Actually, I don't have a problem with a CEO getting paid marginally more, but the numbers of employees "not bringing money inside the company" tend to be a lot smaller than the executive-worshiping culture likes to admit. Plus I don't believe any employee is 300 times more valuable than any other, but then I am a dirty hippie, eh?
Where do you live? You do realize that people live in the states between the two coasts, right? You can have a very sharp IT guy making $40k here and be doing okay.
But, anyway, you missed the point by picking at example.
In Indiana an admin can be held legally responsible if their network isn't properly secure. I understand what you are saying here, but there are professional and sometimes legal reasons something is more secure than an exec wants.
And while I agree you have your paranoid admins, most admins are struggling just to do basic security that no admin would consider controversial. Like someone else already said... there are many, many papertrails out there so that an admin can show that they attempted to do basic security but they couldn't do it because some big fish in a little pond wanted to be sure he could telnet in from bolivia.
I guess I have Sampling Bias too, but ever time I have tried to do this I have been accused of trying to hold the organization back. I have had a lot of bad mangers in my career I admit, and most of them equate their own convenience with "doing what is right for the organization."
So the moral of the story is we should all get together and set up a Gartner-like "consulting" firm where we make C*O's pay million dollar consulting fees and (unlike Gartner) they get the common-sense information they can get from any security text book since the C*Os will only listen to advice that they pay a bazillion dollars for. They are mentally incapable of listening to the smart IT guy in their department that they pay $40k a year.
Yep, you're right, but the problem is that people are so fucking stupid that if any non-autonomous drivers were on the road it would be pulling over constantly. How many times a week do people get too close to you on the highway or tailgate. How many times a week do you pull up to a four-way stop and some hillbilly can't comprehend what to do? The same things will happen to self-driving cars while there are still people driving their own machines.
This comment gives me a pretty good picture of what type of a driver you are, so I am sure I didn't even come to mind that there should be a MAX speed. A driver (even in the left lane) who is going way too fast for conditions is still endangering the person in the right lane. Also, that person who is slower than you that you hate so much has the right to go they speed he/she wants to go to, and pass that car that wants to go slower.
The "computing power" trend of doubling is fairly constant throughout history, but just the medium went from marks on the cave wall, to marks in sand, to marks on paper, etc up to silicon wafers.
So "the end of Moore's Law" cry is really quite silly. If we get to the limits of silicon then someone will come up something else.
Satisfied customers tell one or two people, while angry customers tell dozens of people. Right now you have a massive black-eye situation for this "The Brick" place.
I hadn't heard of them before now. They have created a bad first impression for thousands of people. It's a big screwup and another example of how so many corporate people live in their own little manufactured reality. They have just screwed up something basic that every small shopkeeper learns on the first day.
ah... I see that since I left out the "left" in my post that everyone goes stupid-nuts and assumes I was letting them off the hook.
Way to go... you've all once again shown that most people can't think beyond false dilemmas right now. Go look at my other posts where I say both Bush and Obama have screwed civil liberties in the U.S.
The usual procession of the conversation on this goes from "Obama did X, facscist, marxist, communist!" to "Bush did X too" to "OMG!!!1!! Obamabots don't take responsibility". Both of the last two administrations have MAJORLY fucked up our basic civil rights and since, once again, the air to so super-partisan we can't have a clear conversation about how the presidency is going downhill.
As much as I dislike the NSA, I have to say that Snowden proved himself to be not much more than the world's most affective troll.
He brought attention to the problem while simultaneously giving the shallow-thinking right-wing a scapegoat. He managed to promote and negate his views at the same time. There isn't a lot of positives to the story.
I am not a Libertarian and I actually have a strong belief in strong regulations of multi-national corporations that wield too much power, but I agree 100% with the idea that taking currency out of the hands of massive governmental regulatory bodies is a positive thing. You can believe that governments themselves hold too much power or you can believe that corporations hold too much power and are puppeteering the regulators (like I do based recent events in the financial sector), either way removing that branch of government seems positive to me.
Yes, and this another great reason I don't think that Bitcoin is a version 1.0 idea and that we'll see some sort of refining of the cryptocurrency in the future.
You are right, but the point is that state of the art wasn't frozen at that level. The tech kept improving. The argument was unconsciously assuming that the technology wasn't going to improve and adjust. That's precisely what is happening in some of these anti-bitcoin arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I don't have a problem with a CEO getting paid marginally more, but the numbers of employees "not bringing money inside the company" tend to be a lot smaller than the executive-worshiping culture likes to admit. Plus I don't believe any employee is 300 times more valuable than any other, but then I am a dirty hippie, eh?
Same thing has happened to me with saving mail in the trash, but luckily it wasn't a CEO and I could say don't do that. He still did it again later.
