bad decisions and making themselves vulnerable to an undesirable outcome. They do so voluntarily. Therefore this is cause-and-effect, not injustice.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor do I understand why anyone believes they can perform a task at which they are incompetent and expect good results, to the point where they are willing to bet their life on it.
"...to the point where they are willing to bet their life on it." -- probably true. However, it begs the question: how does one get good at a task at which they are incompetent without performing the task over and over until they get it right? I'm not saying that everyone should go download the latest iPhone navigation app and head for Death Valley, but still...you've got to fall off the bike once or twice if you're going to learn to ride.
I mean no offense, but that's such a basic question that I can't help but wonder if you're trolling.
... it's pathological and seriously needs to be eliminated. It's the very best way to sell yourself short that I can name. It appears to be contagious, too.
You've never learned anything in your life where failure can have a severe penalty? You do drive, don't you?
Basic navigation with a map and compass is an incredibly easy skill to learn. If you are a decent learner with an average memory you could do it in an afternoon. Just like you didn't start learning how to drive by suddenly being placed on a high-speed eight-lane highway during rush-hour traffic, you don't start learning how to use a map and compass by having a helicopter drop you off in a remote jungle somewhere with the pilot saying "good luck, hope you make it." You can learn basic navigation in the suburbs for that matter -- they have landmarks too. If you want to learn it in the forest, you could do something obvious like travel with someone who already has the skill and is able to supervise you. Really this doesn't require a lot of imagination.
The concepts are the same whether it's tundra or suburbia. This notion of pretending like those who are competent at basic skills have some kind of unfair advantage over the rest of us, or special dispensation, or have done anything the rest of us couldn't also do
Satisfied customers who think you're better than your competition would be a good start.
Cell phone company (and ISP) executives don't talk about customer satisfaction (they leave that to marketing), they talk about churn. Churn rate only considers customer satisfaction as an abstract factor. They expect customers to move from provider to provider. Rather than worrying about keeping their own customers happy, they talk about ways they can poach their competition's customers. They'll call for more 'can you hear me now' commercials, say they have the fastest network, and offer the new, hot wireless device. Every year there are millions of new customers, and all those disgruntled customers were probably over consuming support time anyway. Or to put it more bluntly, all those new towers and network upgrades show up on the balance sheet in black and white. Lost customers are amorphous and churn is seen as a fact of life.
On the one hand I think you're right and that you have quite accurately described the way this industry works.
On the other hand, I wish you were wrong but there's no use pretending.
Because mandatory minimum sentences and other "crackdown" measures mean more business for your lobbyist buddies in the private prison industry. They, in turn, will show their gratitude the next time you run a campaign.
Any effect on the crime rate or the recidivism rate is incidental.
By making it so general that you tried to apply it where it is not valid?
I guess "I agree completely" is a sudden change of heart for you then, a nice face-saving way of saying "hey, I was wrong and have now changed my mind." Noted.
The person listening to the speech is in the best position to determine that. If the listener thinks it's a public concern, they'll vote accordingly, write their representatives, spread the word, etc. If they don't think it's a public concern, they'll go play a video game or something.
Then don't listen to it, stop reading it, go to another site, stop voluntarily subjecting yourself to something you have any sort of problem with. Let others have the same choice instead of allowing government to play the "we know what's best for you" card and censoring the source in order to deprive them of that choice.
Other than attempts to slander, incite violence, or yell "fire!" in a theater when there is no fire, neither should be censored or punished by any government agency. That's what they have in common. Compared to that common nature, I'm a lot less impressed by the difference in scale.
Otherwise, at what point do you think censorship is okay? If there are more than 20 people in a big living room, treat it like a Facebook page and censor it because each of those 20 might talk to 20 others and soon a lot of people know about the conversation? After all that could potentially spread the information like a semi-public Facebook page, just more slowly. If there is only one other person in the living room, don't censor it because then it's your word against theirs. Maybe you could make it mandatory for government agents to attend all living-room meetings to ensure complaince. See how ridiculous this is?
