Most espionage cases involve someone with access (clearance, passwords, keys, etc.) getting information and passing it outside of the security perimeter. The access was legal, the passing was not. This case sounds exactly the same, and looking it up on the computer today should be no different from pulling it out of the file cabinet years ago (cue B&W film image of spy snapping pictures with Minox).
Do we really need 3D graphical desktops with moving wallpaper? Do we really need page-turning animations? Turn off all of the pretty crap in your system, and it works faster. (Plus I endorse the numerous others pointing out the drag of multiple layers of security.)
Bothered me the most about the waterboarding controversy: Is this the best we could do in this day and age? Where is H. Beam Piper's "veradicator" from the 1960s, or Lois Bujold's "fast-penta", or any of the truth serums described in fiction for years? (Of course none of them really find "the truth", they can at best find what someone truly believes, which could be completely wrong....)
Abuse could indeed make Orwell sound like an optimist; yet there is a legitimate place for interrogation in police and security situations, and torture is so last millennium.
How much of our economic statistics - both boom and bust - are tied up in meaningless garbage? And how much are bubbles like the random "values" assigned to housing rotating among different neighborhoods? What if we didn't produce 27 different sizes of toothpaste tubes and dozens of types of incompatible wall-wart chargers, and didn't have entire industry segments dedicated to producing waste paper and waste material? Imagine if the cost of food didn't have to incorporate the costs of producing and managing all of the coupons, and the costs of advertising in general - I'll bet we could feed lots of people right there.
Ignoring the point that maybe there is a legitimate complaint, no matter what profession the complainants follow, does not make *you* look better either.
When the turbine was generating? Never stood near one myself, but I've heard (in person) & read more comments that they are noisy when operating than that they're just quietly whooshing. After all, there *is* gearing and machinery moving. Even supposedly non-moving power lines can have audible 60-cycle hum when you're standing right under them, especially near a metal tower, because no construction is perfect.
I have no experience myself, just hear-say. Last time I was in Vermont, I spoke with someone gathering petition signatures to restrict wind farms. This person lived near a set of turbines which went up after they moved to Vermont, and felt that it was like living back in Manhattan near a subway all over again - constant hum and vibration. It's not just about sight-lines and aesthetics; there are such things as noise pollution and other practical effects which *do* cross boundaries,
And, as a converse, if you had an opportunity to sit calmly in your SUV and observe from a position where you could press the gas pedal and drive away, but instead chose to get out of your SUV and confront someone in a public street for no particular reason, and then you got scared because the person you confronted got irritated so you now feared for your safety and felt the need to shoot him, *that* *IS* self defense on your own ground? And is accepted purely on your own say-so with hardly any investigation? THAT is the question in this case - this wasn't a home invasion, or even a clear attack. Hell, under these conditions, someone could shoot me on my morning bike ride because with my day-glow green shirt I look like an invading alien.
Yes. And look at how powerful they are - they can put on a show, making it as biased as they want, and *call* it a hearing so that the publicity and the historical record make it *appear* to have been an examination of facts.
Words matter. Semantics matters.
Is that supposed to be intuitive to *anyone*? Especially after years and years of experience that there should be an explicit "stop" or "x" or "exit"? Can you understand that maybe users are a little hesitant to drag their disk drive icon to the garbage can icon because they think it will be deleted - like a file - instead of ejected - like a USB stick?
If changing paradigms were that simple, it wouldn't be a catchphrase.
Maybe they should provide some compelling evidence that it's worth retraining folks for the new stuff.
There is an entire industry dedicated to training and retraining folks for rollout of new versions of Excel and Word and Windows, and Microsoft makes a small fortune certifying and recertifying people. I think the evidence is clear that it's worthwhile to *someone*. Just not the average user.:-)
Then it's you. Sorry, either you don't want to like it, or you are to stupid to think about it for 10 seconds
How about a third option, that applies to lots of people from Microsoft through Linux and open source.
- Someone had a way of doing things. Right, wrong, whatever, it's been the usual way for years. I learned to work with it, and got used to it.
