First off, the tax in question here is a payroll tax which comes out of the employees' salaries and stock options. So this is a good thing for workers at Twitter.
TFS is a bit ambiguous as are all the left-leaning sites that are bouncing this around everywhere as a fine example of corporate greed.
The workers pay a wage tax but the Payroll Expense Tax is an additional 1.5% tax that the company must pay on the sum of its wages for the year. It's independent of the worker wage tax.
Sad part is, this has been in place since about 1970 - yet in 2011, even with this tax and a host of others, they're STILL in the red by 40-some million dollars a year.
Other than the one point of fact, I agree with you 100%
Erm, don't you need to *not* show up at a store in order to boycott?
A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons.
Someone comes and titles a post "fuck you slashdot", yet I'm the one being an ass? Then you go on to describe a completely separate issue (one that I happen to have as well) as if that somehow excuses his post?
"That chart shows that Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster."
Okay, really? I see two flaws here. a) He didn't do anything in his first couple of months to "save the economy" yet the improvements start in Jan 2009. B) when the government is in the business of "creating jobs", the long-term benefits of this are very questionable (literally - that's a debate been going on for years, and we're not going to solve it here)
My point is that you can't look at one chart that says "hey unemployment is decreasing" and claim that Obama has saved us, any more than you could say the new jobs created by the war in Iraq have saved us. It's the same government creation of jobs, just in different ways .
I don't understand how your post got modded up so quickly, usually slashdot has plenty of folks who will call out the kind of incomplete logic you've shown. (And mod it down)
Is it really so hard to post to the actual source of this type of information? Instead submitter links to networkworld... which for some reason links to the leaderboard, but not the download site.
For those wondering, here's the download link: http://www.darpa.mil/VideoFiles/ACTUV/DARPA%20ACTUV%20Game.zip
Probably because you haven't yet learned the intricacies of the "web browser", the "mouse" and quite possibly "the computer". Orrrr... you're somehow being served up a different version of slashdot than the rest of us.
That's kind of the point (at least as far as I'm concerned - not that I'm following the internals of this, just applying logic). Why should users have to worry about x.y at all? I'm on version 6. You're on version 8. End of story.
It's actually always been pretty arbitrary. There's no committee that defines standard version number practices; and as such they're all over the board. From the countless 0-dot releases of open source projects, to Chrome's "major" release number. In the end, it doesn't really matter to anyone except developers. In reality each release contains changes from the prior release. Some releases introduce incompatibilities - but those are documented anyway, and don't gain much by using a special numbering to indicate it. (Especially because no two project can agree on that numbering scheme.) By using whole numbers, you're reducing confusion from the typical major/minor/minorer*/minorest* pattern. A version is a release of the software - end of story.
Of all the stupid features from Chrome to pick up, the version numbers is, by far, the dumbest. Has anyone considered how stupid a version number in the high double digits might be? Firefox 81 seems kind of clunky, doesn't it?
Far less ridiculous than "0.12.6-12ubuntu3" (apachetop) or even just "0.48.1" (inkscape) - presumably because those packages aren't at "1.0" quality yet, whatever that means.
If you're making user-facing tools, using decimal numbers is confusing at best. "Did you say install 2.3.1 or 2.1.3?" Simple, whole-number revisions make it much easier to manage.
I thnk you're missing the point: if you don't have the knowledge to understand the science, then you must take on faith that those who do, a) do, and b) are relaying the correct information.
You could study for a decade or two in order to attain the same knowledge and verify it for yourself... but until you do that, your only option is to place your trust (and faith) in those who have already done that.
Or you could... you know, give them what they want. Them being customers and all...
Eh? Yeah, I've a biased perspective, but also have the experience to know that developing for BB isn't the horror show that people tend to think it is.
I would assume that this is their best attempt at simulating the overproduction of the hormone -- on the theory that this overproduction is similar to the overproduction of the same hormones that occurs in humans, while understanding it's not an exact analog. I think this is pretty common in lab testing (though it's not my field, so I can't be sure).
I don't know. Let me punch you in the face after I play GTA and I'll get back to you on how much I can empathize with how your broken nose makes you feel.
