When managers deploy "average" security solutions, they're not trying to protect against threats, they're trying to avoid getting fired.
If they deploy something unusual and it doesn't work, they'll be fired, regardless of how it failed or the merits. If they deploy something everyone else has deployed and it doesn't work, they will be commended for following "industry best practices."
Not all organizations work this way, but many do. When something breaks, there's a big temptation to avoid an investigation into exactly what happened- who knows what that could turn up! Much easier just to fire middle managers for prima facie reasons.
People set themselves up for disappointment when they compare Apple products to the competition based solely on the performance metrics, and expect Apple's effort to be utterly destroyed. There's room for plenty of players in the console space.
We can say games on the Apple TV will "suck," the Android offerings may be "better," that the Apple TV won't hit some FPS or polygon/shader benchmark, but these considerations are minuscule in light of the basic market realities:
The game-and-app enabled AppleTV is ~$150 and titles will have a sale price of free to maybe $30. The supplementary products from Microsoft or Sony are $350 or more and desirable titles start at $60.
Android has some STB products but they don't market them effectively, their gaming and app story is completely disorganized and the performance of their flagship equipment is far below that of an AppleTV.
The largest population of video game players is middle-aged women and nobody presently addresses this market on the TV; Nintendo has tried and failed.
The AppleTV still probably has the best dumb Internet STB implementation and has the best content agreement.
Indeed. They should shut all the facilities down, euthanize the animals that have no hope of being reintroduced to the wild and outlaw the importation or breeding of whales and dolphins.
There are rescue organizations and zoos that would be happy to take many of these animals, that they're in captivity is one issue but it's not as important as their mistreatment. When Sea World can't use a whale in an act, they use it to breed more performing animals; if they can't use it to breed, they throw it away, either to a rescue organization or a smaller, even less reputable park.
And, even if we had to euthanize every last one, at least we could say that no other whales would ever be pressed into this kind of service, which would be a good.
Oh, and fuck Sea World's investors.
I'm not exactly sure how someone's right to profits balances against concrete harms visited on intelligent creatures, for no other purpose than doing tricks in front of a paying audience.
Game art is already designed by designers and artists. Game music is composed by musicians and composers.
Don't waste your time studying art, just hire artists!
Game design is created by people who understand that mere game art and music alone does not make a good game.
What part of game "design" isn't art, exactly? This is an interesting perspective: programmers make games, and they subcontract all the "Art" out to vendors. I've done sound design for some video games so I definitely run into this perspective a lot, I think it's kinda sick and it sorta denies the essential creative act of making a game.
Basically you have a bunch of artists making stuff, and then you present your work to developers and the PMs, and uniformly, I've found the devs are totally inarticulate, and either don't really know what they want, and they are totally unoriginal and if you let them do whatever they wanted, they'd just have you remake all the Titanfall assets in different colors (or with more reverb and low-end). Dev don't communicate, they never want to talk to you, they got no vision for how they want this game to be different from every other one, and to them, the "artists" are just columns on a spreadsheet.
He didn't lose his job for his beliefs, he lost his job because he was the head of a huge non-profit and it transpired he was duplicitous and had no integrity.
Even old people need 30 minutes of light exercise a day. And if they're frail this probably wouldn't be a good idea, this thing probably requires sufficient core strength to stay balanced.
The prices for engineers are quite high, and the PR cost in importing them is also quite high, so they're pouring money into education as a long-term investment in driving down the cost of developers in the future.
That's like a 5-10 year plan. The messaging here is that Microsoft wants engineers from the US and wants people to become computer programmers, and they're doing "everything they can" to stimulate it, so just let us hire all the H1Bs we want this quarter. The messaging presents the premise that "there aren't enough engineers" in the US, thus H1Bs are justified today. "Maybe in the future" this situation will change, but for now we "have to" have "targeted, short term high-skill immigration reforms."
Nadella and the people involved might just love computer science and want to share it with the world, these things do happen.
You don't have to be Mitt Romney to question PBS's announcement that it will air the Microsoft-funded 'reality' show Code Trip
Why are we supposed to question it, exactly? Is it some question of MS influencing PBS programming? That couldn't be it, considering how dependent PBS is on corporate sponsorship.
Is it that the program itself sounds sorta fluffy and probably won't reach a wide audience, but it'll be a boondoggle that MS can use for tax evasion, while getting the Center for Public Broadcasting and several charitable foundations to pay for what essentially Microsoft's public relations? Maybe.
