Sounds like a haven for misbehavior - depending, of course, on what everyone has access to. It also sounds like excellent incentive for your smartest people to leave.
Password-based authentication serves a purpose - it is a way to force you to prove that you are who you say you are (i.e. your username) . Then, in most cases, your username is tied to credentials, which determine which systems and data you have access to (access control). This way we differentiate between the CEO who has access to confidential or valuable company data such as payroll and accounts, vs. the receptionist who only needs to read a spreadsheet of phone extensions.
Now you have created a situation where the receptionist can sign on as the finance manager and walk away with the company's bank account. For that matter, the finance manager has plausible deniability too - "No, I didn't steal that money, anyone could have signed on with my username!"
If anyone in a position of responsibility were not worried about guarding their information, I would suspect them of criminal activity. (This has happened, too, where a manager gave employees his password, thus creating an environment where he could steal, and it could never be proven that he did it.) If you were championing such an idea, I would suspect you of collaborating in theft or fraud. If any such incidents happen at your workplace, you can bet that when the cops come, you'll be under that sixty-watt bulb in a concrete room.
Why don't you have everyone use the same user name? There is no way to differentiate, now, anyone can use anyone's username, so what's the point of having different usernames? For that matter, why even use a logon process? Your computers ought to just be open kiosks if that is your business need.
If you have any significant reason to differentiate usernames, then you have a reason to enforce them, and a reason to use passwords. Think about it.
Hey, since I read Slashdot, am I an outlaw now? Wow, cool, here come the ladies! Now just to decide whether to bill myself as the "handsome rogue with a heart of gold," or the "good-looking rebel who plays by his own rules" ?
That's right baby, I read Slashdot!
Before we bought it, the official line was that the only thing that could possibly make the system vulnerable would be if we neglected to keep up-to-date antivirus software. My boss (at the time, now retired) actually signed (against my advice) a contract agreeing that if there's any security incident, it's automatically our fault and _we_ pay the _vendor_ for any time required to fix it.
Translation: "We're 100% confident the system is completely secure - so confident, that we won't even put a penny on own reliability! We'll let you spend tens of thousands of dollars at your own risk!"
Of course since he's retired, your former boss probably isn't liable, either. Maybe he was a little smarter than he seemed.
A friend of mine once told me he had known people who could walk into a house, put their hands on the wall, and somehow sense where the nails were, under the drywall.
No, the people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to pay for the latest CD they heard on the radio.
I would rephrase that as: "The people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to get ripped off paying for over-hyped over-priced crap over and over again, who don't want DRM to force them to overpay for proprietary, restrictive and sometimes broken technology, and who want to actually own and control what they pay for."
I can and do pay good money for worthwhile products. But most stuff out there is crap, like when you buy that CD because of the two good songs on the radio, only to find that on the rest of the CD, someone just took a dump on a CD and sold it. That's a ripoff plain and simple, and it rightly pisses you off.
Single-song downloads notwithstanding, there are plenty of times where you just get ripped off due to over-hyped or misleading marketing. Moreover, when I go to the trouble to spend my hard-earned cash on a product, I sure as hell resent being treated like a criminal for it.
Now I just put the Mr Yuk on my cans and lunch bags and noone dares touch them in the staff fridge.
That's a really good idea. You could even go a step further and use a skull-and-crossbones.
Then everyone would think your lunch was owned by a pirate. Nobody wants to mess with pirates.
Yeah I follow all those steps too. My av software is linux + common sense. my account doesn't run with elevated privileges. Also I put my girlfriend behind the router and firewall and make her run avast, and make her check her downloads and everything online....her computer's behind the firewall too.
Haven't heard that show, but I get your meaning. The thing is, once in awhile, someone thinks they are special, or have some certain insight, and it turns out they actually do. Now that's not the same as this disconnected-from-reality issue with schizophrenia. I'm just saying that mental illness (or self-delusion) isn't a reason to dismiss telepathy, or anything, out of hand.
