Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_3

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
12
69.1k
How unusual would it be for him to bat and pitch regularly?
It would be extremely unusual. No American League pitcher has had more than 15 plate appearances in a season since the D.H. was introduced in 1973. Only 17 American League pitchers have even had a season of double-digit plate appearances in that time despite the advent of interleague play in 1997, which gave them considerably more opportunities to bat.
Pitchers get more of a chance to hit in the National League, but even in a league with no D.H., pitchers rarely crack 100 plate appearances. Last year, the National League’s leader in plate appearances among pitchers was Jacob deGrom of the Mets, with 77.
In the early part of baseball’s modern era, it was not entirely unheard-of to spend time as both a pitcher and a position player. From 1901 to 1919, a player had 200 plate appearances as a batter and 10 appearances as a pitcher in the same season 12 times. But since then, only Willie Smith of the 1964 Angels managed to pull off such a feat. Despite being an above-average pitcher and outfielder that season, Smith went on to pitch just three more times in his career.
The last player to truly make a go of contributing as a pitcher and a hitter was Brooks Kieschnick, who was a reliever, a pinch-hitter and an outfielder for the Milwaukee Brewers. In the 2003 and 2004 seasons, he combined for 74 appearances as a pitcher and 133 plate appearances as a batter.
But what about Babe Ruth?
It’s true that Ruth was an emerging star as a pitcher before he became baseball’s most feared slugger, but for the most part those years did not overlap. The closest he came to excelling at both was with the Boston Red Sox in 1918. That year, as a key player for a World Series-winning team, the 23-year-old Ruth started 19 games as a pitcher and 57 as an outfielder. He led the majors with 11 home runs and had a 2.22 E.R.A. that was 22 percent better than the league average. But Ruth’s best pitching seasons were for the Red Sox in 1916 and 1917, while his best hitting seasons came for the Yankees from 1920 to 1934.
The comparison between Ruth and Ohtani, however, is one that is unfair to Ohtani. It is, quite frankly, ridiculous to include the phrase “but what about Babe Ruth?” in any serious discussion about the two, regardless of how talented Ohtani may be.
The Hitter Can Hurl. The Hurler Can Hit. Can He Do Both in the Majors?
Back to school items. Top ten items to have!
Home Sweet office. Couples navigate sharing a home and office together.
* Spread | Charity story. How can you get involved in charities. Focus of all the activities they do. Lots of breakout. Feature top five rare organizations that are worthy of your attention. What new TV shows this fall support other charites.
* In her words | Columnist, Tracy Beckerman, Life in the burbs.
* Home+Garden | Artful investments. Owning original art work is uniquely rewarding.
* Beauty | Keeping the lasting bronze. Items to keep the Sunkist glow all the way through summers end.
* Fashion | Fall trends. For mothers and kids.
Check list for getting kids prepared to go back to school.
ST JOHN'S, Antigua and Barbuda (AFP) — West Indies women's captain Stafanie Taylor will miss her team's three-match T20 international series in Pakistan which starts later this month over security concerns, Cricket West Indies (CWI) announced on Thursday.
The 2016 World Twenty20 champions are set to play games in Karachi on January 31, February 1 and February 3.
But all-rounder Taylor, one of the biggest stars in the women's game, will only join the squad for the following one-day international series in the United Arab Emirates.
"Following the detailed security plan from the PCB and the independent security assessment....Stafanie Taylor has opted out of touring Pakistan," the CWI confirmed.
I first discovered John Mearsheimer’s work in 2014 when he published a courageous article in Foreign Affairs on why the Ukraine crisis was the West’s fault. The blame could not be laid at Putin’s doorstep. From Mearsheimer’s realist political perspective, you had to be pretty dumb to imagine that Putin would permit NATO ships to dock at Sevastopol in the Crimea or wrench the Ukraine into the Euro-NATO orbit. Anyone who has two brain cells to rub together can figure out that Russia would not tolerate such developments. And it didn’t!
The Mueller report did not find any evidence, either, of Russian meddling in the US election of 2016. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but the lifting of dense fog around Russia and the Ukraine, Russian meddling and far-fetched ideas (espoused by the likes of Canada’s luny Russophobe Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland) that Russia desires to restore the old Soviet Empire can be cast in the malevolent bin of truth decay. Can truth be just over the horizon? Well, maybe not yet! Most thinkers these days imagine that Armageddon will arrive before we reach the land of shining truth.
