Government mandates just take away more of our freedom of choice.
i'm not talking about government mandates. in fact, i'm talking about not coddling those who hurt themselves, and who in turn make my life more difficult. i am, however, all for regulation. we don't allow drug companies to sell gasoline as a pain releiver because we know it'll kill people if they ingest it. we do allow what has to be hundreds of thousands of fast food restaurants to sell things that we know also kill people. we also allow companies to sell products that when burned and inhaled, are known to cause death. i have a problem coddling those companies as well. why are companies allowed to *profit* at the expense of the health and lives of their customers, while you and i pay the bill?
if you're talking about government mandates, i'll take some there. otherwise, no, that's not what i'm talking about.
Besides which, the whole point of insurance is pooled risk.... if you don't want to pay for other peoples bad health decisions then don't have health insurance.
and i wasn't just talking about insurance. i was also talking about the money taken out of each of my paychecks. social security, medicare and medicaid. these things also go to people who have gone and fucked themselves up. not just your (not so-) average healthy retiree.
and another thought. how much money is spent yearly on preventable disease research? i'm strictly talking about things that people know about, are warned about, and allow to happen or cause anyway. why should we spend money trying to save people that knew the risks and wanted to play the odds? why not devote that money and energy to finding cures for diseases we can't stop. genetic disorders, mental health, and so on.
i see your point, and i don't want to cut off funding for medical research for anyone, but hopefully you see my point as well.
it's a problem because people like you and me end up footing the bill. there is so little accountability, it makes me want to cry. you and i are suddenly *more* responsible for the effects of someone's carelessness, irresponsibility, laziness, or what have you.
it's all about accountability. i say hold everyone accountable, whether they are a corporation, government, or individual. NO MORE PRETENDING! no more slaps on the wrist, or busy-work committees. it will suck for everyone at first, but only because everyone gets away with things they shouldn't. i, for one, think things would be much better if people were actually held accountable for the things they say and do.
Here's my thoughts on it. I don't agree that the IT department should be held responsible, unless it proves to be through the IT department's negligence that the information was lost or stolen.
i think the focus should be on management external to the IT department. I have worked in Enterprise IT Sales for a few years now, and am still shocked on an almost daily basis by how easily funds are denied for absolutely crucial projects.
If your CIO, CFO, CEO, Compliance Officer, Security Officer, etc is aware of a risk, and chooses not to act, the fault is theirs, not the IT department that was told to play with rubber bands, old hardware, free software, and tin foil to piece a robust security infrastructure together.
IBM's ISS costs up to around $200,000 for a good-sized implementation, and may be the only *truly* full-sized security solution available on the private market (offerings from McAfee and so-on shouldn't even be mentioned). The organizations that are typically collecting, storing, and losing important and sensitive user data are typically organizations that can afford, or should find a way to afford such security infrastructure. (Are you telling me that S/L/F government, financial institutions, major telecom companies, etc etc etc etc can't afford a non-joke security system? Are you telling me that they can't enact serious security policies and punish ignorance, laziness, or apathy?)
Seems to me that spending $200,000 for a full, robust security system, up front, far outweighs the potential lawsuits, out-of-court settlements and negative publicity that can follow a serious breach or loss of data.
The power lies in the accounting office. With the people who get a bigger bonus for cutting expenses. And this might make sense when you're talking about such things as paperclips, copy paper, toilet paper, etc. But when you're talking about the very things that keeps your business in existence, and maintains your reputation with your peers as well as your customers, shouldn't there be another process?
If someone says to the IT manager, Network Security manager, etc, that "I understand your pain, and while you may feel that you need a full IPS that tests the network for flaws, dynamically, you're going to have to stick with a handful of WatchGuard appliances, because I, and nobody above me, cares", then I say blame that person and anyone else involved in the apathy or ignorance.
But... I ran Vista Ultimate x64 on my HP nc6400, core 2 2.0ghz, 2gb RAM, and the thing ran great. The only reason I got rid of it (was dual-booting) was the heat. My CPU idled at 72c, and with a little work, got close to 80c. If not for that, I'd still be running it.
it worked better with my hardware than OpenSuse 10, Debian 4 (and other distros) too.
I'm really beginning to wonder about these anti-Vista remarks I read all over the place. Seems like band-wagon jumping to me.... Yes, some things with Vista are stupid, and a bit counter-intuitive. But, XP Pro was a horrible OS when it came out, and wasn't fully embraced until SP2. Do people really expect a SP2-quality initial release? Anybody who works in software testing should be able to attest that this is impossible. No matter how thorough you check, test, and attempt to break the product, bugs still make it through. "Features" like UAC still make it through.