To carry that thought further - for all we know, mental or genetic factors related to schizophrenia may also be related to genuine telepathy or other parapsychological experiences. Think about it - we're talking about phenomena that occurs outside the boundaries of normal perception, and we have a whole subset of the population predisposed to "live" outside of normal perception. This would also explain why telepathy wouldn't be evolutionarily adaptive, because it would carry maladaptive problems. Like the saying goes, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
But back on topic - my feeling is that many of those people live in a fantasy world, but among those, a small few of them may really have the seed of some genuine telepathy factor. They may still be living in a fantasy world - especially in the "new age" culture and environment, where the only people who listen also convince them of invisible pink alien unicorn-dolphins. But it's also within the realm of possibility that one of them has something real. After all, if you don't really believe in telepathy, you're obviously not going to just start doing it spontaneously.
Actually, psychology has demonstrated evidence that clinically depressed individuals have a more objective view of the world than normal people. Have you heard of the "rose-colored glasses effect", aka "depressive realism"? Normally, people have a slightly inflated sense of optimism which affects their outlook. It causes people to place extra value on positive things in life, and tend to discount negative things. It's sort of a psychological survival mechanism. It's also pretty much transparent because everyone has it and everyone is used to it. Depressed individuals are missing this, and in this sense, have a slightly more objective outlook.
One of the basic limitations of the scientific method is that it can only measure objective phenomena which can be reproduced at will. Unfortunately, telepathy et al is subject to the vagaries of human psychology, and like anything psychological, is subjective and varied. This is why there are so many varieties of psychological disciplines. While many different theories exhibit merit, there is no single answer yet as to how the "mind" works. In some ways, psychology is more of an art than a science. It's much easier to measure physical properties against objective, established scales that are proven reliable. Unfortunately we don't have enough tools like this for parapsychology.
If ten people witness a car accident, and they all testify in court, they'll say ten different things. It happens every day, ask any cop or lawyer, no two witnesses *ever* say the exact same things in court. Did they all see the same accident? Of course. Will they all say the same thing? No. Did the car accident actually happen? Yes, but how can you prove the details, in a scientific way, solely based on these different stories? I believe certain parapsychology is like this - valid, but subjective, easily misinterpreted, difficult to reliably reproduce, and presently, nearly impossible to objectively prove.
Quite a lot of parapsychological phenomena is ephemeral. There are places that are said to be haunted, and you can get somewhat reliable, objectively-minded people to go and "witness" some strange phenomena. Unfortunately, you can get just as many reliable people who won't witness anything. To boot, all the people who do experience something will report different things. Is there really "something" going on? Quite possibly, but it's almost impossible to analyze objectively.
Until we find a way to get past the subjective nature of thought and perception - and the subjective nature of the phenomena - we won't be able to objectively measure telepathy. My feeling is that we simply don't have the right methods and tools yet.
...if you actually have a real fresh-baked cookie, presumably you can already smell it...so why would you need an expensive, bleeding-edge, super-smelling techno-toy?
Although if you're a Slashdot reader, I guess it's a rhetorical question.
I'm not sure I understand whether this was really a threat. How many people go around saying "Man I wish he was dead" or "I wish were dead!" That doesn't mean everyone's going to run around committing suicide or murder. There's a tremendous difference between someone saying "I'm going to kill that person" and "I wish that person would die". Nothing in the article suggested this kid was planning, talking about, or even thinking of doing anything at all.
Bad taste is not (usually) a crime, and apparently the local law enforcement realized that.
On top of that, pop culture in the United States is extremely violent. People witness murder, rape, and various violent acts all day and just shrug it off. This kid has probably seen more than his share of violence, and maybe the family is really into bad action movies or violent cartoons or whatever. IMHO that's not healthy, but that kind of environment is more or less the norm, and it's no wonder he would imagine violence to express whatever feelings he had.
Of course he did something stupid, and in very bad taste, and more than anything, probably just did it for attention from his classmates. Kids are like that, they want attention and push your buttons. That doesn't mean he was going to run out and shoot anyone.
