A person has a fixed amount of mental capability. This capability is divided into three categories: 1) Memorization 2) Logical Thinking 3) Wasted watching 'Surivor'.
The more time you spend on #1, the less you have for #2 and #3. The more on #2, the less for #1 and #3. The more on #3, the less for #1 and #2.
Note that Albert Einstein was not considered to have a super high IQ by "world changing genius" standards. But the dude could not even remember his phone number or address. Clearly he robbed #1 to get more #2.
I am not sure what this counselor's total intelligence is. But she sure wasted precious brain cells on something that is irrelevant (3.141592654 gives you the circumference of the earth to within a centimeter given its diameter), and easily looked up.
Why do you assume she would have gotten away with any more than she did if she was doing it on purpose? And no, she wouldn't just be fired, she'd go to jail if she did it on purpose.
The point is, if 1 person acting on her own can cause an accidental screw up, what prevents her from putting the company in bankruptcy if she decided to? I am not saying she wouldn't get in trouble... but with the events that unfolded in the acciental scenario, apparently, the company would not find out in time to prevent it.
The point is, the organization needs to have a better process in place to prevent screw ups/sabotage.
Sorry. You talk out of theory. I work for a company that places trades like that (but an order of magnitude smaller) all the time. There are double checks in place. Sometimes they are software. Sometimes they are human checks. But checks are in place.
Crap... what would they do if the employee got pissed and started making trades like this on purpose. Fire her? After making the company bankrupt?
All financial institutions use the double responsiblity concept for all transactions (or they should). It makes it much harder to commit fraud.
Some manager should be getting his butt chewed out, or worse.
This is not Insightful. Sorry. Management takes blame for not having doublechecks in process. Especially with amounts this big.
Everyone makes mistakes. Especially with manual data entry.
The Wall Street Journal has editors that check their journalists info. Why? You can't doublecheck your own writing. You read what you meant to write as opposed to what you did write.
Developers can't be effective beta testers for their own product? Why? They will not see the holes in their own logic.
Management needs to have processes in place that put more than one set of eyes on work like this. Simple as that.
I, for one, look forward to the newest Orbitz game. I was pretty pissed when I couldn't direct link to them anymore;)
Honestly, I have no time to spend hours practicing a game. I used to play Enemy Territory because it was simple to learn, and wasnt THAT hard to get okay at. I lack the time for even that now.
Yes. Business should do the right thing. All pharmacies should stop selling birth control items. Cause I'm Catholic, and those are my ethics.
Yes. Business should ignore minimum age requirements to work in factories. Cause, dammit, working is good for the kids. Six year olds working on the assembly line builds character.
Yes. Business should ignore your "Do Not Resucitate" wishes. Because, life is precious, and despite what you say, we love you and want you to keep living.
Think I'm off base? Well guess what... some folks would agree with each of those statements above. Her's the point: If business is the mechanism for enforcing morality, then we are up shit crick. We don't elect business people. We have no say on how decisions are made.
I, for one, do NOT want businesses making my moral decisions and "doing the right thing". I want them to obey the laws. And then, I want laws that make sense and direct the business to work for the good of the people.
Dream land? Yup. But putting business in charge of morality is a very scary thought.
Business makes money. This is their sole purpose of existence. It is up to gov't to ensure that business' avenues to generate money align themselves with the public good.
Microsoft and others are not to make ethical decisions about whether a particular gov't is good or bad, or whether to support a particular gov't edict. They are to obey the rules in whatever market they do business in. I don't want my pharmacy to stop selling a birth control pills and condoms because the owner is Catholic. I don't want business making my ethical decisions for me.
Having said that, the developed world should band together and make strict financial punishment for companies that want to deal in countries without a minimum level of human rights. However, gov'ts have a way of turing a blind eye when there is money to be made by doing so.
So, the blame falls with governments (and by extension, us as citizens), not business. Business does what business is supposed to do. It is gov't that is failing to do what IT is supposed to do.
Otherwise, despite how hard you "wish" companies wouldn't do business with these countries, they will. Wishes don't do jack to accomplish anything.
I don't know what this "Gosling" is. But if Josh does it on Java, I hope he has the decency to do it behind closed doors. America's values are dropping low enough as it is.
