Why isn't this +5 yet? Shameful. They should bring back meta-moderation.

If they're not intelligence, why is making them fearful going to change that? Isn't the basic behavioral prediction that their decision-making will get worse when afraid?

If "fear works," why do workers with angry managers have lower productivity?

The evidence shows that many people still forget before the first coffee break, and their number exceeds the minimum threshold that makes attacks successful.

Critical thinking should lead to the realization that running the tests often enough to keep the problem in the spotlight is not sufficient to prevent the problem.

Technical solutions are required, but they come with expense. Both in equipment, and convenience. Until IT security is seen as a minimum requirement, it will appear as a sacrifice, and modern business decision-making isn't prepared for that. Once it is accepted as a minimum, then it is understood not to be a sacrifice at all, but useful spending and action.

I don't mind a "gotcha" test, the problem is when it promises something of value and is, in actual fact, sent by the person you thought it was being sent by.

In that case, it seems like they have to give the employees the thing, in addition to the training.

My advice to IT departments: Work with HR to identify a reward that you will give to all employees, and an additional reward you'll give to employees who pass the test. And then do the test, and everybody gets the promised reward, the people who clicked the link also get training, and the people who didn't get a (probably better) additional reward.

Otherwise, don't promise anything; trick them with something that looks like a business email, not a fake promise.

That's just it, and that's why it isn't possible to communicate with you.

I didn't "interpret" what you said. I read it, and used the meaning of the words as the meaning.

Now you're saying junk with a completely different meaning.

And that's probably not what you mean, either.

They're just excerpts from your right wing hate religion's media programs that were adjacent to the subject other people are communicating about. You don't know what's going on in the world around you; you only know what hateful hyperbole was spewed at the same time as words about current events.

You even admit it without realizing it; the argument you're engaging in is a mere detail to you. All you're doing is pointing at your virtue, as evidenced by who you hate.

"We added cruft again and again, surely that's what programmers do to make a language better!"

Yeah, you're right! It got even worse when they realized they did need those things, but didn't want to change the architecture to be like other languages. Why do other languages do it that way? Because they're stupid! We'll just tack it on in the least obtrusive way. Sure that's better than having architecture that's built around the algorithms everybody else knew we'd need....

So you're disputing even that it was true? You're as arrogantly stupid as he was!

I thought it was an air bed, and breakfast!

She is unambiguously white, though.

She does have hazel eyes, though. Probably a lizard person. (/s)

I did a web search "Zoe Kleinman cookies" and it didn't turn anything up. I guess it isn't a prominent example of her reporting.

Also... she's primarily a television presenter. Not a person who writes the stories.

She's now also "BBC Technology Editor," but note that she is the first person to serve in that role. Longtime readers of BBC content, or listeners, (and I assume watchers, though I don't watch their television programs) know that they do not include "technology" content targeted at programmers or engineers. Their coverage of technology covers two areas: Business, and Consumer Products. There is not, and never has been, coverage of technical aspects of anything. If they're talking about "cookies," they're explaining it to a grandma who thinks it is a segue into a baking program. You have to know the context and audience to weigh the content. If the explanation is silly, it doesn't mean the writer doesn't understand cookies.

Anything that around technology that is actually "news" and isn't a business, culture, or consumer story would be published by their Science reporters and editors.

TLDR; you're too stupid to talk about the BBC.

Apparently you live in a weird cave where you can only access slashdot and right wing social media, maybe faux news, so I'll give you a spoiler:

Most of the BBC editors (who choose the content) are old white men with a history of sexual harassment complaints. It should be your kind of content.

My friend filled up his bathtub with water on Dec 31st.

About a week earlier he found a giant sale on Earth Sugardrink at the discount warehouse and bought a whole pallet. If society collapsed, the water might not be safe to drink for awhile.

Fast forward two years, he had diabetes. I wish I was joking.

The reason it seemed that way to me was that it was invented by an idiot who thought programmers were stupid and arrogant and programming could be made "easier" by somebody who just ignored (or didn't learn) traditional algorithms and best practices.

Somebody who thought code architecture was lame and unnecessary.

Of course bad things happen. Again. And again. And again. And are still happening decades later.

Absolutely. Completely true. And Congress considered, but chose not to vote to support (or vote to stop) the current military action, which means that the Trump Administration is currently in violation of the Constitution. Perhaps in other ways, too, but that's the not the subject at hand.

However, the claim was that Congress hasn't "declared war" since WWII. Wars that Congress used their powers to approve between WWII and now:

Korean War
Vietnam War
First Iraq War
Second Iraq War
War in Afghanistan
War against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups (Absurd, as it was poorly defined, but Congress did do that using their authority)

There's a bunch more smaller operations that were also authorized in a way that clearly invokes Congressional authority to declare war.

My point not only stands, it is unassailable: There is no "declaration of war" form described in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not require Congress to emit the word "war" as a sort of magic spell to make a declaration valid. What is needed is merely that Congress takes a vote that declares the military action lawful. For political reasons they often choose to do that in a typical mealy-mouthed Congressional manner by appropriating the funds to do it. But that's the prerogative of Congress.

So your complaint is that... it creates jobs? Wow, you're an even bigger asshole than I thought!