I got into this with an audiophule type a few years ago. He, with a completely straight face, asserted that double-blind testing was an inherently flawed methodology for evaluating the objective marvelosity of some silly audiophule crap he was touting.
In short, for the important stuff, like "Do amplifiers or cables or differing storage media sound different", "blind testing" of any kind, single or double isn't likely to work because there are simply too many characteristics present and changing, and (if only because of the way human perception works) it's virtually impossible to isolate them and make sure that all of the testees are hearing the same test of the same thing in exactly the same way.
In short, "we believe in high fidelity but only in a purely non-falsifiable experiential sense." You can talk all you want about your error rates and THD+Ns but all they want to hear about is the "clarity," the "smoothness of the tone," and the "space around the instruments."
And these aren't crazy things to talk about, but insisting that a physical thing, a $300 ethernet cable, can actually create these things in a way that a cheaper one cannot is a kind of fetishism.
They tested the $340 one because they weren't willing to pay for the $1000 "Ethernet audio" cable.
Under normal circumstances a manufacturer would provide a sample for a media outlet. Audiophile gear manufacturers don't do this, for some reason -- reviews in audiophile mags usually seem to come from enthusiasts who've already bought-in, literally.
Keep in mind that the "directional" cables are grounded at only one end, and you can't guarantee that digital and analog will have separate ground paths.
The ones the audiophiles sell don't generally lift the ground on one end; also this is an ethernet cable which means it's electrically isolated, it usually doesn't have a shield and "signal" doesn't flow unidirectionally down it.
It makes sense to lift the ground on an XLR cable because in that case the cable shield is connecting either the audio or chassis grounds on two pieces of gear, but again we don't automatically lift the ground on the sending or receiving side, because it usually depends on wether or not both sides are audio ground, wether the ground is lifted in the box on one end or the other, and where this cable connects relative to where the ground stake is. Ground lifting is something you do once you've built the room, you don't just let the manufacturer do it.
I would slightly revise the question- are there any inexpensive IP cameras that don't require a Windows machine and a Chinese translator to set up and get on my Wifi?
The question I have is, how have you been able to keep all of these commits discrete and trackable in your RCS since 1980? Have they been migrating it forward from whenever they started committing them? And exactly what were people committing into in 1980?:O
By reddit's metaphysical rules, an SJW is just someone who you disagree with.
Or perhaps more to the point: an SJW in anyone who has less Reddit karma than you, and fails to abide by the carefully-arbitrated deontological ethics of Reddit. Namely, to offend is Good, unless such offense is directed at the interests and peccadilloes of Redditors.
There are things on the internet I don't like. I just don't go to those sites.
That's pretty much everyone's procedure, so Reddit's job is to make sure reddit.com doesn't become "one of those sites" for a sufficiently large group of people.
It's not about wether or not everyone's within their rights, nobody contests that the mods don't have the right to do what they did, I think. The question, more for Ellen Pao and the mods than us, is wether it's actually appropriate or good community conduct to shut down the whole website because she decides to let someone go. Nobody's going to work for Reddit if they're told at the door: "We'll keep you around as long as some splinter cell of mods doesn't start a flashmob against you. And we try to fire bad people but if they have loyal mods they're impossible to get rid of." So exactly what do the redditors want reddit to be, assuming we call them constituents or stakeholders, and not mere content sharecroppers? Do they really want to be involved in Reddit's internal business process? Why?
In California at least, there are strict legal protections for people who are fired, their boss cannot necessarily talk about why or how someone is fired in public, not without courting significant legal liability. So I'm not sure what "transparency" or "involving the community" can practically accomplish, without getting everyone tied up in torts.
They need to launch a/r/WeWantToFireThisPersonIsThatOkWithYou every time this comes up to prevent spoiled babies from holding message boards hostage?
Reddit may eventually have to decide if they're an actual business that's supposed to make money or a hip BBS. The two identities are sorta in tension and I'm not sure it's resolvable.
"No... down with the people appropriating people that don't share their ideology or way of thinking as members of their group."
In your opinion. It's up for interpretation, and anyway there's a lot more to the Guardian than some caricature of brain-dead leftism, and there's a lot more to Dune than a one sentence quote from Paul Atreides.
I really think a movie adaptation could be done without all of the internal dialogue.
Yeah but it'd sorta be like doing a painting and calling it an "adaptation" of Bach's D-minor partita for violin. The medium is the essence of Dune in a way many other books aren't; any book that deals so heavily in metaphysics is going to be hard to realize visually.