You either support free speech with no government censorship even when that includes things you might not personally choose to listen to or you don't support free speech with no government censorship. Free speech free from government interference is good though, because the government is not going to force you to listen. That's why the government doesn't have to force someone else to stop speaking. It balances out.
Doesn't matter. If an employer wants me to work 40 hours per week, then I will want a certain salary. If the employer wants to control every moment of my life, I will demand a much larger salary. Period, end of story.
You'll have a wide diversity of truly different choices from competing sources, sort of like wireless phone plans. Those plans are largely uniform and cookie-cutter, despite competition, you say? Oh. Well, I'm sure employment will be radically different especially during a time of such high levels of unemployment ... somehow.
Hint: it's not the "end of story" just because you declare it, and you look both foolish and pompous trying to pre-emptively end a discussion when there is more to say.
Because that would be a logical, one-shot solution that would end the problem. That's no good for a politician. They want an ongoing issue they can pull out from time to time, whenever they need a distraction. There's little profit for your buddies and political capital for yourself from solving problems; there's lots to be made from prolonging them.
They'll integrate the prison guards into the DHS and hire thousands more of them to look for cell phones before they'll do something as simple and effective as installing jammers.
I'm the CEO of Verizon Wireless. I'm intrigued by your idea. Just one question: how does your plan make us more money?
Satisfied customers who think you're better than your competition would be a good start. That's if long-term viability and profitability is something you want to cultivate. Otherwise, go ahead and screw them over as much as you can to pad this quarter's results, then watch them jump ship at the first opportunity.
The post to which you are responding, in addition to this post of mine and this other post of mine is your coherent explanation for why this is not a straw man.
To recap:
1) Private employers can and should have choices available to them that gov't employers do not.
2) We do not live under a free-for-all where no one ever has to hire anyone they don't want to hire. We do have some cases where we require an employer to hire an employee even if the employer doesn't wish to. For private corporations, this should be restricted to actual discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. For government organizations, we are all better off for a wide variety of reasons if the additional restriction of no censorship is applied. The only interests that does not serve are those politicians with either corruption or embarassment to hide, and I can't say I care about what they want. They voluntarily chose to become public figures.
3) Private employers might lose customers. Government entities take their revenue by threat of force, so the concern about loss of revenue due to defamation is nullified.
I'm glad I am in a civilization that acknowledges reasons why government is not at all like a private company.
I take it, then, that you do not live in the United States. There are plenty of politicians here who want to run the government more like a private company.
My previous post was nothing if not an explanation of why I recognize that as a problem.
If you are talking about a private company, I fully agree with you. This should not apply to government, and I'll use your next line to explain why.
Governments don't obtain their revenues from customers. Governments obtain their revenues from taxpayers. It is a system of confiscatory taxation -- the taxpayers do not have a legal right to refuse to pay taxes. That's why your logic is perfectly valid for a private company that really could lose customers but does not apply to a government.
I'm glad I am in a civilization that acknowledges reasons why government is not at all like a private company. Governments have a legal right to use force to achieve their goals. Private companies don't. Governments have confiscatory taxation. Private companies must convince customers to willingly do business with them or they fail. They do and should operate under a different set of rules.
It would be pathological and detrimental to society to blur that distinction. This censorship movement is a step in that direction. Unfortunately, it will succeed and become enshrined in law if we forget these basic principles and start passionately making excuses for it.
Mod parent up. That is an issue should be brought up more often: if an employer wants to have control over what I do when I am not at the office, then the employer can damned well pay me for that time, too.
The cynicism that remains within me says that this would only cause more hourly employees to be shifted to salary.
I think we have to separate that and call it a separate issue. Badmouthing your employer is one thing; blowing the whistle on wrongdoing is quite another.
There are lots of ways an employer can treat people like crap without actually breaking the law. In an open, honest system this is where public embarassment could accomplish what a lawsuit could not. That's where these otherwise separate issues converge.