If the teacher was freaked out, that's somewhat understandable. What's more understandable, though, is that apparently the kid, the parents, and local law enforcement know the difference between fantasy and reality. The teacher, and the school, need to get a grip on reality and realize that while violence is a remote possibility, what kids usually do is just push your buttons for attention and that's it. Sure, it needs to be taken seriously - the kid needs to understand why it's in bad taste, inappropriate, could get him in jail, etc. However, while having a stupid, obnoxious, violent icon says something about you, it doesn't mean you're going to run around killing people.
Slashdot Mirror
Password-based authentication serves a purpose - it is a way to force you to prove that you are who you say you are (i.e. your username) . Then, in most cases, your username is tied to credentials, which determine which systems and data you have access to (access control). This way we differentiate between the CEO who has access to confidential or valuable company data such as payroll and accounts, vs. the receptionist who only needs to read a spreadsheet of phone extensions.
Now you have created a situation where the receptionist can sign on as the finance manager and walk away with the company's bank account. For that matter, the finance manager has plausible deniability too - "No, I didn't steal that money, anyone could have signed on with my username!"
If anyone in a position of responsibility were not worried about guarding their information, I would suspect them of criminal activity. (This has happened, too, where a manager gave employees his password, thus creating an environment where he could steal, and it could never be proven that he did it.) If you were championing such an idea, I would suspect you of collaborating in theft or fraud. If any such incidents happen at your workplace, you can bet that when the cops come, you'll be under that sixty-watt bulb in a concrete room.
Why don't you have everyone use the same user name? There is no way to differentiate, now, anyone can use anyone's username, so what's the point of having different usernames? For that matter, why even use a logon process? Your computers ought to just be open kiosks if that is your business need.
If you have any significant reason to differentiate usernames, then you have a reason to enforce them, and a reason to use passwords. Think about it.
Of course since he's retired, your former boss probably isn't liable, either. Maybe he was a little smarter than he seemed.
It's already slashdotted... here's the CC link.l e.aspx?page=8102&head=0
http://www.trustedreviews.com.nyud.net:8090/artic
A friend of mine once told me he had known people who could walk into a house, put their hands on the wall, and somehow sense where the nails were, under the drywall.
I can and do pay good money for worthwhile products. But most stuff out there is crap, like when you buy that CD because of the two good songs on the radio, only to find that on the rest of the CD, someone just took a dump on a CD and sold it. That's a ripoff plain and simple, and it rightly pisses you off.
Single-song downloads notwithstanding, there are plenty of times where you just get ripped off due to over-hyped or misleading marketing. Moreover, when I go to the trouble to spend my hard-earned cash on a product, I sure as hell resent being treated like a criminal for it.
Dude ... whoa.
Yeah I follow all those steps too. My av software is linux + common sense. my account doesn't run with elevated privileges. Also I put my girlfriend behind the router and firewall and make her run avast, and make her check her downloads and everything online. ...her computer's behind the firewall too.
Haven't heard that show, but I get your meaning. The thing is, once in awhile, someone thinks they are special, or have some certain insight, and it turns out they actually do. Now that's not the same as this disconnected-from-reality issue with schizophrenia. I'm just saying that mental illness (or self-delusion) isn't a reason to dismiss telepathy, or anything, out of hand.
To carry that thought further - for all we know, mental or genetic factors related to schizophrenia may also be related to genuine telepathy or other parapsychological experiences. Think about it - we're talking about phenomena that occurs outside the boundaries of normal perception, and we have a whole subset of the population predisposed to "live" outside of normal perception. This would also explain why telepathy wouldn't be evolutionarily adaptive, because it would carry maladaptive problems. Like the saying goes, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
But back on topic - my feeling is that many of those people live in a fantasy world, but among those, a small few of them may really have the seed of some genuine telepathy factor. They may still be living in a fantasy world - especially in the "new age" culture and environment, where the only people who listen also convince them of invisible pink alien unicorn-dolphins. But it's also within the realm of possibility that one of them has something real. After all, if you don't really believe in telepathy, you're obviously not going to just start doing it spontaneously.
