Hacking the Federal Logjam

Discuss

18 Responses to “Hacking the Federal Logjam”

  1. EH says:

    Please delete all sentences that include the pronoun “I” and resubmit.

    • What would you like it replaced with? “This author?”

      • Ihavenofuckingname says:

        The key words were ‘delete’ and ‘sentences’, not ‘replace’ and ‘words.’

        That said, I’d like those sentences replaced with whatever measurements of ‘productivity’ were used to substantiate these claims.  That might get in the way of the author’s ill-advised thought experiment though.

      • EH says:

        No, I would prefer all the superfluous narrative blather be replaced by actual writing.

  2. dragonfrog says:

    Any evidence they really were targets of a “sophisticated hack attack?”  Or is it just that someone accidentally brought in a random virus that their AV didn’t detect?

    A typical modern, up-to-date desktop AV product will have about a 2/3 or 3/4 detection rate for new malware.  Stuff that’s a month or two old will be detected pretty reliably, but new stuff just doesn’t get detected well.

    • Gideon Jones says:

      I’m still looking for evidence that their productivity actually stayed the same, nevermind increasing.  The linked article basically amounts to a a couple lines from the “old-timers” in the office reminiscing about phone books and secretaries.

  3. LinkMan says:

    Isn’t the cliche about caves in Tora Bora?

    I don’t think Bora Bora is particularly known for its cave-dwellers.

  4. jon_anon says:

    Dear boingboing people behind the scenes,
    Are we allowed to know the nature of these reprinted posts from credit.com? Are they paid stories? Their appearance on the blog isn’t credited to any of the usual frontpagers, and the author isn’t a guest poster. Of course you can tell me to mind my own business; this isn’t a demand but a request, out of curiosity and a wish (not a demand) for transparency. 

    • greebo says:

      I decided to conduct my own hypothetical investigation of what the BoingBoing team are up to here, and my own unscientific conclusion is that they’re trying to create a contrast to remind us how good the usual standard of writing here is.

      • jon_anon says:

        Sounds about right. In fact it has served to remind me that all the websites I go to each day are well-written and smart, but that there is a whole Ye Worlde of Shytte beyond my own little myopic boundary, where things do not have to make sense.

    • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

      Hi Jon. The various authors and editors of of credit.com write for Boing Boing on occasion. Sometimes they write original pieces, other times Boing Boing reruns a piece that appeared on credit.com. Boing Boing and credit.com do not pay or get paid to do this. I like the folks at credit.com and I like the articles they run on their website.

      Also, I sometimes write pieces for credit.com and I get paid as a freelancer for doing so. 

      I hope that clears things up!

  5. James Pringle says:

    Perhaps the author, instead of being so snide about a study of cow farts, should briefly investigate whether livestock methane emissions are an important source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.  They are, and it is a significant impact on global climate.  They are important, and worth understanding. Real people doing important research suffer when lazy people assume they are being stupid without doing any research. I know the woman who is doing this research, and she got harassed by people who thought she was just defrauding the government. (post edited to make clear who is suffering…)

    • Listener43 says:

      “They are important, and worth understanding. Real people doing real research that helps society suffer when lazy people assume someone else is being stupid.”
      Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but why do we want real people doing real research that helps society suffer? Frankly, whether lazy people assume one thing or another shouldn’t even enter into the equation.
       (OK, strike the “Perhaps” above.)

      • Ihavenofuckingname says:

         They only help society suffer when lazy people assume someone else is being stupid.

        So the solution is clearly to stop lazy people from assuming someone is being stupid.  But really, I think this is maybe a punctuation issue.  Except I don’t know how to fix it with punctuation.

        …which is a problem of a stupid person assuming someone is lazy.  Crap.

    • ocker3 says:

       And figuring out Which end of a cow the pollution comes from probably involves an explanation of Why, How, etc.

      I know they’re looking at trying to get a bacteria (or some kind of intestinal flora) working in cows that’s in kangaroos, as it cuts down on methane emissions. Understanding the whole process takes study and $700,000 is a drop in the bucket when it comes to a big study.

      Here in Australia a local river’s health was dropping, and the council asked a scientist to study it. He asked for 4 million dollars to educate the farmers, industry, tourism operators and turn the problem around. They asked him what he could do with 1 million. He said “watch it happen.”

      Really serious science often involves really serious money.

  6. BrianOman says:

    Wait, so the conclusion is a tangent of the original proposition, and does nothing to find an answer to the posed question?
    Great writing there…

Leave a Reply