Where do you live? You do realize that people live in the states between the two coasts, right? You can have a very sharp IT guy making $40k here and be doing okay.
But, anyway, you missed the point by picking at example.
In Indiana an admin can be held legally responsible if their network isn't properly secure. I understand what you are saying here, but there are professional and sometimes legal reasons something is more secure than an exec wants.
And while I agree you have your paranoid admins, most admins are struggling just to do basic security that no admin would consider controversial. Like someone else already said... there are many, many papertrails out there so that an admin can show that they attempted to do basic security but they couldn't do it because some big fish in a little pond wanted to be sure he could telnet in from bolivia.
I guess I have Sampling Bias too, but ever time I have tried to do this I have been accused of trying to hold the organization back. I have had a lot of bad mangers in my career I admit, and most of them equate their own convenience with "doing what is right for the organization."
Try to "educate" a "big picture" C*O guy on this and then re-edit your comment.
which is STILL more than the guy doing all the work.
No.. he just still believes the propaganda.
goo goo g'joob
So the moral of the story is we should all get together and set up a Gartner-like "consulting" firm where we make C*O's pay million dollar consulting fees and (unlike Gartner) they get the common-sense information they can get from any security text book since the C*Os will only listen to advice that they pay a bazillion dollars for. They are mentally incapable of listening to the smart IT guy in their department that they pay $40k a year.
Yep, you're right, but the problem is that people are so fucking stupid that if any non-autonomous drivers were on the road it would be pulling over constantly. How many times a week do people get too close to you on the highway or tailgate. How many times a week do you pull up to a four-way stop and some hillbilly can't comprehend what to do? The same things will happen to self-driving cars while there are still people driving their own machines.
This comment gives me a pretty good picture of what type of a driver you are, so I am sure I didn't even come to mind that there should be a MAX speed. A driver (even in the left lane) who is going way too fast for conditions is still endangering the person in the right lane. Also, that person who is slower than you that you hate so much has the right to go they speed he/she wants to go to, and pass that car that wants to go slower.
Didn't this bug also disproportionally hit women drivers from India, too?
The "computing power" trend of doubling is fairly constant throughout history, but just the medium went from marks on the cave wall, to marks in sand, to marks on paper, etc up to silicon wafers.
So "the end of Moore's Law" cry is really quite silly. If we get to the limits of silicon then someone will come up something else.
Satisfied customers tell one or two people, while angry customers tell dozens of people. Right now you have a massive black-eye situation for this "The Brick" place.
I hadn't heard of them before now. They have created a bad first impression for thousands of people. It's a big screwup and another example of how so many corporate people live in their own little manufactured reality. They have just screwed up something basic that every small shopkeeper learns on the first day.
ah... I see that since I left out the "left" in my post that everyone goes stupid-nuts and assumes I was letting them off the hook.
Way to go... you've all once again shown that most people can't think beyond false dilemmas right now. Go look at my other posts where I say both Bush and Obama have screwed civil liberties in the U.S.
I didn't realize any members of Bush's communications department had slashdot accounts!
Rushed changes = removing more freedoms in the name of security.
I wish I had a mod point.
The usual procession of the conversation on this goes from "Obama did X, facscist, marxist, communist!" to "Bush did X too" to "OMG!!!1!! Obamabots don't take responsibility". Both of the last two administrations have MAJORLY fucked up our basic civil rights and since, once again, the air to so super-partisan we can't have a clear conversation about how the presidency is going downhill.
As much as I dislike the NSA, I have to say that Snowden proved himself to be not much more than the world's most affective troll.
He brought attention to the problem while simultaneously giving the shallow-thinking right-wing a scapegoat. He managed to promote and negate his views at the same time. There isn't a lot of positives to the story.
I am not a Libertarian and I actually have a strong belief in strong regulations of multi-national corporations that wield too much power, but I agree 100% with the idea that taking currency out of the hands of massive governmental regulatory bodies is a positive thing. You can believe that governments themselves hold too much power or you can believe that corporations hold too much power and are puppeteering the regulators (like I do based recent events in the financial sector), either way removing that branch of government seems positive to me.
I was thinking that the Office development team was renamed for few seconds...
Yes, and this another great reason I don't think that Bitcoin is a version 1.0 idea and that we'll see some sort of refining of the cryptocurrency in the future.
You are right, but the point is that state of the art wasn't frozen at that level. The tech kept improving. The argument was unconsciously assuming that the technology wasn't going to improve and adjust. That's precisely what is happening in some of these anti-bitcoin arguments.
Why does this argument get so much traction? I don't get it. It's a great argument against the USD as well if you want to take it seriously.