Working previously for a major IT reseller in the SMB marketplace, and currently for a major IT reseller in the enterprise marketplace, you'd be surprised how many companies are willing to see how far they can stretch that OEM license, or, how many IT managers don't want to be the ones to tell the CIO, CFO, CTO, CCO, etc that they are not and have not been compliant for years, and that it will take tens of thousands of dollars to get on the right track. (even though it's the big Cs that can take the brunt of the fine, especially in the SMB market).
when referring to your multi-national and very large enterprises, yes, i would say you're absolutely correct.
i've been to client visits, though, where their license keycodes are printed out on a paper, the same ones you'll find on a pirated copy of server 2003 enterprise, with a note that says "if key #1 doesn't work, try key #2", and so on.
remember this the next time your reseller partner is trying to get you compliant... the margins on software typically suck. but most of us understand licensing and the implications of misuse and misunderstanding of licensing programs.
my suggestion is to call ibm. if you're concerned about windows and windows-based application vulnerabilities, ibm's xforce is responsible for finding a large percentage of known MS vulnerabilities. a couple of years ago, ibm acquired Internet Security Solutions, and incorporated their portfolio into the ibm high performance line.
of all security products that i'm aware of, it's the only one people never seem to be let down by.
check them out, give them a call, ask them questions. if it's not for you, they'll tell you so. www.iss.net
don't you know how dangerous it is to post a link to xkcd on slashdot? what was originally just hours of wasted productivity has now increased exponentially.
i'm still not doing anything tomorrow right now!
my wrt54g v5 has been awesome. *had* to reset it maybe twice in the 2.5 years i've owned it. one of those times was due to some major power fluctuations, as stated above, that effected the whole house/neighborhood.
i was thinking more along the lines of godspeed you! black emperor, silver mt zion (and all other godspeed spin-offs), arcade fire, leonard cohen, etc.
but, sure. as long as we all agree it remains intact.
no no no. leave quebec out of it, they at least produce good music out of montreal. open game on the rest of the country though. (what do they do there?)
doesn't the military use a blue/pinkish-orange color scheme as their computer operators typically sit at their workstations for very extended periods of time?
this is mostly done in low-light conditions, i believe, so may not necessarily help if you're using full ambient light...
parallax.com - it's a company that makes chips, boards, etc, and they offer classes for hobbyists. they're in CA, so if you're elsewhere, might want to look at a similar company in your location (sorry, no ideas there).
check out this link: http://www.engadget.com/?06051835 to see some things the propellor chip (from Parallax) is used in.
i think the idea is that they're less likely to fall for an online phishing scam, click a phony "your computer is broken, click here to fix it" popup, etc.
i have 3 things installed that aren't ok'd by IT at work. in order of installation: google toolbar for ie6, firefox (with adblock, google toolbar, noscript, etc), putty.
every time someone in IT has to remote into my machine to fix a broken update, they comment to me that firefox isn't authorized. in fact, it's grounds for immediate dismissal. i acknowledge that, yes, it is unauthorized, they fix the problems, and we all move on.
sorry, but i think you're wrong. it's not "very misleading" to say that "muslim groups attempt to censor wikipedia". it is, in fact, one of many ways to say that muslims are attempting to censor wikipedia. we can quibble over the word choice. i say "some muslims", you say, "no, only a handful", and so on. i'd be inclined to think that your response to the description is based entirely upon what you bring to the table for this topic. which is not wrong.
however, i believe that this is the fundamental problem with religious discussion in general, whether the participants are or are not religious. i think that some people find it difficult to leave their personal feelings out of the conversation, even if only for a few moments, and consider the big picture.
when i read the description, i was immediately interested, not because the word choice made me believe that either mobs were rioting, or hostages were taken, or bombs exploded, etc. i was interested because i saw the words "censor wikipedia". but that's me. others above mentioned that they believed the description was misleading because it made it sound as if violence were taking place to force the censorship. it should be equally obvious what this person brings to the table.
the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people in the world, with a lot of beliefs. we've put so many things on a pedestal, religion being one thing, and offense. it's been discussed here before, and above on this topic. while many people that i would label "level-headed" would state that they respect a person's religion, their right to believe and/or practice as they choose, in the end, besides some sort of educational or generic form of curiosity, i do not care. and i think that's ok. why should i? why should you care what i believe? i don't know too much about psychology, but maybe it's a need to fit in, or belong? maybe it's because while we may all wish we were, or may see our selves as such, we may not really be the type of people who could stand up for what we believe, even if we were literally the only person in the world who believed. if so, it's because of weakness and fear...?
anyway, ultimately, my point, or one of my points, is that it's real easy to be offended if you're trying to be offended, if you're already on the defensive about something. at some point, people have to grow up and understand that only stress, pain, heartache, and wasted time comes from wearing your feelings on your sleeve.
was going to say it was police quest, on my dad's 286. then i remembered all (relatively) the late nights playing Pirate's Cove and Dracula on the Commodore 64 my uncle gave me. (to be clear, late = 9pm, as i was like 6, no floppy, cartridges and tapes only, hooked up to a b&w tv thru vhf).
that pretty much did me in/doomed me.
