Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Can't take the heat? (Score 1) 259

Because if you are always nice, the useless idiots stick around and remain useless idiots, and you end up wasting your time coddling useless idiots instead of getting things done. Linus is more considerate than the majority of HR people, because they manipulate you while pretending to be honest, kind, and such. Linus has the courtesy to drop the farce, so you don't have to waste efforts with pointless social games.

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 786

Tit-for-tat is actually the best strategy for peace if there is an incentive to attack. We even adopt similar tactics even if we have nothing to gain, as in an ultimatum game. Humans are wired with a sense of justice, and it's largely a smart strategy from an evolutionary standpoint.

Comment Re:This is not about science. It's about dependenc (Score 1) 298

Patents are an inefficient way of funding research of any kind, which might have made sense 200 years ago, but is complete nonsense today. Just fund this research directly. Most of the discoveries happen with government funding in university labs anyway, we just allow companies like Monsanto to steer it into more profit driven direction and make money off of it.

Comment Re:This is not about science. It's about dependenc (Score 1) 298

Yeah, i think that in order to save the planet, we need to embrace GMO, and leave Monsanto and the like dying in a ditch. No patents on living organisms, and only sustainable farming practices (like the crop rotation we figured out centuries ago) should receive any subsidies. If you plant corn year after year after year, you're on your own.

Comment Offense vs. defense (Score 2) 57

If this is really a threat, the best practice would be to have a multinational effort to make sure software is secure, and that vital infrastructure is set up in a secure way. Encryption, air gaps, regular audits of commonly used software, all in the wide open. None of this "save this 0-day exploit for a good target" bullshit, just focus on getting things fixed.

Comment Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony (Score 1) 86

There are two possibilities for the evidence:
1) it would have inevitably be found in roughly the same time frame through conventional policing
2) it would NOT have inevitably be found in roughly the same time frame through conventional policing
If we have case 1, the NSA's actions were pointless. If we have case 2, the evidence is fruit of the poison tree. This is by definition, because if it has any effect on the second search, it has affected it, and thus is 'fruit.'

The scenario you are concerned about is that just because the NSA gave the DEA info about George Jung being a drug dealer, that doesn't undermine evidence from local police that comes from a giant billboard that says "George Jung's Cocaine Emporium, Next Left."

Comment Re: Why does the FBI continue to engage in witchcr (Score 1) 262

I'm not lying, you are just not reading carefully, I said that you said that the FBI had special knowledge on their employee requirements, not that you had such knowledge. You said that "they have a better idea of what type of employees can do their work than you do," and you just reiterated it in your posts that they have insider information not available to us.

If they filter out some classes of security threat by other means is not so clear.

That is a claim that has ZERO evidence and zero reason to suspect anything other than tricking people into thinking it works. You might as well claim that polygraphs give you mental superpowers. There's just as much evidence to support it.

In regards to real world applications with some degree of actual evidence, the only thing that polygraphs could be useful for is tricking people into thinking they work. But you could substitute countless other techniques from different cultures and claim mystical powers. But if they literally used a voodoo ritual as part of getting a security clearance, people would obviously get upset because that's clearly stupid bullshit that would only let crazy jackasses in.

Just because there are experts who are idiots, doesn't mean that any experts is non-expert, or an idiot, or can't be trusted to manage their own damn employees. How would a non-expert such as yourself hope to impeach their judgement? You can't, of course. As you point out, their field is shrouded in secrecy; that means you don't know, it doesn't mean they don't know. It means you can't judge what they do effectively. Now, there are lots of legitimate policy opinion responses to that situation. But it doesn't leave you in a position to impeach their judgement about things where the facts are mostly secret.

Secrecy is not an advantage in regards to having scientific evidence. It means that they aren't subject to external peer review, and thus have little to no forces that act against their existing biases.

And they're not bumbling morons, regardless of your or my opinion of their polices.

According to spies themselves, they often are.

The whole organisation was riddled with nepotism - dim, dreary people of utter unmemorability; sub-men who were doubled up with other sub-men to create an illusion of strength and only doubled the weakness; others made memorable only by poisonous, corrupt malevolence or crass, mulish stupidity; the whole run by a chain of command remarkable for its feebleness. The entire service was decrepit and incompetent.

Comment Re: Why does the FBI continue to engage in witchcr (Score 1) 262

Working for these agencies or their contractors requires a security clearance, often down to the janitors, so these agencies, who you claim know more than we do about what qualifications their employees need, apparently think that it's very important to filter out potential employees that are a security threat. We know that, objectively, polygraphs don't do this, and would disproportionately select for those who can lie intuitively, as they aren't going to trigger a false positive.

Also, there are plenty of serious professional of above-average intelligence, with college degrees that have no clue what they are doing. We don't really have good metrics for evaluating their performance, especially since so much of what they do is shrouded in secrecy. That is, in fact, a very negative factor for the likelihood of their competence, because it shields them against evolutionary pressure.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A firefly is not a fly, but a beetle.