Calling names is a poor substitute for comprehension.
If it sounds "intentionally obtuse" there is a very large probability that you didn't understand. Much more likely than it being intentionally stupid. Which actually should be obvious, but then, both systems are self-reinforcing.
That works fine if your job is packing widgets into boxes in a widget factory, but it is of no use to professionals. There just isn't a magical Bean-counter In The Sky to keep track of who did how much work, and which part of the work was more important to the project, and who appeared to do more work because they made more mistakes that they had to fix.
You thought management was trivial, but you were wrong.
As somebody who isn't an Amiga fan, but was in the 90s when they were a thing, I have to say just get used to it. It is an odd-numbered year, so there will be some crappy thing that comes out and pretends to be an Amiga.
Amiga died, so did Elvis. If I listen to an Elvis record, it is old music. If I want to use an Amiga, I'm using an old computer. The way to survive the changing world is to simply set these beliefs into stone. Elvis is not playing at the local bar on Saturday. Pink Floyd is not playing a show at the Planetarium. And there is not a new Amiga for sale at the neighborhood computer store.
statements which suggest your set of beliefs are built on shaky foundations.
Well if I posted them on slashdot, that's guaranteed.
I would not get my physics constants from slashdot comments, either.
I agree with what all the Courts say about Government workers; they're not expected or required to do a great job. "Good enough for government work" is not a high bar. It is a much lower bar than "good enough for an industry professional." But the lack of profit motive is supposed to balance out the quality difference. It often does.
If you can make a legitimate argument for why an ISP should be allowed to make google.com slower than bing.com then please present it.
They haven't read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, so they don't understand that a Free Market arises when Government acts as a neutral third party and enforces trust and market access, creating a level playing field that anybody with the Capital can walk out onto and Compete.
So asking them for a legitimate argument is not going to end well.
It is illegal to systematically pay equally qualified men and women differently.
Exactly, and since they're not doing that, they don't have information about why there might still be a difference anyway.
If they had a mind-reading machine, they could just scan the HR department and find out who had exercised a bias.
Traditionally, the company is informed that there is a problem by the employee, who provides some of the information. When there is a complaint in an actual instance, they have something they can look into. Here, they're being asked some really general questions that encompass things outside the knowledge of mortals. And it would be expensive to conduct a retrospective "best guess" analysis that purported to contain the information. For the same reason; there is no actual complaint. That's why the company is refusing; they're saying that it is a search. And there is required process for searches. And other companies aren't required to provide the same information.
Google will win this round, it is an investigation started by the government as part of routine compliance, and if they want something special they'll have to do a different type of investigation. They may not even have the legal authority to do the type of investigation they're trying to do. By "they" I mean, the actual office full of humans doing the investigation.
In the end, the Government will do the investigation from the correct office and/or with the correct paperwork, and they'll win that because Google is one of the biggest US Government contractors.
YES, they must do the governments bidding. At least in this instance.
No, no, that isn't it. They don't have to do the Government's bidding; the Government is offering the contracts, and soliciting the bids. Google has to do their own bidding. And that bidding is on government contracts, so they might desire to qualify to win.
That was like 10 years ago, when the other guy was in charge. Remember that, when they had a change of leadership and said they were going to run it like a normal company? They dropped that tagline.
and can be sucked out by an intern with 5min of SQL.
I've worked that project, on the cleanup crew that was fixing it after 3 years of effort by the original team followed by 2 years of effort by the first cleanup crew.
The answer is, you throw away all the code written in the previous 5 years, admit that the problem is hard, and start over with a code architecture that attempts to encompass the actual complexity of the use case.
Nothing is solved with 5 minutes of SQL. And honestly, 5 hours of SQL takes less time to write once you realize that the time prediction accuracy affects the outcome. But SQL isn't going to tell you whose annual review misrepresents their value to the company because the reviewer had subconscious biases.
That part of it, sure. You reduce the value of the employee to you to a rating number for that employee, and then put in their pay, and you do that for all your employees and google tells you who you're over/under paying.
