"If you can bring anyone in with an "Advanced STEM" degree then India will just open more schools to rubber stamp 'em. Race to the bottom."
Are you, then, against free market forces? If the labour market wants cheaper workforce more than it wants quality workforce, who are you to interfere on this true example of free market in action?
"This is a classic example of Convenience Sampling"
Yes, it is, but not because of what you think.
"Guess where the researches were located, that all their test subjects were students?"
The fact of them being students or attorneys at law or plumbers is irrelevant. It is convenience sampling because they needed a sample that already were using language to communicate in order to deprive them of this tool (which is also the utter flaw of the experiment) and it happens there is only one tipology that already fits the bill: modern humans.
No, this experiment is as stupid as it can be. They take a group that *already* uses a "tool" (language) as the means to acomplish a goal (collaboration), then private them of the tool and find that they are now worse at acomplishing the goal.
In other words: for a man with a hammer, any problem seems a nail. Now you take him his hammer and you find he's worse at driving nails. Brilliant.
"Oh congrats on being too stupid to understand the reason that language developed over the use of it."
Ok: rewritten as per the experiment: Animals already accustomed to talk as their main means to communicate find that talking to each other improves communication. Brilliant.
Now, for a different experiment: The study involved getting a number of dogs to try to make their own primitive stone tools, some allowed to use language, others not. The team discovered that there were no difference in the dogs' ability to make effective tools related to language allowance.
Conclusion:Language May No Have Evolved To Help Our Ancestors Make Tools
"Because the manufacturer has lower costs. The price they give to dealers includes the manufacturer's profit. The dealer has to increase price over what they pay for it to make a profit. If the manufacturer sells directly in competition with a dealership, the manufacturer could undercut the dealership so the dealership can't make a profit thereby guaranteeing sales and killing the competition through forced losses."
Think of it a bit harder, please.
The manufacturer would have the same costs as the dealer to run the shop and also the same profit expectation for the investement. The only way for the manufacturer to beat the dealer is if the dealer is selling above a reasonable profit margin, or by reducing their own profit expectations, which would make no sense.
"This is an example of why you would want to expire a perfectly ethical message, since while you can control what you preserve you cannot control how much context someone else must use."
Ok, you win. I already deleted my own copy.
Oh! by the way, you put the message above out of context, I'll take my original copy out and I'll demonstrate...
"Study the history of Athens, in which random people were routinely called into government service, and a lot of chaos and harm (including unjust violence) was the result."
You surely didn't expect me to offer a full essay on how exactly to implement it on a Slashdot comment, do you?
So, OK, let's study the History of Athens, in fact, let's study History if only to avoid past mistakes and build from that.
Some ideas: 1) Have a stronger public service so the bulk of the "boring things" are just managed professionally. 2) Don't throw away the baby with the bath water: don't refill the whole congress out of new people but allow the people to re-elect those that seemed capable. 3) Overlap the people so the new ones can learn the basics before they start their mandate 4) Don't make the lists fully open but stablish a modicum of criteria to be there that a big percentage of population can still meet i.e.: you can make a positive action to delete yourself from the election; some study level is requiered like a Bachelor's degree.
"Evil people who know what they are doing are still better governors than benevolent people who don't have a clue."
Still those benevolent but clueless citizens are nevertheless good enough to tell if somebody is guilty of a crime or not?
"Nothing new; see Cardinal De Richelieu (1585 -- 1642): "Give me six lines written by the most honorable person alive, and I shall find enough in them to condemn them to the gallows.""
Yes. And the best defense here is: 1) Don't allow for Richelieu-level authority (aka dictators) to rise. 2) When confronted with this six line text, be ready to offer the jury the other 594 lines of text that were deleted so they can see them in context.
Regarding point 2, remember that even if you have in place an "aggressive data deletion policy" as per Schneier words, this doesn't mean your foe will play by the same rules, and then you will have private yourself of your best line of defense against him.
Curious that Schneier sees that "The problem is a [...] CYA attitude among police that results in a knee-jerk escalation of reported threats...." but still sees no problem in the same CYA attitude when it is the corporations the ones supporting it.
Yes, the title says "Windows" but they avoid it then on, talking about "your computer" and make it look like they weren't talking just and only about Microsoft Windows and when the say EVERYBODY there were not talking ONLY about the Windows ecosystem.
"Well Six years is not a long time for an operating system to exist"
Well, six years is not a long time... when uprading doesn't offer obvious advantages and it is a costly nightmare.
On the other hand, when upgrading is easy, for free and you see things being better time after time, upgrading every two years is not much of a concern and even something waited for.
"their exists a very real possibility someone with an axe to grind may strip it of its context and use it against you."
And then, having full records showing both that the issue has been taken out of context and what a scumbag was the one doing so, is an asset, not a liability.
