"Having the keys matters not. You still cant destroy the backup that is no longer in your possession."
The *real* question is: Unix-like systems are at C1 orange book level. Windows are a bit more C2-ish but a real nightmare to deal with them in such fashion.
Too technical? I'll tell it straight then. Both in unix-like and Windows environments there will be at least one admin with god-like privileges; deal with it.
The poster of the question doesn't even tell us what does "protect" means to him, so it's very difficult to go into detail about what "deal with it" means exactly. But it surely means "pay it properly and show him due respect and professionality". In other words: treat people like people, not assets. It won't avoid somebody going mad, but it will avoid usual "leave in anger" scenarios.
Oh! and with regards of your protected backups: the admin is god-like I said; what does stop him to hide a logic bomb within the backup such as it will delete everything once reinstalled unless your rogue admin is there to do something to avoid it? That's just the first thing that came to my mind.
"So after t+8 minutes when the earth goes flying away from where the sun isn't any more, will we say: "Oh shit, the sun just vanished!"" or "Oh shit, the sun vanished 8 minutes ago and we just felt the effects!"
If such a thing could really happen (suddenly vanishing of a massive object without further consquencies) it would no matter what would you say. Let's take the Earth itself: it orbits around the Sun in an elliptic fashion. Well, it will perfectly orbit those whole 8 minutes; then it'll follow a tangent scaping trajectory. What's that? One of those cartoons where somebody is able to "float" just because he doesn't know about gravity, then somebody tells him and as soon as he knows he falls down?
You see it, you can monitor each and every physical property you can think off: it's there.
"I suppose you're trying to argue something about non-intersecting light cones being effectively different universes?"
Yes, I'm talking about light cones but, no, I'm not implying them to be different universes but trying to offer an operative "relativistic" definition for our intuitive concepts "past", "present" and "future".
Let's think newtonianly. What's the past? The past are the collection of things that happen in a time so their effects could already affect us (a bomb exploding yesterday). The future are the collection of things that happen in a time so their effects can't possible affect us (a bomb exploding tomorrow). The collection of things that can affect us as I tell this is the present (a bomb exploding right now).
See that talking "newtonianly" I talk about *the* past, *the* present or *the* future since, at least implicitly time is an absolute measure.
But once relativity enters the game, there's no more absolute measure of time, that's why I talk then about *my* past, *my* present or *my* future just as I must talk about *my* space reference frame when talking about space instead of *the* space reference when talking newtonian (since space is too an absolute within Newton's).
This transition from *the* time to *my* time offers some counter intuitive consecuences like this one about Betelgeuse. It's a fact that no events related to Betelgeuse becoming a supernova could have possibly affect me, which means Betelgeuse will become a supernova, if ever, absolutly in *my* future. And in *your* future for that matter too.
Then, when you say, "but once I know about Betelgeuse became a supernova I can extrapolate to the past and tell that it *really* became a supernova 650 years ago" what in fact you are doing is an undeserved time reference change. What you are in fact saying is not that it "really" became a supernova 650 years ago but that it became a supernova 650 years ago in a *different* time frame (one centered in Betelgeuse itself). Yeah, well, so what? It makes as much sense as saying that the Moon is not 380.000 Km away but zero kilometers away (which happens to be true... for someone living in the Moon).
"For example, we can reason geometrically about when the light from Betelgeuse exploding will reach Andromeda, and the how long it would take our neighbours at Andromeda to send us a message saying "Holy shit! Did you see that?"."
Yes. And what conclusion we can effectively reach? That there's no way that a message from our neighbours at Andromeda about Betelgeuse becoming a supernova can reach us but *after* our vision of Betelgeuse becoming a supernova itself. So if we see Betelgeuse becomes a supernova by dec-31-2011, the message from Andromeda will reach us only sometime in 2012, which perfectly correlates with our intuitive knowledge about how time goes (first things happen, then you start talking about "hey, do you know what happened?").
So, for us, Betelgeuse *really* became a supernova by dec-31-2011 instead of some 650 years ago just as much as the Moon is *really* 380.000 Km away.
"It would be called "the Supernova of 2011" because we name them after the observation year, not the event year."
