say, 10 male, 10 female, those with a preponderance of posts on slashdot vs those who do not?
But sir, you repeat yourself.;)
Besides, what good is it to map the DNA of those who aren't contributing to the gene pool?;P
Seriously, though, if we wanted to map variation in human DNA, we'd need far more than 20 samples. Here's some info that might interest you -- it's an effort headquartered at Stanford to map the 1% of the human genome that differentiates human populations from eachother.
If you can detect someone trying to exploit it, why not just handle the exception properly, not import the document, and not crash?As hinted at by the MSFT spokesperson, for data collection about the exploit? Who is going to allow the app to phone home with info unless it seems like something serious is going wrong? Most users will happily allow Word to phone home with details when it crashes... plus if they let the exploit begin, they get a clearer picture of what the exploit looks like in situ.
Say you have a known vulnerability in your code, which fixing would require rebuilding your app from scratch (or damn near close enough to make it too expensive to fix). Also say that you have the capability to detect an attempt to take advantage of the flaw before any damage is done, and that shutting down the app will prevent further damage.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to shut down the app to prevent your whole network getting hosed? And doesn't the pain-in-the-assitude for the user maybe prevent them from opening shady docs the next time around?
Admittedly, it would be best if the flaw never existed in the first place. But if fixing the flaw outright is out of the question, why isn't this a good solution?
I'm sorry, I should have said "a lot harder to spoof untraceably". Do you think faxing from your computer (via modem) is any less traceable than faxing from a fax machine?
How about considering some of the _other_ parties out there? Yeah, you may not win, but if you get enough seats guess who holds the balance of power?
Well, seeing as the US doesn't have a true parliamentary system, the only way to get "enough seats" is to get a majority.
And believe me, the Republican and Democratic parties know what they have to lose should a third party begin to gain sway... they fight tooth-and-nail, even collaborate, to make sure they grind their shared enemy into the dirt. Reform Party. Green Party. Libertarian. It doesn't matter who challenges them, since as the party[1] in power, they can make sure fringe parties don't get the funding to really challenge.
[1] The Democrats and Republicans are, in essence, two sects of the same party. Yes, they fight each other -- but they understand that the two-party system is what is best for them, even when they are on a downward slant, like the Republicans are now. They're not above using proxy parties to siphon votes (see Republican funding of the Nader campaigns) -- but when push comes to shove, most Republican strategists would rather see a Democrat in power than a third-party candidate.
Even though I have a scanner and can send them encrypted PDFs, they insist that I fax them various bits of information for "security purposes."
It's not about security of the data being sent, it's about their own legal security.
A fax gives them a better paper trail -- it is theoretically harder to spoof, since it has the outbound and inbound telephone numbers logged on the receiver's end.
Also, banks and insurance companies are slow to accept alternate means of communication -- it increases risk of fraud. Never mind the heavy regulation they undergo, which slows down adoption even further.
As far as not E-filing, it also costs the IRS more to process, so that at least helps to keep one more negative about the income tax on the board.
Ah, yes, the old we-don't-like-government-waste-so-we'll-add-some-m ore-voluntarily.
The security concerns about e-filing are real (which is why I don't do it either). But is it really likely that the government will stop collecting taxes just because it's more expensive than not collecting taxes? No -- the collection cost will just continue to be passed on to us.
The shareholders? What about indirectly invested shareholders (like those who invest through a mutual fund)?
The executives who decided to break the law? The peons who carried their instructions out, knowingly or unknowingly?
Since a corporation is (in fact) merely a collection of people, with a little legal trimming.
Not in fact -- in practice. In fact, a corporation is a separate legal entity. The people are incidental to the corporation's existence, although there are (in the US, under SOX) people required to be legally responsible for certain actions of the corporation. That's the entire point of having corporations, really -- other than aggregation of capital, it protects investors from personal liability.
So after refund, about 9% total approximately... not too bad at all, considering 2/3 of that is medicare/social security, that (assuming they remain solvent, which I'm not too sure of) you'll get back after retirement.
I'm not sure we'll ever come to agree on this, but:
It's just that the employee shouldn't expect to use company equipment unmonitored or for personal use unless explicitly stated by the company.