This has nothing to do with male pattern baldness despite the grand title. It only allows showed the hair loss specifically related to stress to be reversed -- which actually can also happen on its own if you remove the stressor(s) that are causing it to occur.
I agree at least with both. Because in neither proposition do you suggest trying to protect the user in any way or otherwise make them feel secure. And your part of the answer is not incompatible with my own.
Because of crazy hippies, people forget mankind IS part of the environment. Selective breeding, generally to enhance a symbiotic relationship is part of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships are well known to exist throughout nature, in many, many environments without man. For example, some species of groupers and eels are known to have developed a symbiotic relationship and body language which initiates a group hunt for other food sources. In this case, if the good source bolts upward, the grouper gets it. If it stays down low, the eel gets it. Without such symbiosis, the food would have likely escaped.Selective breeding to bias specific genes (such as to avoid birth defects, genetic diseases, or larger milk production) is not the same thing as entirely new variants created by splicing in entirely new genes; such as those used to create jellyfish-grass, etc., etc., etc
True - it is not the same thing. By the same token, it's hard to say that something is not part of the environment (or "natural" if we want to get hippy about it) because man created it. I suppose we're wandering into philosophical territory here, but unless man is creating something out of building blocks that don't exist in the environment, then I have a hard time seeing a case for these things not being part of the environment themselves.
"Impossible"? Hardly. He probably means "hardcoded" as in "embedded in the browser's files", not as "embedded in the code". The browser could still have a UI to manage those certificates. And even if there's no UI, it would be possible to revoke the certificate by upgrading the browser.
You know that's... um, no different that putting in the code, right? If you have to deploy a product to the user, putting it in the code is identical to putting it in a file that you distribute with the code.
Ask the user if he wants to trust other installed certificates.
There's no point in asking a user a security question they don't understand, especially if it has long-lasting subtle consequences. They'll just say "yes" or "no" at random. We saw that with screensaver trojans. We'll see it again here. Any widespread mechanism must not require lots of fiddling around by users; it's got to be as permissive as possible while still being reasonably safe.
The only way to code a technically perfect solution that obviates the need for a brain is to also code the technically perfect user. That said, asking the user that particular question is a bad plan as you said - it's meaningless to the user. Especially if they accidentally click "no" and then don't understand why nothing works.
Our current approach of trying to solve it technologically (via CAs, anti-malware when we're speaking more generally, and other tools) is in large part WHY most users are so unable to comprehend the problem. We give the users tools and say "with these tools you are Safe, so long as you always use these tools". Examples: firewall clients, antivirus software, and "if the icon is blue, then it's safe to use the site". Then we wonder why they don't believe it when they see something that says they're NOT safe.
I've run against that too often. "But I have antivirus, and it says I'm up to date." "My antivirus scanned that email, so the link it includes is OK."
There needs to be a massive effort to educate users on why this stuff is important, and the risks associated with ignoring it. It's a long process, and it requires making people AWARE of security -- and aware that installing the latest AV updates doesn't make them secure. (Of course, the AV vendors will continue to sell their false security, which is a serious hindrance.) THEN you can proceed with a solution that requires the user to use his brain and make a decision. But it's critical that they be trained out automatically clicking the "get me past this annoying screen so I can see my bunnies" button.
Unfortunately, letting people decide whom they do and do not trust is also a non-starter. Or it's a good, optional measure, but it cannot be a default step.
Unfortunately, this is the ONLY possible option in the end. Everything else is a stopgap attempt at "solving" the problem that people can't/won't/aren't aware of the need to do this effectively.
In reality verisign and thawte issued all certificates I care about. Why I'd need any others, I do not know, but still there are scores of CA's in my browsers.
You really think that they can't unknowingly issue fraudulent certs? What rock have you been living under?
Educate people. Give them the tools they need to use systems intelligently - make it as easy as humanly possible. But at some point, you need to take the training wheels off.