Huh? If you have an axe to grind with something the FCC did, post in a thread that related. All I am talking about is the general nature of electronics pricing.
Fair enough. I doubt it happens too often, even in lawless regions like Malaysia.
I doubt it would happen at all in places where terrorist organizations don't get to run rampant. For example the U.S (minus Los Angeles and D.C. -- but D.C.'s terrorist organizations take their money through taxes, not hacking anyway).
Yup. That's what I like about electronics... the "First on the Block" tax. Perfectly voluntary. If it is important enough for you to be the first to have it, then you can pay. If not, then you don't.
It helps to subsidize electronics for the masses without a convoluted gov't based needs program.
For 99.99999% of the applications out there, no one would even DREAM of going to these lengths.
For the other 0.00001% (read military secrets) of the applications out there, there is likely to be two or three other authentication processes out there, one of which involves a person pysically giving you access.
I'm so tired of hearing the "dude who is so desperate, he's willing to take your eyeball" type argument. If someone is that desperate, he's more likely to off you and rob you than worry about using your eyeball to hack your accounts. Generally the desperate folks are the strung out drug users, not wanting to come down again. They don't put this much forethought into their crimes.
Now the professional hacker (cracker for those who still insist on the distinction) don't want to get their hands dirty. They prefer to act quietly, and score a lot of hits before anyone knows they are around.... a trail of eyeball-less individuals ain't staying quiet.
And third... once eyeball is removed, you wouldn't be using it for id. Blood loss would destroy the patterns the system needs to id the person. I imagine you COULD devise a way to keep it intact log enough for id... but who in the hell will want to go to that much trouble? Short of military secrets, I can't see it happening.
Slashdot Mirror
And you are busy responding to him. Kinda funny in a kafkaesque kinda way.
I memorized i. People memorizing Pi and e are too irrational for my tastes.
My #3 is "Reading Slashdot".
A person has a fixed amount of mental capability. This capability is divided into three categories:
1) Memorization
2) Logical Thinking
3) Wasted watching 'Surivor'.
The more time you spend on #1, the less you have for #2 and #3. The more on #2, the less for #1 and #3. The more on #3, the less for #1 and #2.
Note that Albert Einstein was not considered to have a super high IQ by "world changing genius" standards. But the dude could not even remember his phone number or address. Clearly he robbed #1 to get more #2.
I am not sure what this counselor's total intelligence is. But she sure wasted precious brain cells on something that is irrelevant (3.141592654 gives you the circumference of the earth to within a centimeter given its diameter), and easily looked up.
So, you are saying Michael Jackson is behind all this?
Why do you assume she would have gotten away with any more than she did if she was doing it on purpose? And no, she wouldn't just be fired, she'd go to jail if she did it on purpose.
The point is, if 1 person acting on her own can cause an accidental screw up, what prevents her from putting the company in bankruptcy if she decided to? I am not saying she wouldn't get in trouble... but with the events that unfolded in the acciental scenario, apparently, the company would not find out in time to prevent it.
The point is, the organization needs to have a better process in place to prevent screw ups/sabotage.
I already ACT under 13. Does that get me out of spam?
Sorry. You talk out of theory. I work for a company that places trades like that (but an order of magnitude smaller) all the time. There are double checks in place. Sometimes they are software. Sometimes they are human checks. But checks are in place.
Crap... what would they do if the employee got pissed and started making trades like this on purpose. Fire her? After making the company bankrupt?
All financial institutions use the double responsiblity concept for all transactions (or they should). It makes it much harder to commit fraud.
Some manager should be getting his butt chewed out, or worse.
This is not Insightful. Sorry. Management takes blame for not having doublechecks in process. Especially with amounts this big.
Everyone makes mistakes. Especially with manual data entry.
The Wall Street Journal has editors that check their journalists info. Why? You can't doublecheck your own writing. You read what you meant to write as opposed to what you did write.
Developers can't be effective beta testers for their own product? Why? They will not see the holes in their own logic.
Management needs to have processes in place that put more than one set of eyes on work like this. Simple as that.
I, for one, look forward to the newest Orbitz game. I was pretty pissed when I couldn't direct link to them anymore ;)
Honestly, I have no time to spend hours practicing a game. I used to play Enemy Territory because it was simple to learn, and wasnt THAT hard to get okay at. I lack the time for even that now.
