Add a "me too" from a different perspective. Americans seem to have a funny sense for numbers, as if they held some kind of magic or something.
"Cnet reports on the death of the 5-year console cycle one of the video game industry's most longstanding truisms."
WTF!!!??? You can't make "laws" out of past tendencies unless you can relate the tendencies to a sensible theory. You see a more evident variant of the same illness in sports: "Los Alamos Takers never lost a game when being 3 below at minute 7 of third quarter" or "Minesota Vikers never lost their fith game after winning four in a row" -and the speaker seems flabbergasted when it doesn't work this time!!!
"They should have not disclosed documents which reveal internal reports and assessments of other governments, internal relations and legitimate negotiations between the US and other nations"
Why not, exactly? And then, if they *really* are "legitimate negotiations", what's the problem about releasing them?
"Having privileged information doesn't mean having to disclosed it"
Certainly not. But then you should ask yourself, privileged to whom? privileged about what? And then you might change your mind and ask it to be released in order for the privileged being privileged no more about that.
"Should a diplomat tell Mugabe that he is a festering idiot who is destroying his country? Or should he be polite while keeping superiors up to date on what is going on in Zimbabwe?"
What do you want to achieve? For you don't really think the way to get Mugabe stoping to be "a festering idiot who is destroying his country" is by *not* telling him, do you?
The only situation where you would want showing as a friend while informing your own country is that you *want* Mugabe to be "a festering idiot who is destroying his country" while you make your moves to take advantage from the wreak. I for one don't want our politicians to do that.
"Your "upfront and honest" policy might work in your makebelieve land, but not in reality"
Quite interesting you think so while possibly the only reason for you being able to write down this is because of a politician that resolved to be honest and perfectly clear at least once: Kennedy managed to cold down the Cuba missiles crisis by being clear about what could or couldn't be standed by USA. Probably the two-faced approach would have ended up on a global nuclear war, so go figure.
"Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info?"
Because he still is a public employee.
"If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say."
Or else, make damn sure whatever he says is on a properly secured channel. Or else, make damn sure whatever he says does in fact hold water.
And then, the one that knows about his secret shuld be grown enough to know those are the points of views of the one making the assertion, not the one being informed (i.e.: POTUS) nor the point of view of anyone else in government.
"eventually you depress the local economy and boost the offshore economy"
So the global conglomerate starts producing in the now depressed country and sells to the rich one and in the meantime the CxOs will be richer and richer no matter which is the producing and which is the buyer country.
You may think that this way both countries would tend to be equally rich with time, and you'd be right but, with time we will be death, so it won't matter to us on one hand, and you can have a stable circle once you don't talk about two countries but about the whole world.
"but you never have any way of knowing what other company data is on the phone."
You never have any way of knowing what other company data is on my brains. Hey, let's allow companies to cut ex-employers heads just to be sure.
Wait, don't grind the axe yet. What if we extend what's valid for brain-stored info to that of phones instead of the other way around? What if NDAs apply to all company data, no matter where it is stored instead of wipping off personal data out of personal phones?
"You miss my point. Why should they be taxed directly at all, when having them do business in your country is a benefit of its own accord?"
That's a valid point for people too: why they should be taxed when having them working in your country is a benefit of its own accord?
And the answer is the same too. Because it's not enough: corporations take advantage of the social infrastructure known as "civilized society" as much as people and they should help to maintain and enhance that infrastructure just as people do and then more, because people can't flush away their money from society but corporations do.
"The companies that get heavily taxed are at a huge disadvantage to companies which are in countries which don't have much for corporate taxes. Putting taxes on a company just puts a penalty on them in the global market."
You can see it that way or you can see it the other way: the companies that get taxed in countries which don't have much for corporate taxes are at an unfair advantage to companies that get taxed at civilized levels. Forgiving taxes on a company just puts a penalty on the world wide population on the global market.
"Berlin wants to - if you'll pardon the expression - unionize Europe more to prevent countries undercutting each other (and them) so much."
Yes. And that's a good thing, I should add. Macroeconomics at the country level (aggregated demand and offer, the imbalances between production and debt, taxes, etc.) are quite well known now. But countries are struggling because while they can control internally themselves, there's no global control worldwide. Taking tax heavens to an end would be an overall benefit for the whole world, but there's no one able to really do it because as long as just one country that doesn't work for the team, it would be in hugh advantage as would do those that took advantage of it existance.
Globalization should mean world-wide leveling of the playground but it means playing to the cheapest bastard. That would be good if it only affected the financial realm, but it works at the human level too (they are not cheaper because the are more effective but because they retain people just a bit above slavery). It must disappear. The sooner the people understands this, the faster we'll can go after worldwide stability.
"Whether or not this is noteworthy is up to the reader"
It *is* noteworthy, probably not in the intended way.
"Stackpole spending a decade at Microsoft. While Microsoft is chided for creating more insecurity than security, it is worth noting that no organization in the world has spent more on training its staff and developers on security than Microsoft. "
If Stackpole spent a decade at Microsoft, as implied, related to security tasks and Microsoft spent that much time and money to achieve such bad results, maybe Stackpole is not the one to be trusted for a book about security, I would say.