The observation *is* the event. Something that happens in a time that can't possibly affect you is in your future, something that happens in a time that can possibly affect you is in your past, something that it is in the verge of affecting you is in your present. Let's imagine we see Betelgeuse becoming supernova by dec-31-2011. That's the earliest date that something regarding the supernova can affect us so that's exactly the date Betelgeuse becomes supernova. Everything else you can say about it is mere philosophy.
"Your twin brother, an interstellar astronaut, is scheduled to arrive at Star X today, Jan. 22. Star X is 10 light-days from your current location. Suddenly you look up and notice that Star X has exploded! Has your brother been killed? Not necessarily, because you reason that Star X actually exploded 10 days ago, on Jan 12. Your brother, traveling at 0.1 light speed, was still one light-day away from Star X on Jan. 12, so he might have been able to survive. You won't find out if that's true for at least 8 more days, but at least you have to admit the possibility."
But by the time the exploding start reaches me, news about my brother should already have reached me or else he's dead. The news you'd get would be more or less like this:
-This is captain Twinbrother transmitting from Uberspaceship in her "Let's go to that Far Star" mission. Mission time 61320H. All on-board systems working properly, still one year more to reach Far Star... Hey, wait a minute, our sensors are detectiFZZZZZZZZZZ (you, to yourself): I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if the voice of a twin brother suddenly cried out in terror, and was suddenly silenced. (then, your telephone rings) - Is this doctor Twinbrother? - Yes - I'm calling from the JPL. We just recieved info from our telescope Hubble III; you won't believe it! Far Star just became a supernova!
"the average small business doesn't use Linux and isn't about to switch so I decided to point out a solution that would fit into what they're willing to do rather than waste time beating my head against that particular wall."
With regards these kind of problems I'm more than glad that they *do* waste their time beating their heads against the wall once and again: the more problems they have, the more checks I collect. It's up to them to make their business case about being so tightly tied to a single almost monopolic provider. If benefits surpass problems, good for them.
But the case here is that they say hackers do this and that and they gain access to "a small business' computer" when the fact on this and a lot of similar news is that when they say "computer" they really mean "Windows" and the fact is that for other people that know enough to distinguish "computer" from "Windows" these kind of things are moot.
"Because it seems like a shell game that takes the teeth out of anti-pollution laws (by letting the wealthy and well-connected buy what are, effectively, exemptions to the law)."
Except they are not buying exemptions to the law. That's an economical problem (the one of externalities) managed at the economical level (exchange of money). As long as there is no surplus of stocks and commitment can be properly ascertained, everything is just OK.
You can find flaws to the implementation (it probably has them, even flaws introduced by malice) but you won't find any flaws with the idea.
"Those companies that are in compliance are following the law, not doing anything special."
True. That's why they are allowed to sell out credits they own *in excess* of being in compliance.
"Those companies who continue to exceed carbon emission standards should be fined progressively to the point that they achieve zero profit until they rectify the problem."
And then, the highest incentive you would be offering is the one of being in compliance. By cap and trade you are offering incentives to be *beyond* compliance. While doing so, new more effective industrial processes and methods will be put into practice and the selled out, again for a profit, for those not so good achievers.
Cap and trade can be a scam, can be unproductive, but certainly not because of what you say nor what you say is any better.
"it does exchange one source with a fairly high rate of errors against one with a fairly low rate of errors."
It's not only its human or non-human base that you should take into account, but its past track record.
Given that this kind of a control system should be software based, I'll ask you: what do you think that has a lower error rate? Your standard driver or your standard Windows install? Hard to say, isn't it?
"it may not be in your best interests for everyone to start negotiating with the company at the same time as you are."
It might not, but it usually is: 1) If it were usually the case that individuals were in worse conditions knowing each other salaries and negotiating them at the same time, you can bet HR departments at least of big companies would know it, so you would be forced to negotiate *exactly* that way. 2) It is not a USA truism that unions destroy economy *because* they manage to get better salaries/labour conditions than lone raiders?
"Nobody needs to know what you make, and honestly it causes nothing but trouble."
Specially for the company.
Information is power. The company knows what each and everyone makes, you do not. More bargaining power for the company, less bargaining power to you, little bee.
"I didn't know dying and dead were the same thing?"
Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
"There's no magnetosphere around the Moon. It's not healthy for humans to hang out there for too long. How are you going to justify shielding humans to work as miners"
Maybe this has something to do with the fact that they talk about robotic resource extraction?