"What is appropriate conversation with say all male company over beers after work, may not be appropriate while still in the office"
Or is it that while a common behaviour it was not appropriate over the beers either? And then, even if what you say is the case, do you think are you serving well your company if you don't know the difference, nor enforce knowing the difference, between your corporate resources and an informal meeting over some beers after work?
"You don't want peoples personal lives tied to corporate assets."
If by "you" you mean "the company", then you are wrong: the company is perfectly happy having their employees' lives tied to corporate assets, which is part of the evil ethics culture that ends up bitting companies like Sony. It is the employees that should know better and not allowing their lives to be tied to the company. We are workers, not serfs or slaves.
"It would be a stretch (and a very disingenuous one) to make inferences about Schneie's ethics from his professional position in the matter (in the context of security) alone."
I don't think so. The man is the slave of his words and the master of his silence. Schneier is completly free to give whatever advice he deems appropriate and of course everything somebody says (given it has not been put out of context) reveals his ethos, specially if, as it is the case, it is full of behaviour indications:
"[in regards to the attack against Sony Pictures] there's another equally important but much less discussed lesson here: companies should have an aggressive deletion policy. [...] Everything is now digital, and storage is cheap -why not save it all? [...] Saving data, especially e-mail and informal chats, is a liability. [...] If Sony had had an aggressive data deletion policy, much of what was leaked couldn't have been stolen and wouldn't have been published."
Schneier could said just as easily something like this instead:
"[in regards to the attack against Sony Pictures] there's another equally important but much less discussed lesson here: companies should have an aggressive policy enforcing high ethical standards. [...] Everything is now digital, and storage is cheap -why not save it all? [...] Allowing psycopaths in your company, is a liability. [...] If Sony had had an aggressive ethos policy, much of what was leaked wouldn't have been published or, if so, it would just showed what a high standards company it is."
See? Still Schenier pointed the former, not the later.
"Please do not keep documents about Concentration-Camp details more than 3 Months."
Wow! Godwin law acomplished in the very first comment. That's a feat!
But then, I think you have a point: It seems to me that Sony's problems don't come from retaining old emails but from these emails being embarrasing to start with.
Schneier's position seems to be "don't worry about your poor ethics, just cover your tracks".
"many of the automakers would like to get rid of the old outdated dealership model but can't because they are already entrenched."
Are you sure? Dealership may be mandatory in USA but, AFAIK that's not the case in Europe but, still, automakers go with the dealership model here also.
"If direct sell is the only available option then the customer gets screwed. The company sets the price and acts in indirect collusion with other companies"
How the retailer system avoids this? After all, retail price can't be but the company-set price plus the retailer margin.
"All consecration is standalone? or where does it originate from?"
Sorry, my English seems not to be good enough, as I can't understand what you mean.
"As for the eternal value of the consecration, it's likely that some baptized guy does not receive salvation"
So what? I was answering about how someone becomes Catholic. Being Catholic is a necessary condition for salvation within their rules, but not sufficient condition.
"Baptism, "the way to enter the club"? I guess it was J. "I am the way" Christ."
Well, you are wrong, then.
"Baptism is more like the club's bumper sticker."
No, it isn't.
In the Catholic dogma, sacraments are so called "effective": they do exactly what they say -they are not just a sign of what happens but the way to make the thing to happen or the thing happening itself.
And then, baptism is considered one of the three sacraments with "character", which means they imprint on the soul an indelible sign: you forcibly need to be baptised to become Christian, being no other way to become Christian, and once that you get baptised you can't be "debaptised": you'll be forever a Christian even in case of apostasy -you rebel of what you are but you can't stop being what you are.
I said a dick, not necessarily the way to be a dick, which depends on the situation.
But then, yes, it's a must to tell *all* those bastards that think that looking at 22 guys on short parts running after a ball merits fighting each other to go eat their shit elsewhere and then, in this case, to all the Celtic fans that they should be much less than proud to allow that kind of behaviour under their ranks if or as long they haven't show their heaviest rejection to these kind of violent acts.
Which is exactly which I did few weeks ago when basically the same happened in the preceeding hours to an Atletico de Madrid match.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you can bring anyone in with an "Advanced STEM" degree then India will just open more schools to rubber stamp 'em. Race to the bottom."
Are you, then, against free market forces? If the labour market wants cheaper workforce more than it wants quality workforce, who are you to interfere on this true example of free market in action?
"Did any of the other areas have a congress that was actively importing cheaper labor?"
What's the problem? Isn't America proud of their free market approach?
There, your free market approach.
"This is a classic example of Convenience Sampling"
Yes, it is, but not because of what you think.
"Guess where the researches were located, that all their test subjects were students?"