"Yes, it's a commercial product. And like many commercial products, it's available free for evaluation or for use by developers. However if you wish to deploy it on your production server, you should be obtaining a support contract"
No, that's not about support contracts. You need an usage license.
"which if you're serious about production is probably a good idea anyway."
"I know of a younger one. It actually just happened. Sorry though, the light from the supernova won't be here for 50,000,000 years. Go ahead, prove me wrong!;p"
OK, ok, I'll do it. If only you first tell me how did you get to know about your new black hole so I can corroborate your findings. If not, I'll simply think you were lying.
(This exactly why those telling this black hole is in fact 50.000.030 year old are not even wrong but making an unsensical claim).
"I also was under the impression that time slows down to a crawl within a black hole."
It really doesn't matter since the energy we are seeing comes from the outside of the black hole, it's not emited by the black hole itself (it is black, after all). On the other hand, it perfectly can be the case that Relativity simply doesn't work for black holes (so Relativity, both special and general are wrong/incomplete theories).
They *are* more than semi-realistic examples on two hands: 1) The general idea is that execs shouldn't laugh at a proposition of changing their procedures; they should make the numbers and see if the change holds water. Does it seem semi-realistic enough? 2) Increased sellings of SIL-based server-class motheboards coupled to the time when they released their drivers sources to the main kernel line.
And then, for an anecdote, I buy preferentially both computers and components weigthing high their known commitment to Linux support (and that means tens of thousand dollars).
Slashdot Mirror
"And this is news why ?"
Add a "me too" from a different perspective. Americans seem to have a funny sense for numbers, as if they held some kind of magic or something.
"Cnet reports on the death of the 5-year console cycle one of the video game industry's most longstanding truisms."
WTF!!!??? You can't make "laws" out of past tendencies unless you can relate the tendencies to a sensible theory. You see a more evident variant of the same illness in sports: "Los Alamos Takers never lost a game when being 3 below at minute 7 of third quarter" or "Minesota Vikers never lost their fith game after winning four in a row" -and the speaker seems flabbergasted when it doesn't work this time!!!
"They should have not disclosed documents which reveal internal reports and assessments of other governments, internal relations and legitimate negotiations between the US and other nations"
Why not, exactly? And then, if they *really* are "legitimate negotiations", what's the problem about releasing them?
"Having privileged information doesn't mean having to disclosed it"
Certainly not. But then you should ask yourself, privileged to whom? privileged about what? And then you might change your mind and ask it to be released in order for the privileged being privileged no more about that.
"Should a diplomat tell Mugabe that he is a festering idiot who is destroying his country? Or should he be polite while keeping superiors up to date on what is going on in Zimbabwe?"
What do you want to achieve? For you don't really think the way to get Mugabe stoping to be "a festering idiot who is destroying his country" is by *not* telling him, do you?
The only situation where you would want showing as a friend while informing your own country is that you *want* Mugabe to be "a festering idiot who is destroying his country" while you make your moves to take advantage from the wreak. I for one don't want our politicians to do that.
"Your "upfront and honest" policy might work in your makebelieve land, but not in reality"
Quite interesting you think so while possibly the only reason for you being able to write down this is because of a politician that resolved to be honest and perfectly clear at least once: Kennedy managed to cold down the Cuba missiles crisis by being clear about what could or couldn't be standed by USA. Probably the two-faced approach would have ended up on a global nuclear war, so go figure.
"The problem is that when diplomacy is the game, everyone lies. Being pure of heart in this game kills people, sooner or later, and lots of it."
As it does being double-faced. All in all being equal, I still would want to be percieved as honest and single-faced.
"Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info?"
Because he still is a public employee.
"If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say."
Or else, make damn sure whatever he says is on a properly secured channel.
Or else, make damn sure whatever he says does in fact hold water.
And then, the one that knows about his secret shuld be grown enough to know those are the points of views of the one making the assertion, not the one being informed (i.e.: POTUS) nor the point of view of anyone else in government.
"Cheap offshore labor is a short term thing"
It is not, when you are a global conglomerate.
"eventually you depress the local economy and boost the offshore economy"
So the global conglomerate starts producing in the now depressed country and sells to the rich one and in the meantime the CxOs will be richer and richer no matter which is the producing and which is the buyer country.
You may think that this way both countries would tend to be equally rich with time, and you'd be right but, with time we will be death, so it won't matter to us on one hand, and you can have a stable circle once you don't talk about two countries but about the whole world.
"but you never have any way of knowing what other company data is on the phone."
You never have any way of knowing what other company data is on my brains. Hey, let's allow companies to cut ex-employers heads just to be sure.
Wait, don't grind the axe yet. What if we extend what's valid for brain-stored info to that of phones instead of the other way around? What if NDAs apply to all company data, no matter where it is stored instead of wipping off personal data out of personal phones?
"You miss my point. Why should they be taxed directly at all, when having them do business in your country is a benefit of its own accord?"
That's a valid point for people too: why they should be taxed when having them working in your country is a benefit of its own accord?
