Quoting TFA, which is paraphrasing the source whitepaper: "Security professionals need to consider that user education costs everyone (in time), but benefits only the small percentage who are actually victimized, he wrote."
Perhaps I am dense, but can anyone explain how this statement makes any sense whatsoever? User education benefits those who are actually victimized? Someone who has been victimized as a result of his own ignorance or failure to heed security advice/user education certainly has not benefited (other than to have experienced a real-life "teaching moment"), nor has the poor sot who got victimized through sheer bad luck!
Full disclosure: I happen to think the source material is short-sighted and takes a very naive view of aggregate risk, some interesting points notwithstanding. But the quote above is just pure nonsense.
Your post implies
1) That you believe health care providers are paid fairly under the current US insurance system (and indeed have much say in negotiating their rates with the insurance companies)
and
2) That you believe the cost of medical care is reasonable, and based on competitive free market economics
Agreed - I am not a big gamer, but I have spent many hours immersed in Deus Ex, and enjoyed every bit of it. As for the sequel, I will concede that it was not as good as the original (though certain things were improved), but even so I still play it through once per year or so. This is probably mainly due to the fact that it's the only game of its kind I have for my aging Xbox, and sometimes I just need some escapist fun.
Next time you decide to go off and write a bunch of opinionated rhetoric, you might at least consider reading TFA. Then again, since you are posting AC, what do you care?
Mod me troll or flamebait if you must, but I just cannot bite my tongue... er, fingers. To borrow some rhetoric from the Filthy Critic, holy shit does this show fucking suck. I cannot understand for the life of me how anyone finds any merit in this incessantly crude, unimaginative, overbearing, insultingly banal bullshit. It defies reason. I noticed a lot of banter in previous comments in which South Park and the Simpsons were discussed and/or criticized. Any mention of these two has no place in a discussion of Family Guy, which unlike those shows is a complete waste of time, resources, and intellect. The biggest conundrum of all is how in apparently trying so hard to wring laughs out of the audience at any cost, the writers of this mierda really are not trying at all. And yes, I'll admit I am editorializing, and have just wasted a good two minutes complaining about this absolutely miserable excuse for an adult animated comedy. Strewth.
Thank you to all who have pointed out that perhaps locking the parents out is not a sensible goal. While I think it is good for a child this age to understand the concepts of security and privacy, I don't think that it is reasonable for a minor to expect her own little private computing world, free of parental control. There should be some semblance of openness and trust in a healthy household, particularly between parents and their children.
But why pay any fee at all if there are free alternatives? Almost every indie coffee shop I know of where I live, plus a few big ones (Caribou was mentioned) offers free wifi... Given the choice between one of those and Starbucks, I will choose the alternative every time. And I like Starbucks' coffee! If small local shops see fit to provide this service to their customers, then I think they deserve to be rewarded with my business, even if I am not necessarily using the wifi service. It just seems that if little guys can find afford to provide free wifi, the likes of Starbucks certainly can and should.
No mention of Arthur C. Clarke's data cube, as posited in 3001! Imagine the entirety of a person's biological makeup, memories, and experiences over a lifetime, all captured in a portable storage device. If I remember correctly, this was sort of Clarke's concept of potential immortality. But perhaps the technology required is not quite within reach, at any cost.
You know, to be honest I am beginning to wonder if Comcast's meddling is limited to torrents. I am a longtime subscriber, and in the last 6 months or so have had major troubles doing seemingly ordinary things such as sending emails with attachments, downloading files from non-torrent sites, and most especially uploading photos with Picasa. I am extremely dissatisfied, and just about lost it when Comcast had the gall to send an advert for their new, faster service, for a $10 per month increase. Unfortunately there are few (viable) alternatives in my area, or I already would have dropped them. Eff Comcast.
While you are partly right about movies often being a shared experience, it need not always be so. Plenty of people view movies alone, particularly in cases where such movies have limited appeal. For instance, I happen the think the Road to Wellville is one of the best movies ever, while not many people I know share this opinion. No matter, because I enjoy it, and if I feel like watching it on my own (perhaps even in a semi-social setting) a portable video device would allow me to do so. Nevertheless, it seems rather short-sighted to assume that movie content is really the best use for portable devices - I would venture to say, as have others, that short news-oriented, special interest, and other very focused content would be the domain of the Video iPod. What about language tutorials for travelers and other educational content? That could be very useful. Such things are already appearing in the audio podcast arena.
Maybe she feels she has had a successful career, knows she has made valuable contributions to our justice system, and simply feels it is time to retire while she still is in good health. She should not be faulted for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Coffee Wars!