- Someone changed their way of doing things for no particular reason and, more importantly, deprecated (read "dropped like a rock") the way that THEY THEMSELVES had been pushing as the PREFERRED way for a long time.
- Now all my reflexes, habits, and experience are taking me in the wrong direction, and rather than seeing any benefit from the change all I'm seeing is annoyance.
Same problem when a store rearranges all of its shelves. In that case, you *know* it's designed to make your life harder in the hopes you'll notice something new to buy. In the UI case, like Microsoft Word randomly rearranging the menus every release, it's just a pain.
... and emphasizes why most of the software or process patents make no sense. When people came out with plastic sleeve pages for photos instead of little glued paper corners on blank paper, they didn't need to explain it as a new way of making a photo album; but digital manipulation of digital photos somehow became a whole new concept. Email is not paper mail, but it's like voicemail or fax (themselves already legally equated to older technology), and the *concept* of mail isn't new.
I remember when it was a big deal that a TV show was being carried over long distance "live via satellite". Now that's how people get their *normal* TV - heck, it's how people listen to radio in their cars. The fact that it's digital instead of analog is NOT a big deal - yes, there's lots of technology change, but it's still "receive a broadcast radio signal". It doesn't need new definitions and new rules and new laws.
Obvious, but not enough. I already have personal accounts in my real name. In order for business contacts to find me, I'd have to use my real name on the work accounts. This account is a nom de plume, but I didn't do that everywhere, because I needed to be real for things like job searches.
You owe it to someone who is much better at managing and redistributing money: the United States government.
Hold on a minute, the real government doesn't do this and hasn't proposed this, so don't blame them. Blame the person proposing this for obfuscating the issues.
Re:This is why a flat tax will not work.
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
But notice - your bank balance appreciates due to interest, and you don't take it out - you just leave it there. It is nonetheless taxed as income.
No, your balance does not appreciate. The bank pays you rent for your money in order to lend it to someone else. This is not appreciation in value; it is an explicit payment, and therefore income to be taxed, just as if you were renting out property or renting out yourself (also called "working for pay").
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
It's different because you are taxed on the proportion of the valuation of your property to the total valuation of the town, not on the absolute value. The town comes up with a budget, and that cost is split proportionately. When your market value went up, probably all of the houses in your neighborhood also went up, so the proportion remained similar; your property tax probably went up because the town expenditures have gone up. As the housing market has collapsed (prices in my town are down 20%), *everybody's* valuation is down, but the town still has the same budgets and commitments, so the property taxes haven't gone down. When my income collapsed between jobs, on the other hand, my *income* tax went down, because income tax is based on absolute value.
Re:Don't you have real estate taxes in the USA?
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Yes, your REAL ESTATE tax increased, as has mine in New Jersey. But you didn't also get taxed as if you had made a profit on the sale you didn't make.
If Steve Jobs never sold a share of stock, then it's *reasonable* that he never paid taxes on money he never got. I question the OP on whether his wife will have to pay tax on the future sale's difference between (a) value at the time she inherited, or (b) the original purchase price (the same as Jobs himself would have had to pay). After all, she didn't inherit an amount of cash, she inherited an amount of stock, just like inheriting a piece of artwork with a fluctuating value.
They're not talking about scanning random people on the street....
Yes, they are. In fact, with a tool like this, they'd be stupid not to. It's akin to radar for speeding.
I grew up in NYC, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They *are* trying to keep random people from walking around armed, and getting a carry permit is not easy. In general, I agree - I'd prefer to have fewer weapons around. OTOH only after starting college upstate did I meet people like OP who live in rural areas, who actually have to deal with animals and/or isolated location, and for whom hunting can be an important part of the food budget for the year. I agree totally with OP that the problem is with the person not the tool. Same can be said of most security and/or trust situations. Unfortunately, the existence of such a "force multiplier" is too easy for bad guys to abuse, and it's too tough to know at a glance whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy, and should or shouldn't be trusted to walk around with explosives.