I think there's some cultural conditioning there. Legally, the opposite is true -- we've just come to accept that almost all employers explicitly disallow it.
and out of a $400 bi-weekly check I paid at least $50-$100 in Social Security tax
Hogwash. Social security taxes have never been over 6.2%. Throw in medicare of 1.45%, and there is still no way you paid 12.5 - 25% social security tax.
Either your memory is shot or you're making up numbers.
You've got some weird views about property rights, too. Even in the US, unless an employee is informed that there is no expectation of privacy, then the expectation of privacy exists.
Not all employers are as hard-nodsed as they get, some have even found that it pays off to let employees use company property for personal use. That is, of course, until they get burned in a liability case.
Wow. My comment is neither interesting nor informative, AFAICT. Funny, maybe, since the PP was referring to the "useless, distracting, intrusive advertising" aspects of the dancing baloney... but I guess this goes to show that one man's funny is another man's informative/interesting.
I wondered how many dorks were going to pick up on the fact that what she was doing isn't private given that everything she's using is the company's.
Actually, at the time of the monitoring, the court found she did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, since then-current law and lack of disclosure of monitoring gave her no reason to believe that private correspondence was not allowed.
Because the woman had not been warned that she might be monitored at work, she had a "reasonable expectation as to the privacy of calls made from her work telephone." Internet usage received the same protection. In 2000, the UK did pass legislation that gave businesses certain rights with which they could monitor the e-mail and phone usage of their employees, but the law had not come into force when the surveillance in question took place.
Sure, getting people to read article/comments is important, but perhaps a little accuracy in headlines is appropriate?
It is still quite legal for an employer in the EU to declare that its computers, phones, etc are for business use only, and that correspondence will be monitored. This does not contravene Article 8, since only *private* correspondence is protected by Article 8; use of company machines for correspondence therefore makes such correspondence not private.
You really should look up the industrial revolution, and how many, many governments suddenly found themselves forced with the decision to either change to a more open form of government, or face open revolt.
Good working conditions actually give people inspiration to try to change their government
Since when did the industrial revolution create good working conditions? It did the opposite -- made small farming not tenable, drove workers to the cities where they, if they were lucky enough to have jobs, faced awful working conditions. Mass unemployment provided the time and incentive for overthrow of government.
If you're looking at philosophical movements among the wealthy, sure. Such activities require financial independence. But as for mass political movements, economic dissatisfaction is almost always required.
No one intelligent would put serious money into a situation like that.
I disagree. The risks are weighed against the expected returns/savings, an intelligent individual could make out like a bandit. As more online economies mature it's be possible to get a diverse enough portfolio that a lot of the risk would be mitigated.
Institutional investors, on the other hand, are more risk-averse, and also must answer to more regulatory bodies, as well as their clients.
As you imply, though, it's not going to happen until the site operators are willing to take responsibility for the funds... which is not likely.
No. The Coanda effect is different than regular wing aerodynamics. The Coanda fallacy, the first external link on the coanda effect wikipedia article, explains the differences.
I know you're a raving libertarian, and that's fine by me. br>I'm happy with the tradeoff of taxes for government services in NJ. Is the system perfect? No.
Oh, and I'm pretty glad you completely ignore the best parts of the state. I'll keep them to myself, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, what good is it to map the DNA of those who aren't contributing to the gene pool?
Seriously, though, if we wanted to map variation in human DNA, we'd need far more than 20 samples. Here's some info that might interest you -- it's an effort headquartered at Stanford to map the 1% of the human genome that differentiates human populations from eachother.
If you can detect someone trying to exploit it, why not just handle the exception properly, not import the document, and not crash?As hinted at by the MSFT spokesperson, for data collection about the exploit? Who is going to allow the app to phone home with info unless it seems like something serious is going wrong? Most users will happily allow Word to phone home with details when it crashes... plus if they let the exploit begin, they get a clearer picture of what the exploit looks like in situ.
Say you have a known vulnerability in your code, which fixing would require rebuilding your app from scratch (or damn near close enough to make it too expensive to fix). Also say that you have the capability to detect an attempt to take advantage of the flaw before any damage is done, and that shutting down the app will prevent further damage.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to shut down the app to prevent your whole network getting hosed? And doesn't the pain-in-the-assitude for the user maybe prevent them from opening shady docs the next time around?