"when it's one of the most unglamorous, unskilled and low-paid jobs on Earth"
What Earth are you talking about? Minering might be unglamorous but you can bet it's neither unskilled nor low-paid. And if we talk about minery on challenging conditions (i.e.: oil platform workers) even less so.
"Machines? We don't have the technology for fully automated mining. There is a vacuum on the Moon, vacuum cementing means that every single machine and lubricant needs to be re-thought."
Well, that's your bet. *If* (and I won't go here if that's a big or a little "if" now) there's the chance to make a profit, you'll see the technology growing up (there's nothing inherently impossible in fully automate, or let them go some workers to watch out, or monitoring/operating from Earth).
"STAR TREK WAS NOT A REALITY SHOW."
Luckily enough this time won't be like the last one. As long as it is a private endevour you'll be absolutly free to risk your money on it or not.
"Some companies have the capability to forward calls from an office extension to outside lines."
Yes, but then I have to return calls, and there my mobile number goes (no, concealling my number is not an option since my customers tend to not answer phones from concealed numbers. I know that and my employer knows that).
Not exactly. An employee paycheck is a payment for his work will, not work done. If there's no work to be done, the employee still gets to be paid by the end of the week. Not that such a situation could last for long, but that's the case.
"Employers are expected to provide the things *they dictate* you use for their business."
Well, yes, more or less; it's quite much a matter of convention, unhappily.
There was upon a time that a carpenter, or almost any other professional, was expected to provide his own hand toolset. Even today, how many companies do you thing that explicity pay for dress conventions? I for sure have paid for most of my neckties and suits even if the only reason for me to own them is because my employer *dictates* suit and tie: I'd be perfectly able to do my work on jeans and t-shirts and I'd do it on less expenses (against my checkbook), more comfortably and more efficiently even.
I wouldn't be surprised that in these days of "corporate rulez" more and more things we granted as obviously the company's reponsibility were thrown into the individual's.
"The people in charge of the technical things here are actually not the people who are trying to get bonuses."
That's why I asked for your definition of "we". Of course the engineers dislike appearing like asshats.
"The government oversight on the security of such sites"
So being a representative democracy, I'd say goverment is the kind of "we" to be in control in managing such externalities instead of "we", the high managers that get the bonuses.
Of course, your government is one of those damn communist ones, with their damn socialized social security, their damn socialized education and their damn regulations agains "we", poor international corporations, so you must be wrong, somehow you must be wrong.
"This article, from 2007, suggests that 82% of Americans have a mobile phone. Have we reached a tipping point where an employer might expect you to provide your own mobile phone?"
I have no problem with that. I'd even prefer that, since that way I choose the mobile I want and I don't need to carry two devices.
What I have a problem with is using my personal mobile *number*; it's mine and it's private. I don't want to deal with neither my current bosses nor my current customers once I don't work for my current company nor I want to change my personal number to avoid it.
Hey, I have and idea: Surely there's somewhere an study showing that 100% of CxOs of big companies own mansions big enough to support their assistant staff within. That's my deal, Mr CEO: I provide my own phone number and you provide your own space for your assistants.
"These people have no 'right' to a state-paid cell phone. Unless, of course, their jobs require the use of a phone while away from their office."
On one hand, the writeup clearly states that "employees, including department and agency executives who are required to be in touch 24 hours a day and seven days a week, may need cell phones". On the other hand, even those employees have no right to a state-paid cell phone: it's up to their employer to decide if empowering them with the tool makes a business case for its use or not.
"Don't think so. "usefully predictive models" points to "operative truth" which as different beast. Just "feel" how different "mathematical truth" and "physical truth" resounds. We feel maths to hold objective truth while Physics "only" leads to operative truth. The fact that Euclid can't be disproved while Newton can certainly helps to that.
I think that's how a mathematician feels on the difference between mathematics and physics, not necessarily how a physicist would feel about the matter:)."