The rest of your comments are fairly political and out of this discussion's scope. (I mention this only b/c I hate when I make a detailed reply and the respondent picks and chooses the parts he wants to reply to --while ignoring those he has no answer for. I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, it's just not relevant to the discussion here. )
Slashdot Mirror
This is the reason I never leave home without a balloon attached to my tin foil hat.
It conducts electricity better than hair?
But if the protocol is still flawed, does the rest really help you?
Ah, see? Then it really WAS option b) "somehow you're being served up a different version of slashdot than the rest of us" ;)
First off, the tax in question here is a payroll tax which comes out of the employees' salaries and stock options. So this is a good thing for workers at Twitter.
TFS is a bit ambiguous as are all the left-leaning sites that are bouncing this around everywhere as a fine example of corporate greed.
The workers pay a wage tax but the Payroll Expense Tax is an additional 1.5% tax that the company must pay on the sum of its wages for the year. It's independent of the worker wage tax.
Sad part is, this has been in place since about 1970 - yet in 2011, even with this tax and a host of others, they're STILL in the red by 40-some million dollars a year.
Other than the one point of fact, I agree with you 100%
A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons.
sit-in == protest. boycott == protest. and yet, boycott != sit-in.
Someone comes and titles a post "fuck you slashdot", yet I'm the one being an ass? Then you go on to describe a completely separate issue (one that I happen to have as well) as if that somehow excuses his post?
"That chart shows that Barack Obama saved the economy from the Republican engineered disaster."
Okay, really? I see two flaws here. a) He didn't do anything in his first couple of months to "save the economy" yet the improvements start in Jan 2009. B) when the government is in the business of "creating jobs", the long-term benefits of this are very questionable (literally - that's a debate been going on for years, and we're not going to solve it here)
My point is that you can't look at one chart that says "hey unemployment is decreasing" and claim that Obama has saved us, any more than you could say the new jobs created by the war in Iraq have saved us. It's the same government creation of jobs, just in different ways .
I don't understand how your post got modded up so quickly, usually slashdot has plenty of folks who will call out the kind of incomplete logic you've shown. (And mod it down)
Is it really so hard to post to the actual source of this type of information? Instead submitter links to networkworld... which for some reason links to the leaderboard, but not the download site. For those wondering, here's the download link: http://www.darpa.mil/VideoFiles/ACTUV/DARPA%20ACTUV%20Game.zip
Probably because you haven't yet learned the intricacies of the "web browser", the "mouse" and quite possibly "the computer". Orrrr... you're somehow being served up a different version of slashdot than the rest of us.
That's kind of the point (at least as far as I'm concerned - not that I'm following the internals of this, just applying logic). Why should users have to worry about x.y at all? I'm on version 6. You're on version 8. End of story.
*poetic license #312002110033121
Of all the stupid features from Chrome to pick up, the version numbers is, by far, the dumbest. Has anyone considered how stupid a version number in the high double digits might be? Firefox 81 seems kind of clunky, doesn't it?
Far less ridiculous than "0.12.6-12ubuntu3" (apachetop) or even just "0.48.1" (inkscape) - presumably because those packages aren't at "1.0" quality yet, whatever that means.
If you're making user-facing tools, using decimal numbers is confusing at best. "Did you say install 2.3.1 or 2.1.3?" Simple, whole-number revisions make it much easier to manage.
You could study for a decade or two in order to attain the same knowledge and verify it for yourself... but until you do that, your only option is to place your trust (and faith) in those who have already done that.
Eh? Yeah, I've a biased perspective, but also have the experience to know that developing for BB isn't the horror show that people tend to think it is.
I would assume that this is their best attempt at simulating the overproduction of the hormone -- on the theory that this overproduction is similar to the overproduction of the same hormones that occurs in humans, while understanding it's not an exact analog. I think this is pretty common in lab testing (though it's not my field, so I can't be sure).
*glances in the mirror at his receding hairline* One can only hope that they complete that research in time...
Yep, nailed it in one!
I don't know. Let me punch you in the face after I play GTA and I'll get back to you on how much I can empathize with how your broken nose makes you feel.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stress-and-hair-loss/AN01442
And maximize their profits, but they don't like to mention that loud.