The fact of them being students or attorneys at law or plumbers is irrelevant. It is convenience sampling because they needed a sample that already were using language to communicate in order to deprive them of this tool (which is also the utter flaw of the experiment) and it happens there is only one tipology that already fits the bill: modern humans.
"Yes, this is how science works."
No, this experiment is as stupid as it can be. They take a group that *already* uses a "tool" (language) as the means to acomplish a goal (collaboration), then private them of the tool and find that they are now worse at acomplishing the goal.
In other words: for a man with a hammer, any problem seems a nail. Now you take him his hammer and you find he's worse at driving nails. Brilliant.
"Oh congrats on being too stupid to understand the reason that language developed over the use of it."
Ok: rewritten as per the experiment:
Animals already accustomed to talk as their main means to communicate find that talking to each other improves communication. Brilliant.
Now, for a different experiment:
The study involved getting a number of dogs to try to make their own primitive stone tools, some allowed to use language, others not. The team discovered that there were no difference in the dogs' ability to make effective tools related to language allowance.
Conclusion:Language May No Have Evolved To Help Our Ancestors Make Tools
"Because the manufacturer has lower costs. The price they give to dealers includes the manufacturer's profit. The dealer has to increase price over what they pay for it to make a profit. If the manufacturer sells directly in competition with a dealership, the manufacturer could undercut the dealership so the dealership can't make a profit thereby guaranteeing sales and killing the competition through forced losses."
Think of it a bit harder, please.
The manufacturer would have the same costs as the dealer to run the shop and also the same profit expectation for the investement. The only way for the manufacturer to beat the dealer is if the dealer is selling above a reasonable profit margin, or by reducing their own profit expectations, which would make no sense.
"This is an example of why you would want to expire a perfectly ethical message, since while you can control what you preserve you cannot control how much context someone else must use."
Ok, you win. I already deleted my own copy.
Oh! by the way, you put the message above out of context, I'll take my original copy out and I'll demonstrate...
Oh, wait!
"Only a fool would keep potentially dangerous garbage when she didn't have to."
Only a fool would throw away potentially valuable information when she didn't have to.
So, back to square one, right?
"The public needs better education and thinking skills before they can collectively govern the country."
But they don't need such better education and thinking skills before they can collectively choose their representatives?
Remember that nobody insures democracy to be the best government but the most deserved and at least we get rid of the (corrupt) middleman.
"Study the history of Athens, in which random people were routinely called into government service, and a lot of chaos and harm (including unjust violence) was the result."
You surely didn't expect me to offer a full essay on how exactly to implement it on a Slashdot comment, do you?
So, OK, let's study the History of Athens, in fact, let's study History if only to avoid past mistakes and build from that.
Some ideas:
1) Have a stronger public service so the bulk of the "boring things" are just managed professionally.
2) Don't throw away the baby with the bath water: don't refill the whole congress out of new people but allow the people to re-elect those that seemed capable.
3) Overlap the people so the new ones can learn the basics before they start their mandate
4) Don't make the lists fully open but stablish a modicum of criteria to be there that a big percentage of population can still meet i.e.: you can make a positive action to delete yourself from the election; some study level is requiered like a Bachelor's degree.
"Evil people who know what they are doing are still better governors than benevolent people who don't have a clue."
Still those benevolent but clueless citizens are nevertheless good enough to tell if somebody is guilty of a crime or not?
"Nothing new; see Cardinal De Richelieu (1585 -- 1642): "Give me six lines written by the most honorable person alive, and I shall find enough in them to condemn them to the gallows.""
Yes. And the best defense here is:
1) Don't allow for Richelieu-level authority (aka dictators) to rise.
2) When confronted with this six line text, be ready to offer the jury the other 594 lines of text that were deleted so they can see them in context.
Regarding point 2, remember that even if you have in place an "aggressive data deletion policy" as per Schneier words, this doesn't mean your foe will play by the same rules, and then you will have private yourself of your best line of defense against him.
Curious that Schneier sees that "The problem is a [...] CYA attitude among police that results in a knee-jerk escalation of reported threats...." but still sees no problem in the same CYA attitude when it is the corporations the ones supporting it.
Yes, exactly that.
Yes, the title says "Windows" but they avoid it then on, talking about "your computer" and make it look like they weren't talking just and only about Microsoft Windows and when the say EVERYBODY there were not talking ONLY about the Windows ecosystem.
"Well Six years is not a long time for an operating system to exist"
Well, six years is not a long time... when uprading doesn't offer obvious advantages and it is a costly nightmare.
On the other hand, when upgrading is easy, for free and you see things being better time after time, upgrading every two years is not much of a concern and even something waited for.
"their exists a very real possibility someone with an axe to grind may strip it of its context and use it against you."
And then, having full records showing both that the issue has been taken out of context and what a scumbag was the one doing so, is an asset, not a liability.