And the answer is the same too. Because it's not enough: corporations take advantage of the social infrastructure known as "civilized society" as much as people and they should help to maintain and enhance that infrastructure just as people do and then more, because people can't flush away their money from society but corporations do.
"That's good. Really. Now they should contribute - directly too.
That's a nice assertion, but.... why?"
Because that's the way (the only way) they can't avoid taxing by means of internal practices (i.e: internal money moving among foreign divisions).
"Freeze their assets if they threaten to leave? I believe Cuba tried that about 50 years ago... do you remember how that worked out for them?"
Cuba is a tiny country. Ireland could be backed up by the whole EU. Not the same thing.
"The companies that get heavily taxed are at a huge disadvantage to companies which are in countries which don't have much for corporate taxes. Putting taxes on a company just puts a penalty on them in the global market."
You can see it that way or you can see it the other way: the companies that get taxed in countries which don't have much for corporate taxes are at an unfair advantage to companies that get taxed at civilized levels. Forgiving taxes on a company just puts a penalty on the world wide population on the global market.
"Berlin wants to - if you'll pardon the expression - unionize Europe more to prevent countries undercutting each other (and them) so much."
Yes. And that's a good thing, I should add. Macroeconomics at the country level (aggregated demand and offer, the imbalances between production and debt, taxes, etc.) are quite well known now. But countries are struggling because while they can control internally themselves, there's no global control worldwide. Taking tax heavens to an end would be an overall benefit for the whole world, but there's no one able to really do it because as long as just one country that doesn't work for the team, it would be in hugh advantage as would do those that took advantage of it existance.
Globalization should mean world-wide leveling of the playground but it means playing to the cheapest bastard. That would be good if it only affected the financial realm, but it works at the human level too (they are not cheaper because the are more effective but because they retain people just a bit above slavery). It must disappear. The sooner the people understands this, the faster we'll can go after worldwide stability.
"Those countries may be cheap but they come with a laundry list of disadvantages, e.g. the Chinese totalitarian government."
Which is a problem for a big corporation exactly how?
"Except they do contribute - indirectly."
That's good. Really. Now they should contribute - directly too.
"it is useful when comparing software to know which ones are certified, because it gives you the confidence that it will work in most environments."
I've never met a tech guy interested on app (or hardware) certifications, but more interested about if it in fact works on his environment.
Certifications and support contracts are of the interest of managers and this because the CYA factor.
"Its great to see that Open Source applications are being reconized by Microsoft."
Microsoft has never had problems "recognizing" open source apps. It's only with "copyleft" open source apps that it has a problem.
And, lo and behold! this app is distributed under the BSD.
"If they have N times as many lines of code to audit, they need to spend an absolute minimum of N times as much just to stay on level pegging."
That's exactly the point: with regards of secure development, if it's about auditing, then you are doing it wrong.
"Whether or not this is noteworthy is up to the reader"
It *is* noteworthy, probably not in the intended way.
"Stackpole spending a decade at Microsoft. While Microsoft is chided for creating more insecurity than security, it is worth noting that no organization in the world has spent more on training its staff and developers on security than Microsoft. "
If Stackpole spent a decade at Microsoft, as implied, related to security tasks and Microsoft spent that much time and money to achieve such bad results, maybe Stackpole is not the one to be trusted for a book about security, I would say.
"...with detailed requirements and specification from start-up"
So by it's own admission, it won't work.
"Yes, it's a commercial product. And like many commercial products, it's available free for evaluation or for use by developers. However if you wish to deploy it on your production server, you should be obtaining a support contract"
No, that's not about support contracts. You need an usage license.
"which if you're serious about production is probably a good idea anyway."
Which you'll get *on top* of your usage license.
"I know of a younger one. It actually just happened. Sorry though, the light from the supernova won't be here for 50,000,000 years. Go ahead, prove me wrong! ;p"
OK, ok, I'll do it. If only you first tell me how did you get to know about your new black hole so I can corroborate your findings. If not, I'll simply think you were lying.
(This exactly why those telling this black hole is in fact 50.000.030 year old are not even wrong but making an unsensical claim).
"I also was under the impression that time slows down to a crawl within a black hole."
It really doesn't matter since the energy we are seeing comes from the outside of the black hole, it's not emited by the black hole itself (it is black, after all). On the other hand, it perfectly can be the case that Relativity simply doesn't work for black holes (so Relativity, both special and general are wrong/incomplete theories).
"Are you suggesting that there's a global frame of reference?"
No, but he could argue that there's in fact a *privileged* frame of reference with regards of age: the one centered on the object to be dated.
""I pick stuff that's compatible with Linux" != "I won't buy it if you won't give me a .pdf.""
Marketing is such a subtle stuff, isn't it?
"Can we at least pick semi-realistic examples?"
They *are* more than semi-realistic examples on two hands:
1) The general idea is that execs shouldn't laugh at a proposition of changing their procedures; they should make the numbers and see if the change holds water. Does it seem semi-realistic enough?
2) Increased sellings of SIL-based server-class motheboards coupled to the time when they released their drivers sources to the main kernel line.
And then, for an anecdote, I buy preferentially both computers and components weigthing high their known commitment to Linux support (and that means tens of thousand dollars).