Again, don't think so. A truth is, well, what it is. It can't change by itself unless the underlying conditions change. "it's raining" is true (really, it's raining here where I am) till it stops raining, no way it can be raining and not raining at the same place, time and conditions (of course you can play words all you can but then I'll drop the discussion right now). That means that if a physical theory is objectively true it can't move to false unless the subject of such truth changes itself, Nature as a whole in this case. Now, I can't imagine any physicist somewhere around 1920 crying out loud "My godness, Nature has changed overnight!" instead of "Dammned Einstein, has proven Newton wrong!". This clearly states, though implicitly, that physicists doesn't really think scientific theories being the objective truth but an operative truth, something more alike to "we'll consider the world really goes as this theory explains... for the moment, at least".
"However, both Euclid and Newton are also still correct within the context of their original development"
Wrong! Einstein proved Newton to be not only wrong, but utterly wrong. A theory is a theory not because it spits out some numbers that happen to meet the experiments but because it's a means to explain Nature. Of course Newton laws don't start to produce wrong numbers where they previously produced the good ones once Einstein publishes about special relativity, but the why they produce the proper numbers is completly thrown away. On the other hand, you can't disprove Euclid that way: it is still as true now as it was 2300 years ago that through two euclidean points in an euclidean plane it goes just one euclidean straight line. And that's not per chance: Lobachewsky's triangles summing up less than 180 don't make Euclid wrong but produce a different geometry instead. That's why you can count maths on being "objective truth".
"The issue is how to quantify the degree of approximation to the objective truth"
No need to follow. So you think (as it would think basically any physicist) that there is an objective truth out there and that the theory is an approach to such an objective truth, therefor not being the objective truth itself.
"The splitting of an atom is something of science, whether it is used to harness energy or whether it is used to destroy something is where the philosophers come in."
It's only that it is tycoons, politicians and lawyers the ones that *really* decide that, not philosophers.
Slashdot Mirror
"Having the keys matters not. You still cant destroy the backup that is no longer in your possession."
The *real* question is: Unix-like systems are at C1 orange book level. Windows are a bit more C2-ish but a real nightmare to deal with them in such fashion.
Too technical? I'll tell it straight then. Both in unix-like and Windows environments there will be at least one admin with god-like privileges; deal with it.
The poster of the question doesn't even tell us what does "protect" means to him, so it's very difficult to go into detail about what "deal with it" means exactly. But it surely means "pay it properly and show him due respect and professionality". In other words: treat people like people, not assets. It won't avoid somebody going mad, but it will avoid usual "leave in anger" scenarios.
Oh! and with regards of your protected backups: the admin is god-like I said; what does stop him to hide a logic bomb within the backup such as it will delete everything once reinstalled unless your rogue admin is there to do something to avoid it? That's just the first thing that came to my mind.
"So after t+8 minutes when the earth goes flying away from where the sun isn't any more, will we say:
"Oh shit, the sun just vanished!""
or
"Oh shit, the sun vanished 8 minutes ago and we just felt the effects!"
If such a thing could really happen (suddenly vanishing of a massive object without further consquencies) it would no matter what would you say. Let's take the Earth itself: it orbits around the Sun in an elliptic fashion. Well, it will perfectly orbit those whole 8 minutes; then it'll follow a tangent scaping trajectory. What's that? One of those cartoons where somebody is able to "float" just because he doesn't know about gravity, then somebody tells him and as soon as he knows he falls down?
You see it, you can monitor each and every physical property you can think off: it's there.
"I suppose you're trying to argue something about non-intersecting light cones being effectively different universes?"
Yes, I'm talking about light cones but, no, I'm not implying them to be different universes but trying to offer an operative "relativistic" definition for our intuitive concepts "past", "present" and "future".
Let's think newtonianly. What's the past? The past are the collection of things that happen in a time so their effects could already affect us (a bomb exploding yesterday). The future are the collection of things that happen in a time so their effects can't possible affect us (a bomb exploding tomorrow). The collection of things that can affect us as I tell this is the present (a bomb exploding right now).
See that talking "newtonianly" I talk about *the* past, *the* present or *the* future since, at least implicitly time is an absolute measure.
But once relativity enters the game, there's no more absolute measure of time, that's why I talk then about *my* past, *my* present or *my* future just as I must talk about *my* space reference frame when talking about space instead of *the* space reference when talking newtonian (since space is too an absolute within Newton's).