"What is appropriate conversation with say all male company over beers after work, may not be appropriate while still in the office"
Or is it that while a common behaviour it was not appropriate over the beers either? And then, even if what you say is the case, do you think are you serving well your company if you don't know the difference, nor enforce knowing the difference, between your corporate resources and an informal meeting over some beers after work?
"You don't want peoples personal lives tied to corporate assets."
If by "you" you mean "the company", then you are wrong: the company is perfectly happy having their employees' lives tied to corporate assets, which is part of the evil ethics culture that ends up bitting companies like Sony. It is the employees that should know better and not allowing their lives to be tied to the company. We are workers, not serfs or slaves.
"It would be a stretch (and a very disingenuous one) to make inferences about Schneie's ethics from his professional position in the matter (in the context of security) alone."
I don't think so. The man is the slave of his words and the master of his silence. Schneier is completly free to give whatever advice he deems appropriate and of course everything somebody says (given it has not been put out of context) reveals his ethos, specially if, as it is the case, it is full of behaviour indications:
"[in regards to the attack against Sony Pictures] there's another equally important but much less discussed lesson here: companies should have an aggressive deletion policy.
[...]
Everything is now digital, and storage is cheap -why not save it all?
[...]
Saving data, especially e-mail and informal chats, is a liability.
[...]
If Sony had had an aggressive data deletion policy, much of what was leaked couldn't have been stolen and wouldn't have been published."
Schneier could said just as easily something like this instead:
"[in regards to the attack against Sony Pictures] there's another equally important but much less discussed lesson here: companies should have an aggressive policy enforcing high ethical standards.
[...]
Everything is now digital, and storage is cheap -why not save it all?
[...]
Allowing psycopaths in your company, is a liability.
[...]
If Sony had had an aggressive ethos policy, much of what was leaked wouldn't have been published or, if so, it would just showed what a high standards company it is."
See? Still Schenier pointed the former, not the later.
"Please do not keep documents about Concentration-Camp details more than 3 Months."
Wow! Godwin law acomplished in the very first comment. That's a feat!
But then, I think you have a point: It seems to me that Sony's problems don't come from retaining old emails but from these emails being embarrasing to start with.
Schneier's position seems to be "don't worry about your poor ethics, just cover your tracks".
"The only solution I see is if someone made a political website to educate the people..."
Here comes another solution: let's have a government duty, like that for jury, and at the very least you won't promote psycopaths into power.
"many of the automakers would like to get rid of the old outdated dealership model but can't because they are already entrenched."
Are you sure? Dealership may be mandatory in USA but, AFAIK that's not the case in Europe but, still, automakers go with the dealership model here also.
"If direct sell is the only available option then the customer gets screwed. The company sets the price and acts in indirect collusion with other companies"
How the retailer system avoids this? After all, retail price can't be but the company-set price plus the retailer margin.
"Independent GM/Ford/Toyota/whatever dealers don't want to compete with direct manufacturing sales. And they should not have to."
Maybe my naivety comes from not being American but... why not?
And providing they in fact shouldn't compete with direct sales, what's the benefit for the customer about having dealers instead of direct sales?
"All consecration is standalone? or where does it originate from?"
Sorry, my English seems not to be good enough, as I can't understand what you mean.
"As for the eternal value of the consecration, it's likely that some baptized guy does not receive salvation"
So what? I was answering about how someone becomes Catholic. Being Catholic is a necessary condition for salvation within their rules, but not sufficient condition.
"You're relying on a bad translation, the Hebrew text has "thou shalt not murder"."
Those quotes imply your cite is literal.
Good to know I can understand Hebrew... or else, your quote is not the literal Hebrew, right?
"Baptism, "the way to enter the club"? I guess it was J. "I am the way" Christ."
Well, you are wrong, then.
"Baptism is more like the club's bumper sticker."
No, it isn't.
In the Catholic dogma, sacraments are so called "effective": they do exactly what they say -they are not just a sign of what happens but the way to make the thing to happen or the thing happening itself.
And then, baptism is considered one of the three sacraments with "character", which means they imprint on the soul an indelible sign: you forcibly need to be baptised to become Christian, being no other way to become Christian, and once that you get baptised you can't be "debaptised": you'll be forever a Christian even in case of apostasy -you rebel of what you are but you can't stop being what you are.
I said a dick, not necessarily the way to be a dick, which depends on the situation.
But then, yes, it's a must to tell *all* those bastards that think that looking at 22 guys on short parts running after a ball merits fighting each other to go eat their shit elsewhere and then, in this case, to all the Celtic fans that they should be much less than proud to allow that kind of behaviour under their ranks if or as long they haven't show their heaviest rejection to these kind of violent acts.
Which is exactly which I did few weeks ago when basically the same happened in the preceeding hours to an Atletico de Madrid match.