The problem is that the bias is rolled into step one, where you have to rate the value of each employee. There is nothing about teasing that out that is similar to monitoring your searching and browsing to predict your interests. Google knows exactly what you searched for and what you eventually clicked on, but their algorithm makes no attempt at all to figure out why. And that why is the whole problem in this case.
I agree with what you said, but it might not be realistic for businesses to do that review themselves for various reasons from confirmation bias, to the high price of information and the lack of economies of scale for that information.
This is big stuff in information economics. Liking numbers isn't enough.
People using information theory in business these days, people who read Stiglitz, understand that information as a cost. That is why wages stagnate instead of dropping during a bad recession; it would cost money to find out what the new balance of worker supply/demand is. If you go too far you would lose workers; by the time you get that feedback, you've already received the harm. There is no free warning system.
Same problem here; wages and worker supply is constantly changing, you'd have to do expensive studies on a continuous basis to ever have this information. No employer does that, and none would. It is just asking too much. Like the summary points out, the actual pay at issue is a tiny amount of money and there is no reason for google to avoid paying it. Which is true; they would certainly prefer to have wage fairness! But they also need to be using a pay system based on perceived merit, so that they have healthy feedback loops.
It might actually be better to have government track worker pay across the economy, and provide the wage information that they want businesses to consider in their hiring practices. Each worker is different and has different value, so you need a detailed system to account for what you value in a worker if you're really going to make decisions that would have improved outcomes. It isn't enough to pay based on an underwear check, because the Shapiro-Stiglitz efficiency wage model requires employers to target wages to minimize shirking. In a factory that is easier, but in professional work it requires individualized pay packages. Even if not personalized, you'd need a large number of pay levels that people can be placed at, and so it is effectively the same and will also have the same marginal problems with bias and fairness.
Instead of that setting, you can also mount the filesystem for the samba shares using the noexec option. Not sure if that also impacts windows access, though.
Some SELinux configurations, such as on RHEL/Centos will prevent this too. "SELinux is enabled by default and our default policy prevents loading of modules from outside of samba's module directories and therefore blocks the exploit." For people more affected by it, copying the SELinux configuration might be the best short term option, though it is a lot more work than changing the mount options.
No, no, and no. Nobody ever said, "With enough code in the world, eyeballs will look at it." Nope. That wasn't it.
"With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." OK, that one I've heard. Nothing there about, "If you write it, they will read it" or anything like that.
If nobody is looking, there are no eyeballs, so no affect would be expected.
But once the bug is discovered, now there are lots of eyeballs! And it gets fixed fast, nearly instantly. That's what happened here. It is true that DoD clown made a political anti-FLOSS statement that contains the same mistake as yours. But he was at work, for the government, he's supposed to do a mediocre job. You're posting on slashdot. You're supposed to be slightly less stupid.
For the bugs to be fixed before being found, you don't want linux; in linux the eyeballs are mostly focused on writing new stuff, supporting new hardware, etc. If you want boring old code to get the eyeballs, you run *BSD where new stuff arrives in 10 years after 37 audits, and there might only be 9 eyeballs working on the whole thing, but they re-read old code as their sole hobby, and fix sloppy code even where they don't know of bugs.
You've obviously never applied RoundUp. You have to "drench" the leaves of the plant you want to kill. That is how it is applied. You spray it over the exposed leaf surfaces.
You can write, but I doubt you're able to read. Oh, you clearly know how, you're not illiterate; merely aliterate.
BTW, fear of eating the RoundUp isn't why people are opposed to using it on everything you fucking tool, and you've been told that before!. My goodness man, you're even more ignorant than if you were illiterate!
Who fucking cares how much is still in your food?! Is that the only item on the list of complaints? Oh, you'd don't know because you're aliterate!
Hippies are into healthy stuff. It might not be better for you, but you can be confident that they believe it to be better for you.
In the 90s when NPR was running a story about "Golden Rice" and how in the future food will be engineered to be healthier, a lot of hippies said things like, "Sounds nice, but I doubt they're really going to use the technology that way." And they were right. Almost everything modified that is in a food product in the store is modified solely to withstand broad-spectrum herbicides that would naturally kill them. That's all the farmers are interested in even trying.