Slashdot Mirror
Most espionage cases involve someone with access (clearance, passwords, keys, etc.) getting information and passing it outside of the security perimeter. The access was legal, the passing was not. This case sounds exactly the same, and looking it up on the computer today should be no different from pulling it out of the file cabinet years ago (cue B&W film image of spy snapping pictures with Minox).
Do we really need 3D graphical desktops with moving wallpaper? Do we really need page-turning animations? Turn off all of the pretty crap in your system, and it works faster. (Plus I endorse the numerous others pointing out the drag of multiple layers of security.)
Bothered me the most about the waterboarding controversy: Is this the best we could do in this day and age? Where is H. Beam Piper's "veradicator" from the 1960s, or Lois Bujold's "fast-penta", or any of the truth serums described in fiction for years? (Of course none of them really find "the truth", they can at best find what someone truly believes, which could be completely wrong....)
Abuse could indeed make Orwell sound like an optimist; yet there is a legitimate place for interrogation in police and security situations, and torture is so last millennium.
How much of our economic statistics - both boom and bust - are tied up in meaningless garbage? And how much are bubbles like the random "values" assigned to housing rotating among different neighborhoods? What if we didn't produce 27 different sizes of toothpaste tubes and dozens of types of incompatible wall-wart chargers, and didn't have entire industry segments dedicated to producing waste paper and waste material? Imagine if the cost of food didn't have to incorporate the costs of producing and managing all of the coupons, and the costs of advertising in general - I'll bet we could feed lots of people right there.
... because then we'll be starving *and* the network switches will crash.
Ignoring the point that maybe there is a legitimate complaint, no matter what profession the complainants follow, does not make *you* look better either.
When the turbine was generating? Never stood near one myself, but I've heard (in person) & read more comments that they are noisy when operating than that they're just quietly whooshing. After all, there *is* gearing and machinery moving. Even supposedly non-moving power lines can have audible 60-cycle hum when you're standing right under them, especially near a metal tower, because no construction is perfect.
I have no experience myself, just hear-say. Last time I was in Vermont, I spoke with someone gathering petition signatures to restrict wind farms. This person lived near a set of turbines which went up after they moved to Vermont, and felt that it was like living back in Manhattan near a subway all over again - constant hum and vibration. It's not just about sight-lines and aesthetics; there are such things as noise pollution and other practical effects which *do* cross boundaries,
And, as a converse, if you had an opportunity to sit calmly in your SUV and observe from a position where you could press the gas pedal and drive away, but instead chose to get out of your SUV and confront someone in a public street for no particular reason, and then you got scared because the person you confronted got irritated so you now feared for your safety and felt the need to shoot him, *that* *IS* self defense on your own ground? And is accepted purely on your own say-so with hardly any investigation? THAT is the question in this case - this wasn't a home invasion, or even a clear attack. Hell, under these conditions, someone could shoot me on my morning bike ride because with my day-glow green shirt I look like an invading alien.
Yes. And look at how powerful they are - they can put on a show, making it as biased as they want, and *call* it a hearing so that the publicity and the historical record make it *appear* to have been an examination of facts. Words matter. Semantics matters.
A very imperfect mirror, yes, but a mirror nonetheless.
Not that he was the first to say these things, but that book says them so *well*.
Click and drag the screen to exit.
Is that supposed to be intuitive to *anyone*? Especially after years and years of experience that there should be an explicit "stop" or "x" or "exit"? Can you understand that maybe users are a little hesitant to drag their disk drive icon to the garbage can icon because they think it will be deleted - like a file - instead of ejected - like a USB stick?
If changing paradigms were that simple, it wouldn't be a catchphrase.
Maybe they should provide some compelling evidence that it's worth retraining folks for the new stuff.
There is an entire industry dedicated to training and retraining folks for rollout of new versions of Excel and Word and Windows, and Microsoft makes a small fortune certifying and recertifying people. I think the evidence is clear that it's worthwhile to *someone*. Just not the average user. :-)
Then it's you. Sorry, either you don't want to like it, or you are to stupid to think about it for 10 seconds
How about a third option, that applies to lots of people from Microsoft through Linux and open source.
- Someone had a way of doing things. Right, wrong, whatever, it's been the usual way for years. I learned to work with it, and got used to it.