As a lover of freedom, I maintain that the peoples' right to know what their public servants are doing overrides the city government's desire to remove employees whose willingness to speak out makes it less convenient to be bureaucratic assholes. The goal of this censorship is to create a chilling effect against employees who would do this. The threat of joining the many unemployed who cannot find work is just a form of intimidation in this case, and I cannot in good conscience support that. The ends are not noble, but even if they were, they would not justify the means.
So you have a right to insist that someone keep you employed when they no longer wish to employ you? Awesome! I'm gonna use that to my advantage from now on. I'll never be out of work again!
In some cases, yes. That's the basis of anti-discrimination lawsuits.
Do you believe that an employer (especially gov't) should be able to choose to never hire black people? If not, then you have to acknowledge that there are valid reasons to insist on someone keeping you employed when they don't wish to employ you. The debate, then, is whether this is among those valid reasons.
Your objection isn't the instant slam-dunk dismissal you seemed to have been hoping for. Those tend to be extremely overrated and unenlightening anyway -- the eagerness for them usually reflects nothing other than a failure to appreciate the matter at hand. The reality isn't so conveniently black-and-white.
So, here is the question: why is it okay to require an employer to hire someone with a skin color they don't like, but not okay to require an employer to hire someone with an opinion they don't like, who expressed that opinion during their own unpaid time, without using company/organizational resources, without claiming to be making an official statement representing the company/organization? I'd like to know your answer, because that's what is happening here.
I would argue that that my criticisms were not directed at the "city" or "company" but rather at the directors, management, councilcritter, and that my criticism in no way brings "Disrepute" to the city, but rather the actions of those whom I'm criticizing are what are bringing the disrepute.
It is all about being smarter than they are. Not that will help you when they can you for being a smart ass.
All of this is only going to have one realistic effect: it will encourage people to share such information anonymously.
When that becomes more common it's going to weaken that tired old excuse for dismissing something without examination which is usually rendered as "how can I trust someone who refuses to sign their name to what they say." The intellectually lazy do love excuses like that. It makes them feel more comfortable living in a world where every important issue can be condensed into a 30-second soundbite that can be accepted as true on someone's authority. The reality is that the only way to know the veracity of an important, non-trivial claim is to investigate it yourself.
When an organization like a city government (not exactly top-secret material here) is supposed to be reasonably open and transparent and starts taking actions like this, it makes them look like they have embarassing information to hide. If they are honest and open, what would they have to fear? The old justification "you shouldn't mind surrendering privacy if you have nothing to hide" is a bullshit excuse when applied to private individuals; it is a perfectly reasonable position when applied to public servants who are on the public payroll.
If this continues to gain momentum, I foresee three eventualities that will unfold: 1) yet more people will be suspicious of their government, only for a change it won't be the federal government, 2) more whistleblowers will maintain their anonymity, 3) more people will exercise critical thinking in the face of untrustworthy government on the one hand and anonymous whistleblowers on the other. All of these things serve to make it more difficult to be a corrupt politician.
Authoritarian types may think that their actions don't have consequences, that by fiat they can neutralize these three effects. The reality is that if they truly have something to fear from disclosure, this is just about the dumbest move they can make.
Nor do I understand why anyone believes they can perform a task at which they are incompetent and expect good results They are told so, e.g. "there is an app for it". CC.
May $DEITY help them if they're dumb enough to automatically believe everything they're told, because no one else is going to.
i couldn't navigate until Platoon Leader's Development Course in the US Army and now i can look at any map and find my way easily. never use a GPS. even learned to navigate using the terrain in a few days.
half the battle is just looking at your watch and the sun to figure out where north, south, east and west are
It wasn't difficult to learn how to use a map and compass and then to learn several ways to find general directions without a compass. Until I learned those things, plus some (very basic) survival skills, I felt I had no business hiking and backpacking. I have no idea why anyone would believe that they are somehow exempt from this self-evident truth. Nor do I understand why anyone believes they can perform a task at which they are incompetent and expect good results, to the point where they are willing to bet their life on it.