Mearsheimer, who is a prominent US political theorist from the University of Chicago, had the guts to challenge the massive propaganda masking the US engineering of the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. Now, in his new book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (2018), Mearsheimer displays the same moxie as he dissembles the “liberal hegemonic” futilities of US foreign policy. The title of my article, “Liberalism as a source of trouble,” is the title of chapter six in his book. The book surprised me. I didn’t think it possible that a mainstream political theorist from America could take a cold, hard look at his own county’s repugnant actions on foreign soil. So let me extract some of his provocative ideas for CP readers.
His basic question is a fascinating one: “What happens when a country that is deeply committed to individual rights and doing social engineering to promote those rights employs that template in the wider world?” (p. 120). The answer: “That formidable state will end up embracing liberal hegemony, a highly interventionist foreign policy that involves fighting wars and doing significant social engineering in countries throughout the world” (ibid.). The liberal hegemonic framework, fueled by America’s missionary religious impulses and an over-bearing hubris, permits the US to forgo international law to topple any regime deemed authoritarian and worthy of American tutorials in how to create an open economy and liberal democratic institutions. Sounds good? Well, for Mearsheimer the US ends up invading countries (lots of them) and destroying the very goals they espouse publicly. This paradoxical outcome undermines the liberal hope that toppling authoritarian regimes like Iraq can lead to a more peaceful world. It hasn’t. Every invaded country is a bloody, shameful mess. Does the world look more peaceful to you?
Liberal hegemony carries a heavy burden. Once a country decides to fight to protect human rights and spread democracy around the world, a “liberal unipole becomes addicted to war” (p. 152). Once addicted—and who can doubt that the US military-industrial complex needs a constant fix—the globe provides a vast mission field and opportunities to fight. The righteous policy-makers (even if this righteousness is vitriolic) believe they have the right, responsibility and knowledge to use military force to achieve their goals. Pursuing liberal hegemony, however, negates diplomacy, making it harder to settle disputes with other countries peacefully and undermines the notion of sovereignty—a “core norm that is intended to limit interstate war” (p. 152). Only recently the US has “given” the Golan Heights to the egregious state of Israel and “chosen” the reprehensible puppet Juan Guaido as “president” of Venezuela. The Syrian ambassador to the UN wondered whether the US might also give Israel North and South Carolina as well.
Beware of liberal democracy at work beyond its own national borders. Mearsheimer says that the liberal elites refuse to “learn from their failings and become averse to using military force abroad, but that seldom happens” (ibid.). Rather, the liberal hegemonic project stirs up conflict, fosters instability, fails and leaves the invaded state in trouble. The elites always think they know what is best for a particular country. They disregard the authoritarian country’s interests. They don’t bother even talking to the leaders. Diplomacy is out; military action is in. Fighting is always better than talking. The US constantly pressures other nation-states, even a nuclear power like Russia, to accept their agenda. Now, the US government is hysterically shouting out that Russian troops (there are now 100 military advisers based on a co-operative agreement made in Venezuela in 2001) should leave the US’s backyard. Bolton’s bombast is burning brightly. “Hey, Russian goons, stay away from our territory!
Mearsheimer observes that, the Clinton administration in 1992 embraced liberal hegemony from the start. The policy, he argues, “remained through firmly intact through the Bush and Obama administrations” (p. 153). What have been the results? During this period the US has been involved in “numerous wars” and “has failed to achieve meaningful success in almost all of these conflicts” (ibid.). First, Washington has played the “central role in destabilizing the Middle East, to the great detriment of the people living there.” Second, Britain has to share the blame “for the trouble the US has helped cause.” Thirdly, “American policymakers also played the key role in producing a major crisis with Russia over Ukraine.” Fourth, “Back in the US., America’s civil liberties have been eroded by an increasingly powerful national security state” (ibid).
The “great delusion” of America, according to Mearsheimer, is that America can only be “secure ”when, as Dean Rusk once said, the “total international environment is ideologically safe” (p. 154). Now, Washington can go to war under several pretenses: to impose liberal democracy and a neo-liberal economy on all sovereign nation-states and to protect various victims of alleged human rights abuses. Let it be clear, though, that invasion to protect is a selective strategy. For Mearsheimer, Bush’s invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is the “best example of liberal interventionism” (p. 155).