The attempts to put Dune on screen have been largely terrible, but this is one of those books where the "big budget blockbuster" would be totally justified.
Huge stretches of the book are internal monologue or whispered conversations in dark rooms, where two people exchange few words and pages are spent on exposition. The book is unfilmable; or rather, you can make a lot of movies with the title Dune but they're going to end up just sharing character names and the general bag of situations.
"glowing piece also claimed ownership of his work effectively within the ideological camp of the paper"
So on the one hand, down with the Guardian because it is rigidly ideological. And on the other, down with the Guardian because it doesn't adhere to your rigid, singular interpretation of the novel Dune.
Slashdot Mirror
When managers deploy "average" security solutions, they're not trying to protect against threats, they're trying to avoid getting fired.
If they deploy something unusual and it doesn't work, they'll be fired, regardless of how it failed or the merits. If they deploy something everyone else has deployed and it doesn't work, they will be commended for following "industry best practices."
Not all organizations work this way, but many do. When something breaks, there's a big temptation to avoid an investigation into exactly what happened- who knows what that could turn up! Much easier just to fire middle managers for prima facie reasons.
People set themselves up for disappointment when they compare Apple products to the competition based solely on the performance metrics, and expect Apple's effort to be utterly destroyed. There's room for plenty of players in the console space.
We can say games on the Apple TV will "suck," the Android offerings may be "better," that the Apple TV won't hit some FPS or polygon/shader benchmark, but these considerations are minuscule in light of the basic market realities:
Can't tell if the GP was playing it straight or sardonic upon re-reading.
There are rescue organizations and zoos that would be happy to take many of these animals, that they're in captivity is one issue but it's not as important as their mistreatment. When Sea World can't use a whale in an act, they use it to breed more performing animals; if they can't use it to breed, they throw it away, either to a rescue organization or a smaller, even less reputable park.
And, even if we had to euthanize every last one, at least we could say that no other whales would ever be pressed into this kind of service, which would be a good.
I'm not exactly sure how someone's right to profits balances against concrete harms visited on intelligent creatures, for no other purpose than doing tricks in front of a paying audience.
Don't waste your time studying art, just hire artists!
What part of game "design" isn't art, exactly? This is an interesting perspective: programmers make games, and they subcontract all the "Art" out to vendors. I've done sound design for some video games so I definitely run into this perspective a lot, I think it's kinda sick and it sorta denies the essential creative act of making a game.
Basically you have a bunch of artists making stuff, and then you present your work to developers and the PMs, and uniformly, I've found the devs are totally inarticulate, and either don't really know what they want, and they are totally unoriginal and if you let them do whatever they wanted, they'd just have you remake all the Titanfall assets in different colors (or with more reverb and low-end). Dev don't communicate, they never want to talk to you, they got no vision for how they want this game to be different from every other one, and to them, the "artists" are just columns on a spreadsheet.
Brendan Eich voluntarily resigned as the CEO of a nonprofit when it was revealed he, publicly, advocated including LGBT communities and their input in the Mozilla project, but privately supported a campaign to deny LGBT people their constitutional rights.
He didn't lose his job for his beliefs, he lost his job because he was the head of a huge non-profit and it transpired he was duplicitous and had no integrity.
Even old people need 30 minutes of light exercise a day. And if they're frail this probably wouldn't be a good idea, this thing probably requires sufficient core strength to stay balanced.
That's like a 5-10 year plan. The messaging here is that Microsoft wants engineers from the US and wants people to become computer programmers, and they're doing "everything they can" to stimulate it, so just let us hire all the H1Bs we want this quarter. The messaging presents the premise that "there aren't enough engineers" in the US, thus H1Bs are justified today. "Maybe in the future" this situation will change, but for now we "have to" have "targeted, short term high-skill immigration reforms."
Nadella and the people involved might just love computer science and want to share it with the world, these things do happen.
Why are we supposed to question it, exactly? Is it some question of MS influencing PBS programming? That couldn't be it, considering how dependent PBS is on corporate sponsorship.
Is it that the program itself sounds sorta fluffy and probably won't reach a wide audience, but it'll be a boondoggle that MS can use for tax evasion, while getting the Center for Public Broadcasting and several charitable foundations to pay for what essentially Microsoft's public relations? Maybe.
This has been a consistent argument from audiophiles for several years:
In short, "we believe in high fidelity but only in a purely non-falsifiable experiential sense." You can talk all you want about your error rates and THD+Ns but all they want to hear about is the "clarity," the "smoothness of the tone," and the "space around the instruments."