How many stories like this does someone require to understand there is a risk that some preparedness can mitigate? You'd think one example would be enough to make the point. I have to admit, all the posts stating that this is natural selection at work ring true. Some may think that's callous, but it's not. It's just an ugly reality.
The funny thing is those papers are used in semiconductor bulk packaging to serve as a warning, not that the parts are unusable due to water but that a pre-bake may be necessary to drive water out that entered the packaging as a result of ambient humidity.
So yeah, anything that involves thermal shifts resulting in possible condensation can set these off while not harming the phone in the slightest. I don't know why anyone thinks these are in any way reliable.
A co-worker of mine has a waterproof phone. He can literally immerse it in a sink of water, hose it down, take underwater pictures in a swimming pool, etc. with no concern about damaging it. I forgot what model he has, but it was not particularly expensive.
I doubt it would be infeasible for Apple to just make their iPhones waterproof like this. It should be easier than worrying about all of these unreliable sensors, defending against a lawsuit, and dealing with angry customers who expect warranty service. At least, one would think.
I suspect this is a lot like Bush's warrentless wiretapping: it has been there for a long time now -- the legislation in question is merely a formality attempting to legitimize it. Consider it "retroactive immunity" for the possession of an Internet kill-switch.
In that case it is all checks and balances, kill switch fine but if it was unwarranted then prison time for those that infringed the constitution and no national security 'we aren't telling you the truth bull crap'. Simple adhere to the law in all regards, with heavy penalties for illegal use of the 'kill switch' giving in the legislation, target not only at government but also at 'private interests'.
If it were up to me, any politician who ever introduces, supports, advocates, or votes for a law which is later found to be un-Constitutional would be tried for treason. Almost all of them are lawyers. Definitely all of them took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.
I really don't care what the downsides of this would be. Whatever they'd be, they would be worth it. The result? Politicians would hurry to distance themselves from anything that might even resemble an un-Constitutional law. That's what I want. If they cannot find an enumerated power in the Constitution that clearly and unambiguously grants them the legitimate authority to implement a law, I don't want that law on the books. This would likely result in most of our experience with government coming from the state and local levels, which is exactly the point of federalism and what the Founders intended.
The first question I'd be asking in that scenario is: "where were his parents and why weren't they watching him?" That's if the kid is so young he can't yet be expected to understand that running out into traffic is a really bad idea. I know, it may sound crazy, but actually being a responsible parent, while difficult, is much easier than trying to control every possible vehicle that might pass through a given area. I know if I were a parent, I'd take responsibility for my children's safety and would not leave young children unattended near traffic and expect random strangers to always do the right thing. However nice that would be if they did, it just isn't realistic and all the wishing in the world won't change that.
Besides which, you can pull out all the edge cases you like. The fact is, most speeding tickets are not issued in residential areas where there are children and parked cars. Most are issued on highways that have speed limits of 55mph and above. In fact I don't believe I have ever once witnessed a cop parked in a 25mph residential area running radar.
Do you know why that might be? Well, I have a little theory. It's because most people don't drive crazy-fast though residential areas where children may be playing. Most people do exceed the highway speed limit at one time or another. The cops are running radar where they are most likely to score tickets, not where issuing tickets could do the most good to enhance safety. It's revenue generation, plain and simple. The cops' own priorities reveal this. What do you require, an official statement from the chief of police saying "we don't much care about your safety" before you'll realize that the way they behave reveals what is and isn't important to them? Personally, I ignore their words and I listen to their actions -- the communication is much more honest that way.
You might have personal issues with believing that your government can talk such a good game about safety while only really caring about taking your money, but I have no such qualms and have seen many examples of this. It's got nothing to do with whether I would like to believe it. It has to do with whether it fits the facts. For the record, I really don't like the idea that officials routinely lie to us, but my feelings about it have no bearing on whether it happens.
Consider that "exceeding the speed limit" and "driving too fast for conditions" are two entirely separate violations (the second is much more severe). The latter really does make sense as a safety issue. The former is a revenue generator for the state that has nothing whatsoever to do with safety.