It explains why the food labeled "organic" in the store is so much higher quality than the "conventional" stuff. Organic produce should actually look worse; if that was the only difference, it would be smaller and lower quality. But there is a huge difference in the type of farmer who grows one or the other. The hippie farmers are way more willing to take the time and risk of growing higher quality food.
Get a better bank, man. Stop blaming other people because you chose an asshole bank and won't change.
If my bank charges me a fee I don't like, I tell them and they recind the fee. You're an idiot if you pay a lot of banking fees.
Once there was even a computer error, and when I told them about it they corrected it and left me with a small surplus.
They protect my money, if they don't protect yours you're doing it wrong. And if you want to avoid check fraud, don't write checks and nobody will have that information. People have known for a long time about the problem, and there is not really anything to do about it other than not writing or accepting paper checks in the internet age. There are safe ways to handle the rare circumstances where you need something other than cash, and safer than a check; you can get a Bank Check, which is expensive but looks nice, or a money order, which is cheap.
I still wouldn't let them, or their robot, choose which checking account I have. They'd prefer me to have the gold account, I'm really happier with the silver.
Look up which ones are grown on farms and sold as foods, ones that are designed to survive being drenched in RoundUp, or happy joy-joy hippie ones that are better for you. You could have guessed which it is by the fact that the hippies don't eat GMO.
1) You eat the food 2) The bugs grow in your intestines 3) You spend lots of time in the bathroom with Moderate To Severe Gastrointestinal Distress
Other one,
1) Credit card processing is controlled by computer connected to corporate network 2) Corporate network is p0wned and hostile 3) Refuse to accept delivery of items you didn't order and your fraud complaint will be less painful. But you are going to need a new card.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus just buy a laptop dude.
Gotta agree. If you can't even shop for an embedded linux SBC, you shouldn't be undertaking to setup one.
Calling names is a poor substitute for comprehension.
If it sounds "intentionally obtuse" there is a very large probability that you didn't understand. Much more likely than it being intentionally stupid. Which actually should be obvious, but then, both systems are self-reinforcing.
That works fine if your job is packing widgets into boxes in a widget factory, but it is of no use to professionals. There just isn't a magical Bean-counter In The Sky to keep track of who did how much work, and which part of the work was more important to the project, and who appeared to do more work because they made more mistakes that they had to fix.
You thought management was trivial, but you were wrong.
As somebody who isn't an Amiga fan, but was in the 90s when they were a thing, I have to say just get used to it. It is an odd-numbered year, so there will be some crappy thing that comes out and pretends to be an Amiga.
Amiga died, so did Elvis. If I listen to an Elvis record, it is old music. If I want to use an Amiga, I'm using an old computer. The way to survive the changing world is to simply set these beliefs into stone. Elvis is not playing at the local bar on Saturday. Pink Floyd is not playing a show at the Planetarium. And there is not a new Amiga for sale at the neighborhood computer store.
statements which suggest your set of beliefs are built on shaky foundations.
Well if I posted them on slashdot, that's guaranteed.
I would not get my physics constants from slashdot comments, either.
I agree with what all the Courts say about Government workers; they're not expected or required to do a great job. "Good enough for government work" is not a high bar. It is a much lower bar than "good enough for an industry professional." But the lack of profit motive is supposed to balance out the quality difference. It often does.
If you can make a legitimate argument for why an ISP should be allowed to make google.com slower than bing.com then please present it.
They haven't read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, so they don't understand that a Free Market arises when Government acts as a neutral third party and enforces trust and market access, creating a level playing field that anybody with the Capital can walk out onto and Compete.
So asking them for a legitimate argument is not going to end well.
This is slashdot, threadjacking is a cromulent strategy, and often popular.
I'm guessing there is some other reason. Maybe the comment was racist flamebait, and that's why it got moderated as flamebait?
Ooggly Boogly boogly woogly boogly SOROS booglywoogly!
Your exchange rate is now cursed for 7 years, say goodbye to your savings because you get negative interest! SOROS
I don't see why people are upset over what these dead people said.
They should see the comments that dead people are leaving at slashdot! The FCC is getting it easy for some reason.
It is illegal to systematically pay equally qualified men and women differently.