Bush and his gang were supremely deluded: they would defeat al-Qaeda and then Iran, Iraq and Syria. And who knows where else. They thought that the best way to deal with terrorism was to “turn all countries in the Middle East into liberal democracies” (ibid.). A “great zone of peace” would rise like a phoenix from the ashes of burnt corpses and shattered lives. Peace would arrive! Calm elections would occur! Starbucks on every corner!
The great delusion of US foreign policy is that it is possible to function as a de factoform of world government. Mearsheimer thinks that this delusory, perhaps insane, project presses the liberal hegemonists to develop “deep-seated antipathy toward illiberal states” (p. 157). The unipolar state is disinclined to diplomacy. It demands full surrender. One cannot compromise with evil. This form of Manichean mythology, embedded in right-wing Christian Zionism, has horrible consequences. For me, the unipolar state acts too much like the moth drawn inexorably to the flame.
Liberal hegemony undermines sovereignty. As Mearsheimer puts it, “Respect for sovereignty is the most significant norm in international politics, and its purpose is to minimize war and facilitate peaceful relations among states” (p. 158). This means, fundamentally, that nation-states have the “ultimate authority” over events inside one’s borders and that “foreign powers have no right to interfere in their politics” (p. 159). The cornerstone of international law, sovereignty, means that “countries are not supposed to invade each other, at least not without permission from the UN Security Council” (ibid.).
Mearsheimer claims that norms have little impact on state behaviour. While I don’t agree with his forlorn realism completely, he says that the norm of sovereignty was eroding by the mid-1990s, “mainly because the US took to interfering in the politics of other countries even more than it had in the past” (p. 160). He states bluntly: “Liberalism, of course, is all about meddling in other countries’ politics, whether the aim is protecting the rights of foreigners or seeking to spread liberal democracy” (ibid.). The US has led the crusade against sovereignty. For Mearsheimer, this means that the “erosion of sovereignty is one more reason a powerful state with a liberal foreign policy ends up fighting never ending wars and fostering militarism at home” (pp. 161-2). Ironically, the US liberal hegemony espouses peace-making and democracy-gifting goals, but ends up creating great instability in the global system. The US actions are more chaotic and unpredictable than ever.
The US unipolar state can’t keep out of other people’s business. They don’t invade powerful states. But they antagonize their target states like Russia by interfering in their internal affairs through using civil society institutions, CIA-fronted organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, sanctioning business persons and particular industries, mucking around trying to disrupt trade relations with Europe and elsewhere, hammering away at alleged human rights violations. This mucking around activity is topped off with a relentless anti-Russia propaganda game and endless insults from leaders. The US has also promoted “colour revolutions” in Georgia and the Ukraine to turn them into subservient liberal democracies.
Mearsheimer also takes us on grim trip through the US’s devastation in the Middle East. He states: “Washington’s performance in Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Syria has been dismal” (p. 168). It “has played a major role in spreading death and disorder across the greater Middle East.” Incentive to acquire nuclear weapons has “increased in the face of America’s policy of forcible regime change” (ibid.). Consider Gaddafi: Mearsheimer says he would still be around if Libya had nukes. Beware North Korea! Give up your nukes and the conquistadors will be at your doorstep.
All of this intervention and interference in other country’s affairs has been driven by persons who knew little about the countries they were invading. The US invaders also knew little about the factions making up the country, and how a US invasion would set them against each other. Perhaps they didn’t even fully realize that in the age of nationalism, “occupation almost always breeds an insurgency, as the US discovered in the Philippines, and later in Viet Nam” (p. 169).
Final irony: “States that promote liberal hegemony invariably damage the fabric of liberalism inside their own borders” (p. 179).
These electronic device companies' stocks have been hammered -- deservedly -- but while they are far from their highs, neither is a bargain.
Shares of Fitbit (NYSE:FIT) have lost about 83% of their value since they peaked shortly after the company's IPO last year. GoPro (NASDAQ:GPRO) stock has fared even worse; it's down nearly 90% from the highs reached in late 2014.