Quoting TFA, which is paraphrasing the source whitepaper: "Security professionals need to consider that user education costs everyone (in time), but benefits only the small percentage who are actually victimized, he wrote." Perhaps I am dense, but can anyone explain how this statement makes any sense whatsoever? User education benefits those who are actually victimized? Someone who has been victimized as a result of his own ignorance or failure to heed security advice/user education certainly has not benefited (other than to have experienced a real-life "teaching moment"), nor has the poor sot who got victimized through sheer bad luck! Full disclosure: I happen to think the source material is short-sighted and takes a very naive view of aggregate risk, some interesting points notwithstanding. But the quote above is just pure nonsense.
Your post implies 1) That you believe health care providers are paid fairly under the current US insurance system (and indeed have much say in negotiating their rates with the insurance companies) and 2) That you believe the cost of medical care is reasonable, and based on competitive free market economics
Agreed - I am not a big gamer, but I have spent many hours immersed in Deus Ex, and enjoyed every bit of it. As for the sequel, I will concede that it was not as good as the original (though certain things were improved), but even so I still play it through once per year or so. This is probably mainly due to the fact that it's the only game of its kind I have for my aging Xbox, and sometimes I just need some escapist fun.
Thank you for spelling Arthur Andersen correctly.
Coffee is always good.
Next time you decide to go off and write a bunch of opinionated rhetoric, you might at least consider reading TFA. Then again, since you are posting AC, what do you care?
Mod me troll or flamebait if you must, but I just cannot bite my tongue... er, fingers. To borrow some rhetoric from the Filthy Critic, holy shit does this show fucking suck. I cannot understand for the life of me how anyone finds any merit in this incessantly crude, unimaginative, overbearing, insultingly banal bullshit. It defies reason. I noticed a lot of banter in previous comments in which South Park and the Simpsons were discussed and/or criticized. Any mention of these two has no place in a discussion of Family Guy, which unlike those shows is a complete waste of time, resources, and intellect. The biggest conundrum of all is how in apparently trying so hard to wring laughs out of the audience at any cost, the writers of this mierda really are not trying at all. And yes, I'll admit I am editorializing, and have just wasted a good two minutes complaining about this absolutely miserable excuse for an adult animated comedy. Strewth.
Thank you to all who have pointed out that perhaps locking the parents out is not a sensible goal. While I think it is good for a child this age to understand the concepts of security and privacy, I don't think that it is reasonable for a minor to expect her own little private computing world, free of parental control. There should be some semblance of openness and trust in a healthy household, particularly between parents and their children.
But why pay any fee at all if there are free alternatives? Almost every indie coffee shop I know of where I live, plus a few big ones (Caribou was mentioned) offers free wifi... Given the choice between one of those and Starbucks, I will choose the alternative every time. And I like Starbucks' coffee! If small local shops see fit to provide this service to their customers, then I think they deserve to be rewarded with my business, even if I am not necessarily using the wifi service. It just seems that if little guys can find afford to provide free wifi, the likes of Starbucks certainly can and should.
That was fucked up. It would have daisies, not hearts.
No mention of Arthur C. Clarke's data cube, as posited in 3001! Imagine the entirety of a person's biological makeup, memories, and experiences over a lifetime, all captured in a portable storage device. If I remember correctly, this was sort of Clarke's concept of potential immortality. But perhaps the technology required is not quite within reach, at any cost.
You know, to be honest I am beginning to wonder if Comcast's meddling is limited to torrents. I am a longtime subscriber, and in the last 6 months or so have had major troubles doing seemingly ordinary things such as sending emails with attachments, downloading files from non-torrent sites, and most especially uploading photos with Picasa. I am extremely dissatisfied, and just about lost it when Comcast had the gall to send an advert for their new, faster service, for a $10 per month increase. Unfortunately there are few (viable) alternatives in my area, or I already would have dropped them. Eff Comcast.
While you are partly right about movies often being a shared experience, it need not always be so. Plenty of people view movies alone, particularly in cases where such movies have limited appeal. For instance, I happen the think the Road to Wellville is one of the best movies ever, while not many people I know share this opinion. No matter, because I enjoy it, and if I feel like watching it on my own (perhaps even in a semi-social setting) a portable video device would allow me to do so. Nevertheless, it seems rather short-sighted to assume that movie content is really the best use for portable devices - I would venture to say, as have others, that short news-oriented, special interest, and other very focused content would be the domain of the Video iPod. What about language tutorials for travelers and other educational content? That could be very useful. Such things are already appearing in the audio podcast arena.
Maybe she feels she has had a successful career, knows she has made valuable contributions to our justice system, and simply feels it is time to retire while she still is in good health. She should not be faulted for that.