The real issue: software industry releases insecure products and blames ordinary users for not being IT security experts which is what it takes to be truly secure.
The bar could be raised far higher than it is now without even beginning to approach expertise. That's the part that is often underappreciated.
"Truly secure" in an absolute sense is rarely if ever attained by anyone, and almost never necessary. What you really need to achieve is "unprofitable to compromise". It's security in a relative sense and much more realistic.
I don't really disagree with your assessment of the average quality coming from the software industry. The users are not typically blamed for that, even though they're collectively responsible for creating a market where shoddy quality sells. That responsibility is indirect and spread out among large numbers of people.
The users are more often blamed for not even trying to protect themselves, for not making even a token effort to understand the risks. That decision is more immediate and individual. For this reason average users are often characterized as stupid.
I'm personally more inclined to believe that they could do better if they wanted to. I've seen the mentality many times because there is such an overabundance of examples (and not just in computing). It's not stupidity in the normal sense, though you could call it a kind of stupidity because it tends to act against one's own interests. It's more like an intellectual laziness combined with an entitlement mentality which insists that things like security must always be "someone else's problem" even though it won't be "someone else" who suffers any insecurity.
Like any entitlement mentality it has to have an excuse to function, to seem like a believable position one does not wish to abandon. In this case it's the excluded middle: the notion that users are either drooling idiots or highly skilled experts with no intermediary states. That enables the afflicted to respond to recommendations for how they may improve by becoming offended instead of assessing the feasibility of the suggestion. The intellectual laziness component comes from institutional schooling's lesson that learning is hard and full of toil and cannot be a joyful process of discovery and fascination.
You combine those things and you get a user who is nearly impervious to even the most basic, most easily understood advice especially concerning topics like security. Even when it's in their own interests to listen to it. Even when implementing it would be easier than their current practices. The rest of us get a degraded Internet in the form of spam and DDoS attacks and worse that so many compromised machines facilitate, thanks to network effects.
The case against the mentality of the average user has a solid foundation, primarily because most of them could choose differently.
Only if they weren't "attacks". They often include theft, including theft of money and private information. They're often expensive to repair, They often break or impedes other computer services, and the most common forms of them are for illegal activity (such as spam running DDOS attachs). Or have you failed to look at what botnets are and how they are run?
Because such attacks far outnumer mere "exploitation attempts", and because even a mere "exploitation attempt" involves theft of computer resources or private data, yes, it's reasonable to call them "attacks".
If you leave your car unattended and some asshat criminal steals it, would you say he attacked you, or would you say he has stolen from you?
If you leave your ATM card in the ATM and some asshat criminal drains all the money from your account, would you say he attacked you or would you say he committed fraud and/or larceny?
If you leave a candy bar at your desk and an asshat coworker swipes it and eats it without asking you if he may have it, would you say he attacked you or would you say he swiped your candy bar?
If all of the above are attacks then what do you call it when one person physically assaults another person? We used to have a neat solution for the problem of making this distinction, in the form of specific words like "attack" that have a specific meaning. Sure, we can reject that and blur all distinctions so we can sensationalize and play up the hyperbole of comparing everything to violent assault, and justify it by saying "it's a LIVING language", but have you thought this through? Is using the correct word such an unreasonable burden, is supporting this kind of sensationalism so desirable, that it's worth introducing artificial ambiguity? I for one don't believe so.
I believe the political term is "preemptive strike".
Just like "shock and awe" is the new political term for "blitzkrieg".
Except wrapped up in this Kelin-Bottle mess is that Facebook managed to be the first non-email company to convince "Middle America" that they should put their whole lives on it, "because everyone is doing it". So one day when Facebook goes wrong, that database will be the biggest identity theft risk ever known.
Yes, it will. That's why I said it separates fools from their privacy. They're fools because they don't think of these things.
If something bad becomes of it, it is because they brought it upon themselves. There's no victim here, only people making bad decisions and making themselves vulnerable to an undesirable outcome. They do so voluntarily. Therefore this is cause-and-effect, not injustice.