Exactly, and since they're not doing that, they don't have information about why there might still be a difference anyway.
If they had a mind-reading machine, they could just scan the HR department and find out who had exercised a bias.
Traditionally, the company is informed that there is a problem by the employee, who provides some of the information. When there is a complaint in an actual instance, they have something they can look into. Here, they're being asked some really general questions that encompass things outside the knowledge of mortals. And it would be expensive to conduct a retrospective "best guess" analysis that purported to contain the information. For the same reason; there is no actual complaint. That's why the company is refusing; they're saying that it is a search. And there is required process for searches. And other companies aren't required to provide the same information.
Google will win this round, it is an investigation started by the government as part of routine compliance, and if they want something special they'll have to do a different type of investigation. They may not even have the legal authority to do the type of investigation they're trying to do. By "they" I mean, the actual office full of humans doing the investigation.
In the end, the Government will do the investigation from the correct office and/or with the correct paperwork, and they'll win that because Google is one of the biggest US Government contractors.
YES, they must do the governments bidding. At least in this instance.
No, no, that isn't it. They don't have to do the Government's bidding; the Government is offering the contracts, and soliciting the bids. Google has to do their own bidding. And that bidding is on government contracts, so they might desire to qualify to win.
has a tag line of not being evil
That was like 10 years ago, when the other guy was in charge. Remember that, when they had a change of leadership and said they were going to run it like a normal company? They dropped that tagline.
I made it 3 years without one, until my parents realized they wanted to send me to public school and they filed a Delayed Birth Registration.
The government may need Google more than Google needs them
And the natural corollary, they might not.
and can be sucked out by an intern with 5min of SQL.
I've worked that project, on the cleanup crew that was fixing it after 3 years of effort by the original team followed by 2 years of effort by the first cleanup crew.
The answer is, you throw away all the code written in the previous 5 years, admit that the problem is hard, and start over with a code architecture that attempts to encompass the actual complexity of the use case.
Nothing is solved with 5 minutes of SQL. And honestly, 5 hours of SQL takes less time to write once you realize that the time prediction accuracy affects the outcome. But SQL isn't going to tell you whose annual review misrepresents their value to the company because the reviewer had subconscious biases.
That part of it, sure. You reduce the value of the employee to you to a rating number for that employee, and then put in their pay, and you do that for all your employees and google tells you who you're over/under paying.
The problem is that the bias is rolled into step one, where you have to rate the value of each employee. There is nothing about teasing that out that is similar to monitoring your searching and browsing to predict your interests. Google knows exactly what you searched for and what you eventually clicked on, but their algorithm makes no attempt at all to figure out why. And that why is the whole problem in this case.
Math is easy, but thinking is harder.
I agree with what you said, but it might not be realistic for businesses to do that review themselves for various reasons from confirmation bias, to the high price of information and the lack of economies of scale for that information.
This is big stuff in information economics. Liking numbers isn't enough.
People using information theory in business these days, people who read Stiglitz, understand that information as a cost. That is why wages stagnate instead of dropping during a bad recession; it would cost money to find out what the new balance of worker supply/demand is. If you go too far you would lose workers; by the time you get that feedback, you've already received the harm. There is no free warning system.
Same problem here; wages and worker supply is constantly changing, you'd have to do expensive studies on a continuous basis to ever have this information. No employer does that, and none would. It is just asking too much. Like the summary points out, the actual pay at issue is a tiny amount of money and there is no reason for google to avoid paying it. Which is true; they would certainly prefer to have wage fairness! But they also need to be using a pay system based on perceived merit, so that they have healthy feedback loops.
It might actually be better to have government track worker pay across the economy, and provide the wage information that they want businesses to consider in their hiring practices. Each worker is different and has different value, so you need a detailed system to account for what you value in a worker if you're really going to make decisions that would have improved outcomes. It isn't enough to pay based on an underwear check, because the Shapiro-Stiglitz efficiency wage model requires employers to target wages to minimize shirking. In a factory that is easier, but in professional work it requires individualized pay packages. Even if not personalized, you'd need a large number of pay levels that people can be placed at, and so it is effectively the same and will also have the same marginal problems with bias and fairness.