That's probably because it's a given. They're not in business for any other reason than to make money; that's often the nature of a business.
I agree at least with both. Because in neither proposition do you suggest trying to protect the user in any way or otherwise make them feel secure. And your part of the answer is not incompatible with my own.
Because of crazy hippies, people forget mankind IS part of the environment. Selective breeding, generally to enhance a symbiotic relationship is part of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships are well known to exist throughout nature, in many, many environments without man. For example, some species of groupers and eels are known to have developed a symbiotic relationship and body language which initiates a group hunt for other food sources. In this case, if the good source bolts upward, the grouper gets it. If it stays down low, the eel gets it. Without such symbiosis, the food would have likely escaped.Selective breeding to bias specific genes (such as to avoid birth defects, genetic diseases, or larger milk production) is not the same thing as entirely new variants created by splicing in entirely new genes; such as those used to create jellyfish-grass, etc., etc., etc
True - it is not the same thing. By the same token, it's hard to say that something is not part of the environment (or "natural" if we want to get hippy about it) because man created it. I suppose we're wandering into philosophical territory here, but unless man is creating something out of building blocks that don't exist in the environment, then I have a hard time seeing a case for these things not being part of the environment themselves.
I don't guess I follow what your point was there.
Just wandering off on a tangent. Don't mind me.
"Impossible"? Hardly. He probably means "hardcoded" as in "embedded in the browser's files", not as "embedded in the code". The browser could still have a UI to manage those certificates. And even if there's no UI, it would be possible to revoke the certificate by upgrading the browser.
You know that's ... um, no different that putting in the code, right? If you have to deploy a product to the user, putting it in the code is identical to putting it in a file that you distribute with the code.
Ask the user if he wants to trust other installed certificates.
There's no point in asking a user a security question they don't understand, especially if it has long-lasting subtle consequences. They'll just say "yes" or "no" at random. We saw that with screensaver trojans. We'll see it again here. Any widespread mechanism must not require lots of fiddling around by users; it's got to be as permissive as possible while still being reasonably safe.
The only way to code a technically perfect solution that obviates the need for a brain is to also code the technically perfect user. That said, asking the user that particular question is a bad plan as you said - it's meaningless to the user. Especially if they accidentally click "no" and then don't understand why nothing works.
Our current approach of trying to solve it technologically (via CAs, anti-malware when we're speaking more generally, and other tools) is in large part WHY most users are so unable to comprehend the problem. We give the users tools and say "with these tools you are Safe, so long as you always use these tools". Examples: firewall clients, antivirus software, and "if the icon is blue, then it's safe to use the site". Then we wonder why they don't believe it when they see something that says they're NOT safe.
I've run against that too often. "But I have antivirus, and it says I'm up to date." "My antivirus scanned that email, so the link it includes is OK."
There needs to be a massive effort to educate users on why this stuff is important, and the risks associated with ignoring it. It's a long process, and it requires making people AWARE of security -- and aware that installing the latest AV updates doesn't make them secure. (Of course, the AV vendors will continue to sell their false security, which is a serious hindrance.) THEN you can proceed with a solution that requires the user to use his brain and make a decision. But it's critical that they be trained out automatically clicking the "get me past this annoying screen so I can see my bunnies" button.
Unfortunately, letting people decide whom they do and do not trust is also a non-starter. Or it's a good, optional measure, but it cannot be a default step.
Unfortunately, this is the ONLY possible option in the end. Everything else is a stopgap attempt at "solving" the problem that people can't/won't/aren't aware of the need to do this effectively.
In reality verisign and thawte issued all certificates I care about. Why I'd need any others, I do not know, but still there are scores of CA's in my browsers.
You really think that they can't unknowingly issue fraudulent certs? What rock have you been living under?
Educate people. Give them the tools they need to use systems intelligently - make it as easy as humanly possible. But at some point, you need to take the training wheels off.
The rest of your comments are fairly political and out of this discussion's scope. (I mention this only b/c I hate when I make a detailed reply and the respondent picks and chooses the parts he wants to reply to --while ignoring those he has no answer for. I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, it's just not relevant to the discussion here. )