Admittedly, it would be best if the flaw never existed in the first place. But if fixing the flaw outright is out of the question, why isn't this a good solution?
I'm sorry, but really... WHO gives a shit what EveryNickIsTaken thinks?
How about judging TFA on its merits, not the fact that it was written by someone you don't know.
I'm sorry, I should have said "a lot harder to spoof untraceably". Do you think faxing from your computer (via modem) is any less traceable than faxing from a fax machine?
And believe me, the Republican and Democratic parties know what they have to lose should a third party begin to gain sway... they fight tooth-and-nail, even collaborate, to make sure they grind their shared enemy into the dirt. Reform Party. Green Party. Libertarian. It doesn't matter who challenges them, since as the party[1] in power, they can make sure fringe parties don't get the funding to really challenge.
[1] The Democrats and Republicans are, in essence, two sects of the same party. Yes, they fight each other -- but they understand that the two-party system is what is best for them, even when they are on a downward slant, like the Republicans are now. They're not above using proxy parties to siphon votes (see Republican funding of the Nader campaigns) -- but when push comes to shove, most Republican strategists would rather see a Democrat in power than a third-party candidate.
A fax gives them a better paper trail -- it is theoretically harder to spoof, since it has the outbound and inbound telephone numbers logged on the receiver's end.
Also, banks and insurance companies are slow to accept alternate means of communication -- it increases risk of fraud. Never mind the heavy regulation they undergo, which slows down adoption even further.
Ah, yes, the old we-don't-like-government-waste-so-we'll-add-some-
The security concerns about e-filing are real (which is why I don't do it either). But is it really likely that the government will stop collecting taxes just because it's more expensive than not collecting taxes? No -- the collection cost will just continue to be passed on to us.
The shareholders?
What about indirectly invested shareholders (like those who invest through a mutual fund)?
The executives who decided to break the law? The peons who carried their instructions out, knowingly or unknowingly?
Not in fact -- in practice. In fact, a corporation is a separate legal entity. The people are incidental to the corporation's existence, although there are (in the US, under SOX) people required to be legally responsible for certain actions of the corporation. That's the entire point of having corporations, really -- other than aggregation of capital, it protects investors from personal liability.
So after refund, about 9% total approximately... not too bad at all, considering 2/3 of that is medicare/social security, that (assuming they remain solvent, which I'm not too sure of) you'll get back after retirement.
I think there's some cultural conditioning there. Legally, the opposite is true -- we've just come to accept that almost all employers explicitly disallow it.
Either your memory is shot or you're making up numbers.
You've got some weird views about property rights, too. Even in the US, unless an employee is informed that there is no expectation of privacy, then the expectation of privacy exists.
Not all employers are as hard-nodsed as they get, some have even found that it pays off to let employees use company property for personal use. That is, of course, until they get burned in a liability case.
Wow. My comment is neither interesting nor informative, AFAICT. Funny, maybe, since the PP was referring to the "useless, distracting, intrusive advertising" aspects of the dancing baloney... but I guess this goes to show that one man's funny is another man's informative/interesting.
Sure, getting people to read article/comments is important, but perhaps a little accuracy in headlines is appropriate?
It is still quite legal for an employer in the EU to declare that its computers, phones, etc are for business use only, and that correspondence will be monitored. This does not contravene Article 8, since only *private* correspondence is protected by Article 8; use of company machines for correspondence therefore makes such correspondence not private.
Oh great. I, for one, do not welcome the increase in message board spamming.
If you're looking at philosophical movements among the wealthy, sure. Such activities require financial independence. But as for mass political movements, economic dissatisfaction is almost always required.
Even without the local climate change, the Greenland settlements were not self-sufficient. They needed to import fuel, for one thing.
Institutional investors, on the other hand, are more risk-averse, and also must answer to more regulatory bodies, as well as their clients.
As you imply, though, it's not going to happen until the site operators are willing to take responsibility for the funds... which is not likely.
No. The Coanda effect is different than regular wing aerodynamics. The Coanda fallacy, the first external link on the coanda effect wikipedia article, explains the differences.
I know you're a raving libertarian, and that's fine by me. br>I'm happy with the tradeoff of taxes for government services in NJ. Is the system perfect? No.
Oh, and I'm pretty glad you completely ignore the best parts of the state. I'll keep them to myself, thanks.