- Someone changed their way of doing things for no particular reason and, more importantly, deprecated (read "dropped like a rock") the way that THEY THEMSELVES had been pushing as the PREFERRED way for a long time.
- Now all my reflexes, habits, and experience are taking me in the wrong direction, and rather than seeing any benefit from the change all I'm seeing is annoyance.
Same problem when a store rearranges all of its shelves. In that case, you *know* it's designed to make your life harder in the hopes you'll notice something new to buy. In the UI case, like Microsoft Word randomly rearranging the menus every release, it's just a pain.
So they've taken the graphical user interface back to a command line? ;-)
... and emphasizes why most of the software or process patents make no sense. When people came out with plastic sleeve pages for photos instead of little glued paper corners on blank paper, they didn't need to explain it as a new way of making a photo album; but digital manipulation of digital photos somehow became a whole new concept. Email is not paper mail, but it's like voicemail or fax (themselves already legally equated to older technology), and the *concept* of mail isn't new.
I remember when it was a big deal that a TV show was being carried over long distance "live via satellite". Now that's how people get their *normal* TV - heck, it's how people listen to radio in their cars. The fact that it's digital instead of analog is NOT a big deal - yes, there's lots of technology change, but it's still "receive a broadcast radio signal". It doesn't need new definitions and new rules and new laws.
Obvious, but not enough. I already have personal accounts in my real name. In order for business contacts to find me, I'd have to use my real name on the work accounts. This account is a nom de plume, but I didn't do that everywhere, because I needed to be real for things like job searches.
You owe it to someone who is much better at managing and redistributing money: the United States government.
Hold on a minute, the real government doesn't do this and hasn't proposed this, so don't blame them. Blame the person proposing this for obfuscating the issues.
But notice - your bank balance appreciates due to interest, and you don't take it out - you just leave it there. It is nonetheless taxed as income.
No, your balance does not appreciate. The bank pays you rent for your money in order to lend it to someone else. This is not appreciation in value; it is an explicit payment, and therefore income to be taxed, just as if you were renting out property or renting out yourself (also called "working for pay").
It's different because you are taxed on the proportion of the valuation of your property to the total valuation of the town, not on the absolute value. The town comes up with a budget, and that cost is split proportionately. When your market value went up, probably all of the houses in your neighborhood also went up, so the proportion remained similar; your property tax probably went up because the town expenditures have gone up. As the housing market has collapsed (prices in my town are down 20%), *everybody's* valuation is down, but the town still has the same budgets and commitments, so the property taxes haven't gone down. When my income collapsed between jobs, on the other hand, my *income* tax went down, because income tax is based on absolute value.
Yes, your REAL ESTATE tax increased, as has mine in New Jersey. But you didn't also get taxed as if you had made a profit on the sale you didn't make. If Steve Jobs never sold a share of stock, then it's *reasonable* that he never paid taxes on money he never got. I question the OP on whether his wife will have to pay tax on the future sale's difference between (a) value at the time she inherited, or (b) the original purchase price (the same as Jobs himself would have had to pay). After all, she didn't inherit an amount of cash, she inherited an amount of stock, just like inheriting a piece of artwork with a fluctuating value.
And many years ago, wasn't that Basic?
Only because "control access" sounds like comforting security, rather than "censorship".
They're not talking about scanning random people on the street ....
Yes, they are. In fact, with a tool like this, they'd be stupid not to. It's akin to radar for speeding.
I grew up in NYC, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They *are* trying to keep random people from walking around armed, and getting a carry permit is not easy. In general, I agree - I'd prefer to have fewer weapons around. OTOH only after starting college upstate did I meet people like OP who live in rural areas, who actually have to deal with animals and/or isolated location, and for whom hunting can be an important part of the food budget for the year. I agree totally with OP that the problem is with the person not the tool. Same can be said of most security and/or trust situations. Unfortunately, the existence of such a "force multiplier" is too easy for bad guys to abuse, and it's too tough to know at a glance whether someone is a good guy or a bad guy, and should or shouldn't be trusted to walk around with explosives.