True, due diligence is the customer's responsibility. But how many customers REALLY know what to check for when it comes to security, infrastructure or otherwise? Let's face it, even those who bother to pick up the phone and call a provider will at most ask "are you secure" etc., and naturally the rep will say "absolutely". I mean, look at the whole Blackboard course management system mess. Do you really think any techie would choose them over Angel, the myriad open source solutuions, et al? Of course not. But the techies don't get asked questions until the question is "what can we do to fix this situation/save our ass/cut our losses?".
It would be nice if there were recognized standards out there with a "seal of approval" of sorts, akin to the ISO 9000/9001 etc. assuring customers of reasonable security, adequate infrastructure, etc.
At least then the clueless stuffed-shirts that make the decisions would have *some* inkling if a provider was up to snuff.
Well, thank God for that. We certainly wouldn't have wanted the general population to become aware of the highly flawed vote-recording and counting systems in use.
People might have noticed wide-spread problems, but who cares about a few hiccups in Ohio and Florida?;)
I have nothing to hide, but absolutely do NOT want my personal info being collected and sifted by the FBI.
Privacy is one of the founding principles on this country and I don't think the currect level of fear and paranoia should be used as a lever to lift this sort of activity into practice. To me this is no different than the FBI saying, "well, we don't know EXACTLY where this suspect lives, but we know it's in this neighborhood of 250 families, so we'll just search each and every house from top to bottom". Or, worse yet, "well, we know it's a white guy between 30 and 45 who lives in that neighborhood, so we'll just arrest and interrogate everyone of that description until something pops up".
Right now (well, for the time being, anyway) the police don't even have the right to search your person without probable cause, so why in God's name would I want them to be able to search through my digital info for no reason at all? I hate to sound trite, but give 'em an inch...
Having VERY intimate knowledge of Bb (no, NOT an employee), I can tell you for a fact they are the quintessential bullies: they may be the biggest kid on the block, but they're none too smart.
They treat a good many customers as if Bb was the customer -- they are constantly issuing demands, determining their own timelines/deadlines. For example, they've been known to contact a school and say, "hey, we're taking your server down for maintenance/updates at such-and-such time, so be ready" instead of "when's a good time to do that?". They honestly feel these schools have no other choice as far as software, but a good many of their customers are waking up to the fact that Angel et al. are superior in most - if not all - aspects.
My opinion is the folks at the top KNOW their software just doesn't stack up well against the competition and that's why they're such thugs and so vehement in this whole patent mess. They probably figure "well, if we prevail in this patent mess, we can just license it out to these other vendors, make a nice fat percentage off that, and not even bother producing our own software anymore."
A good plan I guess. Make a piece off every distance learning program and lay off almost every staff member. That would make for a hell of an ROI.
BTW, be warned: I'm following Bb's lead of patenting a concept by patenting: the wheel, the lever, gardening, internal combustion engines, electicity, underwear, English AND Spanish language, and supermodels. Definitely supermodels.
Having lived most of my life in a rural area only minutes from a major metro area, I can tell you if it weren't for buildout requirements, I wouldn't have phone, garbage or power service. Utility companies are GIVEN many privileges when it comes to their for-profit business, such as easements through public and private property to run cabling. Do you really think anyone would WANT a string of 200-foot electrical towers going through their property? Of course not. But the government allows easements through properties for the GOOD OF ALL. In exchange for these privileges, the companies are expected to service everyone. Also, requiring these infrastructure providers to service every area helps promote growth of both residential and business areas. How quickly do you think an area would develop if the basics like power and data had not been provided for during infrastructure installs and upgrades?
There are those who say this sort of situation fosters competition, i.e., some upstart little company will come along and service those who the big boys won't. That may be true in some areas, but not telecom. If a company says area A isn't profitable, so we won't service them, how will another company be able to service them without the profitable areas to make up for it? The answer: they won't be able to. That's why these buildout requirements were set up in the first place. The goverment was essentially saying to the providers, "Look. You have to analyze your profitability across the board, regardless of whether that two square miles at the edge of your service area are profitable in and of themselves."
Every business has an area (or more than one) that is less- or even non-profitable. It's called the cost of doing business.
au contraire!
It is perhaps YOU who should fact check!
EVERYONE knows the accepted width of a luge track is 3m, and that the width of a Yugo is little more than 1.5m.
And sitting flat would only INCREASE friction. The somewhat high-and-wide stance of a Yugo in a luge track would provide a bit more thrill to the participants, don't you think?
WTF are they teaching you kids in school these days? ANYTHING practical at all?!!?!???
Slashdot Mirror
What about flying cars? I've been waiting for my flying car since first grade for christsake!