Instead of that setting, you can also mount the filesystem for the samba shares using the noexec option. Not sure if that also impacts windows access, though.
Some SELinux configurations, such as on RHEL/Centos will prevent this too. "SELinux is enabled by default and our default policy prevents loading of modules from outside of samba's module directories and therefore blocks the exploit." For people more affected by it, copying the SELinux configuration might be the best short term option, though it is a lot more work than changing the mount options.
No, no, and no. Nobody ever said, "With enough code in the world, eyeballs will look at it." Nope. That wasn't it.
"With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." OK, that one I've heard. Nothing there about, "If you write it, they will read it" or anything like that.
If nobody is looking, there are no eyeballs, so no affect would be expected.
But once the bug is discovered, now there are lots of eyeballs! And it gets fixed fast, nearly instantly. That's what happened here. It is true that DoD clown made a political anti-FLOSS statement that contains the same mistake as yours. But he was at work, for the government, he's supposed to do a mediocre job. You're posting on slashdot. You're supposed to be slightly less stupid.
For the bugs to be fixed before being found, you don't want linux; in linux the eyeballs are mostly focused on writing new stuff, supporting new hardware, etc. If you want boring old code to get the eyeballs, you run *BSD where new stuff arrives in 10 years after 37 audits, and there might only be 9 eyeballs working on the whole thing, but they re-read old code as their sole hobby, and fix sloppy code even where they don't know of bugs.
You've obviously never applied RoundUp. You have to "drench" the leaves of the plant you want to kill. That is how it is applied. You spray it over the exposed leaf surfaces.
You can write, but I doubt you're able to read. Oh, you clearly know how, you're not illiterate; merely aliterate.
BTW, fear of eating the RoundUp isn't why people are opposed to using it on everything you fucking tool, and you've been told that before! . My goodness man, you're even more ignorant than if you were illiterate!
Who fucking cares how much is still in your food?! Is that the only item on the list of complaints? Oh, you'd don't know because you're aliterate!
Hippies are into healthy stuff. It might not be better for you, but you can be confident that they believe it to be better for you.
In the 90s when NPR was running a story about "Golden Rice" and how in the future food will be engineered to be healthier, a lot of hippies said things like, "Sounds nice, but I doubt they're really going to use the technology that way." And they were right. Almost everything modified that is in a food product in the store is modified solely to withstand broad-spectrum herbicides that would naturally kill them. That's all the farmers are interested in even trying.
It explains why the food labeled "organic" in the store is so much higher quality than the "conventional" stuff. Organic produce should actually look worse; if that was the only difference, it would be smaller and lower quality. But there is a huge difference in the type of farmer who grows one or the other. The hippie farmers are way more willing to take the time and risk of growing higher quality food.
Get a better bank, man. Stop blaming other people because you chose an asshole bank and won't change.
If my bank charges me a fee I don't like, I tell them and they recind the fee. You're an idiot if you pay a lot of banking fees.
Once there was even a computer error, and when I told them about it they corrected it and left me with a small surplus.
They protect my money, if they don't protect yours you're doing it wrong. And if you want to avoid check fraud, don't write checks and nobody will have that information. People have known for a long time about the problem, and there is not really anything to do about it other than not writing or accepting paper checks in the internet age. There are safe ways to handle the rare circumstances where you need something other than cash, and safer than a check; you can get a Bank Check, which is expensive but looks nice, or a money order, which is cheap.
I still wouldn't let them, or their robot, choose which checking account I have. They'd prefer me to have the gold account, I'm really happier with the silver.
Look up which ones are grown on farms and sold as foods, ones that are designed to survive being drenched in RoundUp, or happy joy-joy hippie ones that are better for you. You could have guessed which it is by the fact that the hippies don't eat GMO.
2 malware infections.
1) You eat the food
2) The bugs grow in your intestines
3) You spend lots of time in the bathroom with Moderate To Severe Gastrointestinal Distress
Other one,
1) Credit card processing is controlled by computer connected to corporate network
2) Corporate network is p0wned and hostile
3) Refuse to accept delivery of items you didn't order and your fraud complaint will be less painful. But you are going to need a new card.