Given these steep declines, investors willing to bet on a turnaround for either company could be handsomely rewarded if things go right. Both companies sell popular consumer gadgets: fitness wearables in the case of Fitbit, and action cameras in the case of GoPro. Both were first-movers in their respective categories, and their early leads propelled them to years of rapid growth and profitability.
But a first-mover advantage doesn't last forever. Both Fitbit and GoPro need to constantly come up with new products in order to maintain their edge. Neither is succeeding. This never-ending need to innovate is a good reason to avoid both stocks.
Fitbit dramatically ramped up its spending in 2016 in an effort to stay ahead of the competition. Operating expenses more than doubled through the first nine months of the year, with R&D spending jumping by 145%, and sales and marketing spending surging 71%. Revenue rose as well, but by a much smaller 39%.
The result of this spending has been a variety of new products that launched this year: The Blaze, a smart watch with a slew of features; the Alta, a slim and stylish fitness tracker; the Charge 2, a follow-up to the popular Charge; and the Flex 2, a screen-less and swim-proof device. During the third quarter, these new products accounted for 79% of Fitbit's revenue.
But all that money thrown at product development and marketing has failed to fulfill its purpose. Fitbit expects fourth-quarter revenue to grow by just 2% to 5% year over year. Adjusted earnings are set to drop by more than 50% compared to the fourth quarter of 2015. Fitbit's management is now talking about leveraging the company's brand to "unlock new avenues and adjacencies of growth." In other words, its growth story is probably over.
Even if it was facing no competition, getting its customers to upgrade consistently would be a major challenge for Fitbit. But intensifying competition from various companies coming out with Android Wear and watchOS devices adds another layer to Fitbit's problems. It's stuck between a rock and a hard place. If it cuts spending to prop up its margins, it risks falling behind the competition. If it keeps up the heavy spending, it needs to be able to show that this spending can drive growth.
The story could change next year if Fitbit comes up with a killer new product. But investing based on hope is never a good idea.
GoPro expects to produce revenue growth during the fourth quarter, although that's mostly because its 2015 Q4 was a disaster. This year hasn't been any better. Revenue tumbled 46% through the first nine months of 2016, while operating expenses rose 33%. GoPro has posted a net loss of $303 million so far this year, and while the holiday quarter is expected to be profitable, 2017 will be another unprofitable year, according to the company's guidance.
GoPro's entry into the drone market was supposed to prove that the company wasn't a one-hit wonder, and help it return to growth. Its delayed Karma drone finally launched in late October, only to be recalled in early November due to issues with some devices losing power in mid-flight. Only 2,500 Karma drones had been purchased up to that point, a number that may be more disappointing that the recall itself.
GoPro appears to have some deep execution problems. The company managed to bungle one of the most important product launches in its history despite a months-long delay and no discipline at all when it came to spending. It now plans to slash operating costs in an effort to return to profitability, but that won't solve the core problem.
At this point, a bet on GoPro is ultimately a bet that the company can come up with a slate of new products that are successful enough to drive the bottom line back into the black. Given the Karma drone debacle, that's a sucker's bet if I've ever seen one.
A truck driver reportedly drove more than a mile with a car stuck to the front of his cab after a "road rage" crash.
Indian officials are looking for the occupants of a car that chased a large pride of lions and harassed them. A video of the incident which surfaced on April 17 shows a car chasing the pride of..
A truck driver got stranded by a roadside in central Bangladesh near Dhaka, and was unable to get out until a passing tame elephant walked by and the driver had an idea. Video shows how the..
CCTV video captured a car nearly being flattened after it tried to overtake a semi-truck travelling along a Chinese motorway. The terrifying clip, shot in Yichun City in southern China's Jiangxi..
Surveillance video from inside a Mansfield bakery shows just how close of a call it was for customers and employees who were in the shop when a car crashed through the front door. WBZ-TV's Lisa Gresci..
A shocking video showed how a wild elephant that was injured while crossing a road in northern India. The elephant was filmed on April 6 lying prone and injured on the Derhradun-Rishikesh Highway..
This is the nerve-wracking moment a terrified monk and his friend had to keep perfectly still while an ELEPHANT raided their pickup truck in south Thailand. Video from the scene shows the Buddhist..
Everything is pandas and nothing hurts.
With some terribly sad news circulating this morning, we could all use a little dose of the warm-and-fuzzies right now. And with thanks to one very generous mama panda, we've officially got it. Here, fresh from the womb, are three separate tiny bright spots to cheer you on a mournful day.