This transition from *the* time to *my* time offers some counter intuitive consecuences like this one about Betelgeuse. It's a fact that no events related to Betelgeuse becoming a supernova could have possibly affect me, which means Betelgeuse will become a supernova, if ever, absolutly in *my* future. And in *your* future for that matter too.
Then, when you say, "but once I know about Betelgeuse became a supernova I can extrapolate to the past and tell that it *really* became a supernova 650 years ago" what in fact you are doing is an undeserved time reference change. What you are in fact saying is not that it "really" became a supernova 650 years ago but that it became a supernova 650 years ago in a *different* time frame (one centered in Betelgeuse itself). Yeah, well, so what? It makes as much sense as saying that the Moon is not 380.000 Km away but zero kilometers away (which happens to be true... for someone living in the Moon).
"For example, we can reason geometrically about when the light from Betelgeuse exploding will reach Andromeda, and the how long it would take our neighbours at Andromeda to send us a message saying "Holy shit! Did you see that?"."
Yes. And what conclusion we can effectively reach? That there's no way that a message from our neighbours at Andromeda about Betelgeuse becoming a supernova can reach us but *after* our vision of Betelgeuse becoming a supernova itself. So if we see Betelgeuse becomes a supernova by dec-31-2011, the message from Andromeda will reach us only sometime in 2012, which perfectly correlates with our intuitive knowledge about how time goes (first things happen, then you start talking about "hey, do you know what happened?").
So, for us, Betelgeuse *really* became a supernova by dec-31-2011 instead of some 650 years ago just as much as the Moon is *really* 380.000 Km away.
"It would be called "the Supernova of 2011" because we name them after the observation year, not the event year."
The observation *is* the event. Something that happens in a time that can't possibly affect you is in your future, something that happens in a time that can possibly affect you is in your past, something that it is in the verge of affecting you is in your present. Let's imagine we see Betelgeuse becoming supernova by dec-31-2011. That's the earliest date that something regarding the supernova can affect us so that's exactly the date Betelgeuse becomes supernova. Everything else you can say about it is mere philosophy.
"Example:"
Is it really so hard to understand simultaneity?
"Your twin brother, an interstellar astronaut, is scheduled to arrive at Star X today, Jan. 22. Star X is 10 light-days from your current location. Suddenly you look up and notice that Star X has exploded! Has your brother been killed? Not necessarily, because you reason that Star X actually exploded 10 days ago, on Jan 12. Your brother, traveling at 0.1 light speed, was still one light-day away from Star X on Jan. 12, so he might have been able to survive. You won't find out if that's true for at least 8 more days, but at least you have to admit the possibility."
But by the time the exploding start reaches me, news about my brother should already have reached me or else he's dead. The news you'd get would be more or less like this:
-This is captain Twinbrother transmitting from Uberspaceship in her "Let's go to that Far Star" mission. Mission time 61320H. All on-board systems working properly, still one year more to reach Far Star... Hey, wait a minute, our sensors are detectiFZZZZZZZZZZ
(you, to yourself): I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if the voice of a twin brother suddenly cried out in terror, and was suddenly silenced.
(then, your telephone rings)
- Is this doctor Twinbrother?
- Yes
- I'm calling from the JPL. We just recieved info from our telescope Hubble III; you won't believe it! Far Star just became a supernova!
"No, but some terrorists with scuba training could cause a little bit of a problem..."
Ha! You forgot about the mutant bicephalus laser head-mounted sharks awaiting for such a diver!
"the average small business doesn't use Linux and isn't about to switch so I decided to point out a solution that would fit into what they're willing to do rather than waste time beating my head against that particular wall."
With regards these kind of problems I'm more than glad that they *do* waste their time beating their heads against the wall once and again: the more problems they have, the more checks I collect. It's up to them to make their business case about being so tightly tied to a single almost monopolic provider. If benefits surpass problems, good for them.
But the case here is that they say hackers do this and that and they gain access to "a small business' computer" when the fact on this and a lot of similar news is that when they say "computer" they really mean "Windows" and the fact is that for other people that know enough to distinguish "computer" from "Windows" these kind of things are moot.
"Because it seems like a shell game that takes the teeth out of anti-pollution laws (by letting the wealthy and well-connected buy what are, effectively, exemptions to the law)."
