Skip to main content

Matt Fahrner

Matt Fahrner's Public Library

  • ignored clear guidance from the State Department that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers
  • She never sought approval to conduct government business over private email
  • "The inspector general documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email," Fallon said, noting that the report says "her use of personal email was known to officials within the department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the secretary's server."

1 more annotation...

  • Security Awareness Slogans, Mottos, Tag lines, Catch Phrases, Maxims...

  • How can enterprises stop the OpenSSH vulnerability?
  • ssh -lusername -oKbdInteractiveDevices=`perl -e 'print "pam," x 10000'` targethost

  • 28Pages.org
  • Quotable

     
    <!-- .entry-header -->  
     
    Walter Jones
    Walter Jones
     

    Rep. Walter Jones: “I was absolutely shocked by what I read. What was so surprising was that those whom we thought we could trust really disappointed me…It does not deal with national security per se; it is more about relationships. The information is critical to our foreign policy moving forward and should thus be available to the American people.” Source

     

    “It was 28 pages and it probably took me a good hour and a half because I would have to re-read certain parts of it that I just couldn’t believe what I was reading.” Source

  • Apache Log Insights

     

    Access logs and Error logs from your Apache HTTP servers provide invaluable data for troubleshooting and monitoring your web applications. Check out the free resources below to learn how to get the most out of your Apache server logs.

  • The industry largely collapsed. AARP doesn't even market LTC insurance anymore.

  • The Moral Narratives of Economists
  • Moral narratives have a substantive effect on the research conclusions of economists. This is one of the findings from a recent survey of economists that we conducted, which found a relationship between views on empirical economic propositions and moral judgments. This finding may help to answer the question this symposium asks: Why don’t U.S. economists ever support the welfare state and oppose the regulatory state, or vice versa? We find the same moral narrative supports or opposes both states in tandem. To support one and oppose the other would be morally incoherent.

  • So why is it, as Randazzo and Haidt observe, that “there seem to be no U.S. economists who take diverging views on the welfare state and the regulatory state?” Their hypothesis is that people, including economists, have morally coherent, narrative beliefs about the world—stories—and their beliefs about specific, empirical questions have to be consistent with those stories. To anyone who is at all self-aware, this seems obvious. Duh.
  • Carl Weetabix   <!-- .comment-meta .commentmetadata --> 
    <!-- .comment-author .vcard -->   

    Well, the study is useful in showing that economics is not science. Economists clearly aren’t using scientific methodology otherwise their “findings” wouldn’t consistently and conveniently correlate with their moral positions. Obviously, to quote the Downing Street Memo, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.

     

    In regards to:

     

    > whether there should be a robust welfare state to protect
     > people from the risks of capitalism

     

    It isn’t simply about protecting, it’s about facilitating. In fact there already is a massive welfare state in place already *for* capitalism. Forgetting the obvious examples like infrastructure, literal grants and deductions, and military and police protections, there is the whole concept of incorporation itself.

     

    Why? Because incorporation comes with a government enforced limit on liability. With that every owner, from mom and pops, to shareholders are receiving a massive subsidy in terms of liability caps, caps that would otherwise have to be met through impossibly expensive insurance policies. In fact capitalism becomes untenable without these explicit (but only seen as implicit) caps. Who would invest in a company when any malfeasance or bankruptcy would go beyond simply investment loss?

     

    This is a massive form of welfare to corporations.

     

    I could go on about the granting and enforcement of copyrights and patents, which is also a form of government “welfare”, though not as obviously clear. I will skip for now though.

      1. As far as “welfare” for the little people, welfare could be seen to actually facilitate the entrepreneurial capitalism that is so lauded these days. I know that personally I would be far more likely to try to launch my own business should I believe there were actually a safety net to catch me if it failed. There are a lot of things many people would take the “risk” of doing that might be economically stimulating if they believed they had some sort of effective government safety net (beyond the massive incorporation liability caps noted before). Who wants to risk living on the street if their “great idea” fails?

         

        In short, “welfare” is not only more prevalent in places where it is not obvious, it can also be seen to facilitate capitalism, not just protect against it.

         
          
        <!-- #comment-## -->  
      2. <!-- #comment-## --> 
            
       

  • Trump, though, she likes. And so do a lot of people. No one should be surprised that he's tearing through the Republican primaries, because everything he's saying about his GOP opponents is true. They really are all stooges on the take, unable to stand up to Trump because they're not even people, but are, like Jeb and Rubio, just robo-babbling representatives of unseen donors.

  • Yet the redistribution required to generate this broad improvement in living standards is hardly addressed, or sometimes even mentioned. To do so would be to step into the muddy mire of normative questions.
    Should the government take from some people in order to give to others? Who should give the most, and who should receive?
    Should the government take from some people in order to give to others? Who should give the most, and who should receive?
    What exactly should they receive?
  • Even putting politics aside, these are not easy questions. No one has figured out a foolproof way to make workers hurt by globalization whole again. In theory, everyone who benefited from globalization — every consumer who bought cheap imported products, every producer who used cheap imported inputs, every exporter — would have to chip in. Likewise, everyone who suffered — every worker whose job moved abroad, every shareholder whose company’s prices were undercut by foreign competition — would be in line for compensation. Moreover, society would have to agree on the value of all these benefits and costs, not in dollars but rather in terms of well-being.
  • Nobel laureate Paul Krugman and his wife, the economist Robin Wells, are even less specific: “The great majority of economists would argue that the gains from reducing trade protection still exceed the losses. However, it has become more important than before to make sure that the gains from international trade are widely spread.”

3 more annotations...

  • Democrats Divided on Hillary and Bernie: A Closer Look
  • Late Night with Seth Meyers

  • Vox Pupuli 

     

    Modules and tooling maintained by and for the Puppet community

     

    • Windows PowerShell Desired State Configuration Overview
    1 - 20 of 776 Next › Last »
    20 items/page

    Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »

    Join Diigo