True, due diligence is the customer's responsibility. But how many customers REALLY know what to check for when it comes to security, infrastructure or otherwise? Let's face it, even those who bother to pick up the phone and call a provider will at most ask "are you secure" etc., and naturally the rep will say "absolutely". I mean, look at the whole Blackboard course management system mess. Do you really think any techie would choose them over Angel, the myriad open source solutuions, et al? Of course not. But the techies don't get asked questions until the question is "what can we do to fix this situation/save our ass/cut our losses?".
It would be nice if there were recognized standards out there with a "seal of approval" of sorts, akin to the ISO 9000/9001 etc. assuring customers of reasonable security, adequate infrastructure, etc.
At least then the clueless stuffed-shirts that make the decisions would have *some* inkling if a provider was up to snuff.
So, stopped election problems, eh?
;)
Well, thank God for that. We certainly wouldn't have wanted the general population to become aware of the highly flawed vote-recording and counting systems in use.
People might have noticed wide-spread problems, but who cares about a few hiccups in Ohio and Florida?
I have nothing to hide, but absolutely do NOT want my personal info being collected and sifted by the FBI.
Privacy is one of the founding principles on this country and I don't think the currect level of fear and paranoia should be used as a lever to lift this sort of activity into practice. To me this is no different than the FBI saying, "well, we don't know EXACTLY where this suspect lives, but we know it's in this neighborhood of 250 families, so we'll just search each and every house from top to bottom". Or, worse yet, "well, we know it's a white guy between 30 and 45 who lives in that neighborhood, so we'll just arrest and interrogate everyone of that description until something pops up".
Right now (well, for the time being, anyway) the police don't even have the right to search your person without probable cause, so why in God's name would I want them to be able to search through my digital info for no reason at all? I hate to sound trite, but give 'em an inch...
Having VERY intimate knowledge of Bb (no, NOT an employee), I can tell you for a fact they are the quintessential bullies: they may be the biggest kid on the block, but they're none too smart.
They treat a good many customers as if Bb was the customer -- they are constantly issuing demands, determining their own timelines/deadlines. For example, they've been known to contact a school and say, "hey, we're taking your server down for maintenance/updates at such-and-such time, so be ready" instead of "when's a good time to do that?". They honestly feel these schools have no other choice as far as software, but a good many of their customers are waking up to the fact that Angel et al. are superior in most - if not all - aspects.
My opinion is the folks at the top KNOW their software just doesn't stack up well against the competition and that's why they're such thugs and so vehement in this whole patent mess. They probably figure "well, if we prevail in this patent mess, we can just license it out to these other vendors, make a nice fat percentage off that, and not even bother producing our own software anymore."
A good plan I guess. Make a piece off every distance learning program and lay off almost every staff member. That would make for a hell of an ROI.
BTW, be warned: I'm following Bb's lead of patenting a concept by patenting: the wheel, the lever, gardening, internal combustion engines, electicity, underwear, English AND Spanish language, and supermodels. Definitely supermodels.
Having lived most of my life in a rural area only minutes from a major metro area, I can tell you if it weren't for buildout requirements, I wouldn't have phone, garbage or power service. Utility companies are GIVEN many privileges when it comes to their for-profit business, such as easements through public and private property to run cabling. Do you really think anyone would WANT a string of 200-foot electrical towers going through their property? Of course not. But the government allows easements through properties for the GOOD OF ALL. In exchange for these privileges, the companies are expected to service everyone. Also, requiring these infrastructure providers to service every area helps promote growth of both residential and business areas. How quickly do you think an area would develop if the basics like power and data had not been provided for during infrastructure installs and upgrades? There are those who say this sort of situation fosters competition, i.e., some upstart little company will come along and service those who the big boys won't. That may be true in some areas, but not telecom. If a company says area A isn't profitable, so we won't service them, how will another company be able to service them without the profitable areas to make up for it? The answer: they won't be able to. That's why these buildout requirements were set up in the first place. The goverment was essentially saying to the providers, "Look. You have to analyze your profitability across the board, regardless of whether that two square miles at the edge of your service area are profitable in and of themselves." Every business has an area (or more than one) that is less- or even non-profitable. It's called the cost of doing business.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
au contraire! It is perhaps YOU who should fact check! EVERYONE knows the accepted width of a luge track is 3m, and that the width of a Yugo is little more than 1.5m. And sitting flat would only INCREASE friction. The somewhat high-and-wide stance of a Yugo in a luge track would provide a bit more thrill to the participants, don't you think? WTF are they teaching you kids in school these days? ANYTHING practical at all?!!?!???