Except they are not buying exemptions to the law. That's an economical problem (the one of externalities) managed at the economical level (exchange of money). As long as there is no surplus of stocks and commitment can be properly ascertained, everything is just OK.
You can find flaws to the implementation (it probably has them, even flaws introduced by malice) but you won't find any flaws with the idea.
"Those companies that are in compliance are following the law, not doing anything special."
True. That's why they are allowed to sell out credits they own *in excess* of being in compliance.
"Those companies who continue to exceed carbon emission standards should be fined progressively to the point that they achieve zero profit until they rectify the problem."
And then, the highest incentive you would be offering is the one of being in compliance. By cap and trade you are offering incentives to be *beyond* compliance. While doing so, new more effective industrial processes and methods will be put into practice and the selled out, again for a profit, for those not so good achievers.
Cap and trade can be a scam, can be unproductive, but certainly not because of what you say nor what you say is any better.
"Evolution does not "care" if an adaptation is advantageous or not."
Of course it does care. Even to the point that "advantageous" itself is defined as "the ability to outspring the alternatives".
"it does exchange one source with a fairly high rate of errors against one with a fairly low rate of errors."
It's not only its human or non-human base that you should take into account, but its past track record.
Given that this kind of a control system should be software based, I'll ask you: what do you think that has a lower error rate? Your standard driver or your standard Windows install? Hard to say, isn't it?
"Reading email should be dead simple and safe.
Yes, it should. I can still remember when it was."
Yes, I do too. I don't need far memories. Maybe it's because I'm using Linux.
"it may not be in your best interests for everyone to start negotiating with the company at the same time as you are."
It might not, but it usually is:
1) If it were usually the case that individuals were in worse conditions knowing each other salaries and negotiating them at the same time, you can bet HR departments at least of big companies would know it, so you would be forced to negotiate *exactly* that way.
2) It is not a USA truism that unions destroy economy *because* they manage to get better salaries/labour conditions than lone raiders?
"Nobody needs to know what you make, and honestly it causes nothing but trouble."
Specially for the company.
Information is power. The company knows what each and everyone makes, you do not. More bargaining power for the company, less bargaining power to you, little bee.
"I didn't know dying and dead were the same thing?"
Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
"Wtf do they expect to find gold, diamonds, platinum?"
I would certainly expect to find Selenium, of course.
"There's no magnetosphere around the Moon. It's not healthy for humans to hang out there for too long. How are you going to justify shielding humans to work as miners"
Maybe this has something to do with the fact that they talk about robotic resource extraction?
"when it's one of the most unglamorous, unskilled and low-paid jobs on Earth"
What Earth are you talking about? Minering might be unglamorous but you can bet it's neither unskilled nor low-paid. And if we talk about minery on challenging conditions (i.e.: oil platform workers) even less so.
"Machines? We don't have the technology for fully automated mining. There is a vacuum on the Moon, vacuum cementing means that every single machine and lubricant needs to be re-thought."
Well, that's your bet. *If* (and I won't go here if that's a big or a little "if" now) there's the chance to make a profit, you'll see the technology growing up (there's nothing inherently impossible in fully automate, or let them go some workers to watch out, or monitoring/operating from Earth).
"STAR TREK WAS NOT A REALITY SHOW."
Luckily enough this time won't be like the last one. As long as it is a private endevour you'll be absolutly free to risk your money on it or not.
"Generally speaking, guns almost never kill people.... bullets, on the other hand, are another matter."
Bullets? Nah... It's not bullets what's dangerous, it's the speed they come with.
"Some companies have the capability to forward calls from an office extension to outside lines."
Yes, but then I have to return calls, and there my mobile number goes (no, concealling my number is not an option since my customers tend to not answer phones from concealed numbers. I know that and my employer knows that).
That's becoming a bit off-topic but anyway.
"An employee paycheck is payment for *work done*"
Not exactly. An employee paycheck is a payment for his work will, not work done. If there's no work to be done, the employee still gets to be paid by the end of the week. Not that such a situation could last for long, but that's the case.
"Employers are expected to provide the things *they dictate* you use for their business."
Well, yes, more or less; it's quite much a matter of convention, unhappily.