Actually, psychology has demonstrated evidence that clinically depressed individuals have a more objective view of the world than normal people. Have you heard of the "rose-colored glasses effect", aka "depressive realism"? Normally, people have a slightly inflated sense of optimism which affects their outlook. It causes people to place extra value on positive things in life, and tend to discount negative things. It's sort of a psychological survival mechanism. It's also pretty much transparent because everyone has it and everyone is used to it. Depressed individuals are missing this, and in this sense, have a slightly more objective outlook.
One of the basic limitations of the scientific method is that it can only measure objective phenomena which can be reproduced at will. Unfortunately, telepathy et al is subject to the vagaries of human psychology, and like anything psychological, is subjective and varied. This is why there are so many varieties of psychological disciplines. While many different theories exhibit merit, there is no single answer yet as to how the "mind" works. In some ways, psychology is more of an art than a science. It's much easier to measure physical properties against objective, established scales that are proven reliable. Unfortunately we don't have enough tools like this for parapsychology.
If ten people witness a car accident, and they all testify in court, they'll say ten different things. It happens every day, ask any cop or lawyer, no two witnesses *ever* say the exact same things in court. Did they all see the same accident? Of course. Will they all say the same thing? No. Did the car accident actually happen? Yes, but how can you prove the details, in a scientific way, solely based on these different stories? I believe certain parapsychology is like this - valid, but subjective, easily misinterpreted, difficult to reliably reproduce, and presently, nearly impossible to objectively prove.
Quite a lot of parapsychological phenomena is ephemeral. There are places that are said to be haunted, and you can get somewhat reliable, objectively-minded people to go and "witness" some strange phenomena. Unfortunately, you can get just as many reliable people who won't witness anything. To boot, all the people who do experience something will report different things. Is there really "something" going on? Quite possibly, but it's almost impossible to analyze objectively.
Until we find a way to get past the subjective nature of thought and perception - and the subjective nature of the phenomena - we won't be able to objectively measure telepathy. My feeling is that we simply don't have the right methods and tools yet.
...if you actually have a real fresh-baked cookie, presumably you can already smell it...so why would you need an expensive, bleeding-edge, super-smelling techno-toy?
Although if you're a Slashdot reader, I guess it's a rhetorical question.
"...what if we want to smell distant objects? Well now we can! Thanks to my new invention ... the Smell-o-scope!"
"If a dog craps anywhere in the universe, you can bet I won't be out of the loop!"
You can get the internet delivered in tubes? I hope that's not on the CCNA exam, I don't remember that part...
I'm not sure I understand whether this was really a threat. How many people go around saying "Man I wish he was dead" or "I wish were dead!" That doesn't mean everyone's going to run around committing suicide or murder. There's a tremendous difference between someone saying "I'm going to kill that person" and "I wish that person would die". Nothing in the article suggested this kid was planning, talking about, or even thinking of doing anything at all. Bad taste is not (usually) a crime, and apparently the local law enforcement realized that. On top of that, pop culture in the United States is extremely violent. People witness murder, rape, and various violent acts all day and just shrug it off. This kid has probably seen more than his share of violence, and maybe the family is really into bad action movies or violent cartoons or whatever. IMHO that's not healthy, but that kind of environment is more or less the norm, and it's no wonder he would imagine violence to express whatever feelings he had. Of course he did something stupid, and in very bad taste, and more than anything, probably just did it for attention from his classmates. Kids are like that, they want attention and push your buttons. That doesn't mean he was going to run out and shoot anyone. If the teacher was freaked out, that's somewhat understandable. What's more understandable, though, is that apparently the kid, the parents, and local law enforcement know the difference between fantasy and reality. The teacher, and the school, need to get a grip on reality and realize that while violence is a remote possibility, what kids usually do is just push your buttons for attention and that's it. Sure, it needs to be taken seriously - the kid needs to understand why it's in bad taste, inappropriate, could get him in jail, etc. However, while having a stupid, obnoxious, violent icon says something about you, it doesn't mean you're going to run around killing people.