According to a report from AOL, these adorable panda triplets were born in China back at the end of July. They're now a robust two weeks old, but officials delayed announcing as much until they were sure that all the cubs would survive, which means that whatever else might go wrong this week, at least we all fall in love with these baby pandas and know that it's going to be okay.
Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Dharmendra Pradhan on Sunday accused the ruling Biju Janata Dal (BJD) government of Odisha for its lackadaisical attitude in developing the state.
Addressing the 'Jana Paramarsh Padyatra' here, Pradhan said that in the last 19 years, more people in the state in the state migrated to other places in search of jobs and alleged that corruption increased in the state.
"In 19 years of this (BJD) government, people have only migrated in search of jobs leaving behind their families. There is a rise in unemployment and corruption in the state," he said.
Slamming Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik for failing to improve the agriculture and health sectors in the state, Pradhan asserted, "There is distress sale of paddy and farmers are forced to sell their produce at less than the MSP of Rs 1750 per quintal. 'Mandis' (wholesale markets) are yet to be opened for paddy procurement in Balasore district. Farmers are seeking answers from the BJD Government over the distress sale of paddy and poor irrigation facility."
"Of the 285 sanctioned doctors, 143 posts are vacant in Balasore district. People of Jaleswar seek answers from Naveen Babu's government for its failure in providing health care facility and basic facilities like round the clock electricity," he added.
The Union Minister remarked that Jaleswar was once the centre of economic development in northern Odisha, and despite having rich resources, the region lagged behind in the development process.
Pradhan accused the Patnaik government of failing to take steps to manage the rainwater flowing in Subarnarekha river despite the recurrence of flood-related calamities in Balasore district.
Continuing his tirade against the BJD for not providing piped water supply to the people in Jaleswar, Pradhan said, "Odisha government has put up large hoardings of providing piped drinking water to households, but in reality, people in Jaleswar don't get piped water supply. The government after 19 years has failed to provide clean drinking water."
He further said that the BJD government should give an answer to the people of Odisha on the shortage of teachers in schools, doctors, poor health infrastructure and the status of electrification in the state.
Concord Township Trustee Carl Dondorfer, fourth from left, waves after being introduced during the push-in ceremony held for the township's new heavy rescue pumper truck on April 14. Fire Chief Matt Sabo, left, makes the introduction. Joining Dondorfer are former trustee Christopher Galloway, fellow trustees Paul Malchesky and Caroline Luhta and Fiscal Officer Amy Dawson.
Carl H. Dondorfer has been appointed as the newest trustee for Concord Township.
Dondorfer, who was appointed on April 9 to fill the vacancy created when former Trustee Christopher Galloway was appointed Lake County Auditor, believes there is a lot of work to be done with both the commercial corridor along State Route 44 and Interstate 90 and residential development.
He also has a desire to increase the ability for people to take advantage of the township's parks and would like to bring more people into the community.
According to Dondorfer, the current board of trustees has done a phenomenal job. He believes there to be a great balance between the tranquility of rural living and a greater good in the commercial corridor.
"I see they have done a lot of work in trying to bring a nice balance in Concord Township to make it a good place to live to work and to recreate," he said. "I hope to be able to carry that on and work to be able to support the best interests of residents of the township.
"We have great safety services," he added. "I was involved in the police side of safety services for Concord Township for 25 years. We have a great fire department. I would like to see that continue and just make this a great community to live in."
Dondorfer said he expressed an interest in the trustee position when he learned there was the possibility it was going to be available.
"I discussed that with my wife as being a good opportunity for me, and I reached out and showed an interest and had a series of interviews with the trustees and the administrator and also submitted a resume," Dondorfer said. "I had worked with that group in Concord (trustees/administration) for a number of years in my capacity as the operations captain at the sheriff's office."
The newly appointed trustee described himself as someone who has a strong passion for service. He became involved in scouting at a young age and achieved the rank of Eagle.
He had a desire early on to become involved in law enforcement so after graduating from Bowling Green State University, he entered the police academy.
Dondorfer, who said he had a very rewarding run with the sheriff's department, recently transitioned to the Lake Metroparks Ranger Department where he works as a lieutenant.