So, in short, I agree with you 100%.
Maybe he's more credit worth than you are? ;)
Because words mean things? If I say 'I hate group xxx', then guess what... that group is proably not going to like me if they find out I said it.
Free speech does not mean speech has no reprecussions.
Yes. Business should do the right thing. All pharmacies should stop selling birth control items. Cause I'm Catholic, and those are my ethics.
Yes. Business should ignore minimum age requirements to work in factories. Cause, dammit, working is good for the kids. Six year olds working on the assembly line builds character.
Yes. Business should ignore your "Do Not Resucitate" wishes. Because, life is precious, and despite what you say, we love you and want you to keep living.
Think I'm off base? Well guess what... some folks would agree with each of those statements above. Her's the point: If business is the mechanism for enforcing morality, then we are up shit crick. We don't elect business people. We have no say on how decisions are made.
I, for one, do NOT want businesses making my moral decisions and "doing the right thing". I want them to obey the laws. And then, I want laws that make sense and direct the business to work for the good of the people.
Dream land? Yup. But putting business in charge of morality is a very scary thought.
Business makes money. This is their sole purpose of existence. It is up to gov't to ensure that business' avenues to generate money align themselves with the public good.
Microsoft and others are not to make ethical decisions about whether a particular gov't is good or bad, or whether to support a particular gov't edict. They are to obey the rules in whatever market they do business in. I don't want my pharmacy to stop selling a birth control pills and condoms because the owner is Catholic. I don't want business making my ethical decisions for me.
Having said that, the developed world should band together and make strict financial punishment for companies that want to deal in countries without a minimum level of human rights. However, gov'ts have a way of turing a blind eye when there is money to be made by doing so.
So, the blame falls with governments (and by extension, us as citizens), not business. Business does what business is supposed to do. It is gov't that is failing to do what IT is supposed to do.
Otherwise, despite how hard you "wish" companies wouldn't do business with these countries, they will. Wishes don't do jack to accomplish anything.
Psssst.... "James", not "Josh".
tard.
I don't know what this "Gosling" is. But if Josh does it on Java, I hope he has the decency to do it behind closed doors. America's values are dropping low enough as it is.
-- The Church Lady.
Grammar Nazi makes it big! You, sir, are the king of the trolls. I bow at your brilliance!
Next up to AskSlashdot: "Why are Linux users so prod of their OS when Microsoft is the only OS worthy of consideration?"
And let me guess... the people you tell this to just kinda nod their heads and say "um... okay".
About as brilliant as naming a sanitary napkin "StayFree"
Ebay.
Huh? If you have an axe to grind with something the FCC did, post in a thread that related. All I am talking about is the general nature of electronics pricing.
Fair enough. I doubt it happens too often, even in lawless regions like Malaysia.
I doubt it would happen at all in places where terrorist organizations don't get to run rampant. For example the U.S (minus Los Angeles and D.C. -- but D.C.'s terrorist organizations take their money through taxes, not hacking anyway).
Yup. That's what I like about electronics... the "First on the Block" tax. Perfectly voluntary. If it is important enough for you to be the first to have it, then you can pay. If not, then you don't.
It helps to subsidize electronics for the masses without a convoluted gov't based needs program.
For 99.99999% of the applications out there, no one would even DREAM of going to these lengths.
For the other 0.00001% (read military secrets) of the applications out there, there is likely to be two or three other authentication processes out there, one of which involves a person pysically giving you access.
I'm so tired of hearing the "dude who is so desperate, he's willing to take your eyeball" type argument. If someone is that desperate, he's more likely to off you and rob you than worry about using your eyeball to hack your accounts. Generally the desperate folks are the strung out drug users, not wanting to come down again. They don't put this much forethought into their crimes.
Now the professional hacker (cracker for those who still insist on the distinction) don't want to get their hands dirty. They prefer to act quietly, and score a lot of hits before anyone knows they are around.... a trail of eyeball-less individuals ain't staying quiet.
And third... once eyeball is removed, you wouldn't be using it for id. Blood loss would destroy the patterns the system needs to id the person. I imagine you COULD devise a way to keep it intact log enough for id... but who in the hell will want to go to that much trouble? Short of military secrets, I can't see it happening.
Everyone here is mocking Microsoft... hmmmm....