And these aren't crazy things to talk about, but insisting that a physical thing, a $300 ethernet cable, can actually create these things in a way that a cheaper one cannot is a kind of fetishism.
Under normal circumstances a manufacturer would provide a sample for a media outlet. Audiophile gear manufacturers don't do this, for some reason -- reviews in audiophile mags usually seem to come from enthusiasts who've already bought-in, literally.
The ones the audiophiles sell don't generally lift the ground on one end; also this is an ethernet cable which means it's electrically isolated, it usually doesn't have a shield and "signal" doesn't flow unidirectionally down it.
It makes sense to lift the ground on an XLR cable because in that case the cable shield is connecting either the audio or chassis grounds on two pieces of gear, but again we don't automatically lift the ground on the sending or receiving side, because it usually depends on wether or not both sides are audio ground, wether the ground is lifted in the box on one end or the other, and where this cable connects relative to where the ground stake is. Ground lifting is something you do once you've built the room, you don't just let the manufacturer do it.
"Also, did you know that WAV (and AIFF, with some minor differences) puts samples into "chunks" of 64k each?"
Um, no. The data chunk of WAV and AIFF files may be page-aligned, it may start on a 4k offset, but the chunk itself is contiguous.
Hey, wether you visit to read, or you visit to start a Bro-splainer flamewar, it still counts as an ad impression.
I would slightly revise the question- are there any inexpensive IP cameras that don't require a Windows machine and a Chinese translator to set up and get on my Wifi?
The question I have is, how have you been able to keep all of these commits discrete and trackable in your RCS since 1980? Have they been migrating it forward from whenever they started committing them? And exactly what were people committing into in 1980? :O
By reddit's metaphysical rules, an SJW is just someone who you disagree with.
Or perhaps more to the point: an SJW in anyone who has less Reddit karma than you, and fails to abide by the carefully-arbitrated deontological ethics of Reddit. Namely, to offend is Good, unless such offense is directed at the interests and peccadilloes of Redditors.
...and they're starting to pull in outside funding.
Wake us when this funding would fall under the rubric of "profitable advertising."
Or "sustainable."
They remade it in the early aughts with Crispin Glover...
That's pretty much everyone's procedure, so Reddit's job is to make sure reddit.com doesn't become "one of those sites" for a sufficiently large group of people.
It's not about wether or not everyone's within their rights, nobody contests that the mods don't have the right to do what they did, I think. The question, more for Ellen Pao and the mods than us, is wether it's actually appropriate or good community conduct to shut down the whole website because she decides to let someone go.
Nobody's going to work for Reddit if they're told at the door: "We'll keep you around as long as some splinter cell of mods doesn't start a flashmob against you. And we try to fire bad people but if they have loyal mods they're impossible to get rid of." So exactly what do the redditors want reddit to be, assuming we call them constituents or stakeholders, and not mere content sharecroppers? Do they really want to be involved in Reddit's internal business process? Why?
In California at least, there are strict legal protections for people who are fired, their boss cannot necessarily talk about why or how someone is fired in public, not without courting significant legal liability. So I'm not sure what "transparency" or "involving the community" can practically accomplish, without getting everyone tied up in torts.
Reddit may eventually have to decide if they're an actual business that's supposed to make money or a hip BBS. The two identities are sorta in tension and I'm not sure it's resolvable.
"No... down with the people appropriating people that don't share their ideology or way of thinking as members of their group."
In your opinion. It's up for interpretation, and anyway there's a lot more to the Guardian than some caricature of brain-dead leftism, and there's a lot more to Dune than a one sentence quote from Paul Atreides.
Yeah but it'd sorta be like doing a painting and calling it an "adaptation" of Bach's D-minor partita for violin. The medium is the essence of Dune in a way many other books aren't; any book that deals so heavily in metaphysics is going to be hard to realize visually.
Huge stretches of the book are internal monologue or whispered conversations in dark rooms, where two people exchange few words and pages are spent on exposition. The book is unfilmable; or rather, you can make a lot of movies with the title Dune but they're going to end up just sharing character names and the general bag of situations.
"glowing piece also claimed ownership of his work effectively within the ideological camp of the paper"
So on the one hand, down with the Guardian because it is rigidly ideological. And on the other, down with the Guardian because it doesn't adhere to your rigid, singular interpretation of the novel Dune.