He grew up in the township and returned as a resident 12 years ago. He says he and wife Alyson, a physical therapist, enjoy raising their two teenage daughters Mallory and Carley there.
"I'm still getting my feet wet. I want to do the best job that I can to represent the interests of the citizens of Concord Township," Dondorfer said. "All my life I have been in a leadership role and I have always believed that leadership isn't about being charge. It's about taking care of the people in your charge. Those people in my charge are now going to be the citizens of Concord Township."
Dondorfer said he will seek re-election in November.
"I have always believed that leadership isn't about being charge. It's about taking care of the people in your charge. Those people in my charge are now going to be the citizens of Concord Township."
As we move forward, cloud is going to give us an opportunity to reinvent how we do security.
Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: The Open Group. Looking back over the past few years, it seems like cyber security and warfare threats are only getting worse. We've had the Stuxnet Worm, the WikiLeaks affair, China-originating attacks against Google and others, and the recent Egypt Internet blackout.
But, are cyber security dangers, in fact, getting that much worse? And are perceptions at odds with what is really important in terms of security protection? How can businesses best protect themselves from the next round of risks, especially as cloud, mobile, and social media and networking activities increase? How can architecting for security become effective and pervasive?
We posed these and other serious questions to a panel of security experts at the recent The Open Group Conference, held in San Diego the week of Feb. 7, to examine the coming cyber security business risks, and ways to head them off.
The panel: Jim Hietala, the Vice President of Security at The Open Group; Mary Ann Mezzapelle, Chief Technologist in the CTO's Office at HP, and Jim Stikeleather, Chief Innovation Officer at Dell Services. The discussion was moderated by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.
Stikeleather: The only secure computer in the world right now is the one that's turned off in a closet, and that's the nature of things. You have to make decisions about what you're putting on and where you're putting it on. I' s a big concern that if we don't get better with security, we run the risk of people losing trust in the Internet and trust in the web.
When that happens, we're going to see some really significant global economic concerns. If you think about our economy, it's structured around the way the Internet operates today. If people lose trust in the transactions that are flying across it, then we're all going to be in pretty bad world of hurt.
One of the things that you're seeing now is a combination of security factors. When people are talking about the break-ins, you're seeing more people actually having discussions of what's happened and what's not happening. You're seeing a new variety of the types of break-ins, the type of exposures that people are experiencing. You're also seeing more organization and sophistication on the part of the people who are actually breaking in.
The other piece of the puzzle has been that legal and regulatory bodies step in and say, "You are now responsible for it." Therefore, people are paying a lot more attention to it. So, it's a combination of all these factors that are keeping people up at night. A major issue in cyber security right now is that we've never been able to construct an intelligent return on investment (ROI) for cyber security.
We're starting to see a little bit of a sea change, because starting with HIPAA-HITECH in 2009, for the first time, regulatory bodies and legislatures have put criminal penalties on companies who have exposures and break-ins associated with them.
There are two parts to that. One, we've never been truly able to gauge how big the risk really is. So, for one person it maybe a 2, and most people it's probably a 5 or a 6. Some people may be sitting there at a 10. But, you need to be able to gauge the magnitude of the risk. And, we never have done a good job of saying what exactly the exposure is or if the actual event took place. It's the calculation of those two that tell you how much you should be able to invest in order to protect yourself.
So we're no longer talking about ROI. We're starting to talk about risk of incarceration , and that changes the game a little bit. You're beginning to see more and more companies do more in the security space.
Mezzapelle: First of all we need to make sure that they have a comprehensive view. In some cases, it might be a portfolio approach, which is unique to most people in a security area. Some of my enterprise customers have more than a 150 different security products that they're trying to integrate.
Their issue is around complexity, integration, and just knowing their environment -- what levels they are at, what they are protecting and not, and how does that tie to the business? Are you protecting the most important asset? Is it your intellectual property (IP)? Is it your secret sauce recipe? Is it your financial data? Is it your transactions being available 24/7?
It takes some discipline to go back to that InfoSec framework and make sure that you have that foundation in place, to make sure you're putting your investments in the right way. ... It's about empowering the business, and each business is going to be different. If you're talking about a Department of Defense (DoD) military implementation, that's going to be different than a manufacturing concern. So it's important that you balance the risk, the cost, and the usability to make sure it empowers the business.