There was upon a time that a carpenter, or almost any other professional, was expected to provide his own hand toolset. Even today, how many companies do you thing that explicity pay for dress conventions? I for sure have paid for most of my neckties and suits even if the only reason for me to own them is because my employer *dictates* suit and tie: I'd be perfectly able to do my work on jeans and t-shirts and I'd do it on less expenses (against my checkbook), more comfortably and more efficiently even.
I wouldn't be surprised that in these days of "corporate rulez" more and more things we granted as obviously the company's reponsibility were thrown into the individual's.
"The people in charge of the technical things here are actually not the people who are trying to get bonuses."
That's why I asked for your definition of "we". Of course the engineers dislike appearing like asshats.
"The government oversight on the security of such sites"
So being a representative democracy, I'd say goverment is the kind of "we" to be in control in managing such externalities instead of "we", the high managers that get the bonuses.
Of course, your government is one of those damn communist ones, with their damn socialized social security, their damn socialized education and their damn regulations agains "we", poor international corporations, so you must be wrong, somehow you must be wrong.
"This article, from 2007, suggests that 82% of Americans have a mobile phone. Have we reached a tipping point where an employer might expect you to provide your own mobile phone?"
I have no problem with that. I'd even prefer that, since that way I choose the mobile I want and I don't need to carry two devices.
What I have a problem with is using my personal mobile *number*; it's mine and it's private. I don't want to deal with neither my current bosses nor my current customers once I don't work for my current company nor I want to change my personal number to avoid it.
Hey, I have and idea: Surely there's somewhere an study showing that 100% of CxOs of big companies own mansions big enough to support their assistant staff within. That's my deal, Mr CEO: I provide my own phone number and you provide your own space for your assistants.
"These people have no 'right' to a state-paid cell phone.
Unless, of course, their jobs require the use of a phone while away from their office."
On one hand, the writeup clearly states that "employees, including department and agency executives who are required to be in touch 24 hours a day and seven days a week, may need cell phones". On the other hand, even those employees have no right to a state-paid cell phone: it's up to their employer to decide if empowering them with the tool makes a business case for its use or not.
"Don't think so. "usefully predictive models" points to "operative truth" which as different beast. Just "feel" how different "mathematical truth" and "physical truth" resounds. We feel maths to hold objective truth while Physics "only" leads to operative truth. The fact that Euclid can't be disproved while Newton can certainly helps to that.
I think that's how a mathematician feels on the difference between mathematics and physics, not necessarily how a physicist would feel about the matter :)."
Again, don't think so. A truth is, well, what it is. It can't change by itself unless the underlying conditions change. "it's raining" is true (really, it's raining here where I am) till it stops raining, no way it can be raining and not raining at the same place, time and conditions (of course you can play words all you can but then I'll drop the discussion right now). That means that if a physical theory is objectively true it can't move to false unless the subject of such truth changes itself, Nature as a whole in this case. Now, I can't imagine any physicist somewhere around 1920 crying out loud "My godness, Nature has changed overnight!" instead of "Dammned Einstein, has proven Newton wrong!". This clearly states, though implicitly, that physicists doesn't really think scientific theories being the objective truth but an operative truth, something more alike to "we'll consider the world really goes as this theory explains... for the moment, at least".
"However, both Euclid and Newton are also still correct within the context of their original development"
Wrong! Einstein proved Newton to be not only wrong, but utterly wrong. A theory is a theory not because it spits out some numbers that happen to meet the experiments but because it's a means to explain Nature. Of course Newton laws don't start to produce wrong numbers where they previously produced the good ones once Einstein publishes about special relativity, but the why they produce the proper numbers is completly thrown away. On the other hand, you can't disprove Euclid that way: it is still as true now as it was 2300 years ago that through two euclidean points in an euclidean plane it goes just one euclidean straight line. And that's not per chance: Lobachewsky's triangles summing up less than 180 don't make Euclid wrong but produce a different geometry instead. That's why you can count maths on being "objective truth".
"The issue is how to quantify the degree of approximation to the objective truth"
No need to follow. So you think (as it would think basically any physicist) that there is an objective truth out there and that the theory is an approach to such an objective truth, therefor not being the objective truth itself.
QED.
"The splitting of an atom is something of science, whether it is used to harness energy or whether it is used to destroy something is where the philosophers come in."
It's only that it is tycoons, politicians and lawyers the ones that *really* decide that, not philosophers.