Slashdot Mirror
Government mandates just take away more of our freedom of choice.
i'm not talking about government mandates. in fact, i'm talking about not coddling those who hurt themselves, and who in turn make my life more difficult. i am, however, all for regulation. we don't allow drug companies to sell gasoline as a pain releiver because we know it'll kill people if they ingest it. we do allow what has to be hundreds of thousands of fast food restaurants to sell things that we know also kill people. we also allow companies to sell products that when burned and inhaled, are known to cause death. i have a problem coddling those companies as well. why are companies allowed to *profit* at the expense of the health and lives of their customers, while you and i pay the bill?
if you're talking about government mandates, i'll take some there. otherwise, no, that's not what i'm talking about.
Besides which, the whole point of insurance is pooled risk.... if you don't want to pay for other peoples bad health decisions then don't have health insurance.
and i wasn't just talking about insurance. i was also talking about the money taken out of each of my paychecks. social security, medicare and medicaid. these things also go to people who have gone and fucked themselves up. not just your (not so-) average healthy retiree.
and another thought. how much money is spent yearly on preventable disease research? i'm strictly talking about things that people know about, are warned about, and allow to happen or cause anyway. why should we spend money trying to save people that knew the risks and wanted to play the odds? why not devote that money and energy to finding cures for diseases we can't stop. genetic disorders, mental health, and so on.
i see your point, and i don't want to cut off funding for medical research for anyone, but hopefully you see my point as well.
it's a problem because people like you and me end up footing the bill. there is so little accountability, it makes me want to cry. you and i are suddenly *more* responsible for the effects of someone's carelessness, irresponsibility, laziness, or what have you.
it's all about accountability. i say hold everyone accountable, whether they are a corporation, government, or individual. NO MORE PRETENDING! no more slaps on the wrist, or busy-work committees. it will suck for everyone at first, but only because everyone gets away with things they shouldn't. i, for one, think things would be much better if people were actually held accountable for the things they say and do.
thoughts?
here about the dangers of posting a link to xkcd on /.
shame on you. I missed 1 meeting, half of lunch, and didn't do anything all morning.
Here's my thoughts on it. I don't agree that the IT department should be held responsible, unless it proves to be through the IT department's negligence that the information was lost or stolen.
i think the focus should be on management external to the IT department. I have worked in Enterprise IT Sales for a few years now, and am still shocked on an almost daily basis by how easily funds are denied for absolutely crucial projects.
If your CIO, CFO, CEO, Compliance Officer, Security Officer, etc is aware of a risk, and chooses not to act, the fault is theirs, not the IT department that was told to play with rubber bands, old hardware, free software, and tin foil to piece a robust security infrastructure together.
IBM's ISS costs up to around $200,000 for a good-sized implementation, and may be the only *truly* full-sized security solution available on the private market (offerings from McAfee and so-on shouldn't even be mentioned). The organizations that are typically collecting, storing, and losing important and sensitive user data are typically organizations that can afford, or should find a way to afford such security infrastructure. (Are you telling me that S/L/F government, financial institutions, major telecom companies, etc etc etc etc can't afford a non-joke security system? Are you telling me that they can't enact serious security policies and punish ignorance, laziness, or apathy?)
Seems to me that spending $200,000 for a full, robust security system, up front, far outweighs the potential lawsuits, out-of-court settlements and negative publicity that can follow a serious breach or loss of data.
The power lies in the accounting office. With the people who get a bigger bonus for cutting expenses. And this might make sense when you're talking about such things as paperclips, copy paper, toilet paper, etc. But when you're talking about the very things that keeps your business in existence, and maintains your reputation with your peers as well as your customers, shouldn't there be another process?
If someone says to the IT manager, Network Security manager, etc, that "I understand your pain, and while you may feel that you need a full IPS that tests the network for flaws, dynamically, you're going to have to stick with a handful of WatchGuard appliances, because I, and nobody above me, cares", then I say blame that person and anyone else involved in the apathy or ignorance.
I'm done.
But... I ran Vista Ultimate x64 on my HP nc6400, core 2 2.0ghz, 2gb RAM, and the thing ran great. The only reason I got rid of it (was dual-booting) was the heat. My CPU idled at 72c, and with a little work, got close to 80c. If not for that, I'd still be running it.
it worked better with my hardware than OpenSuse 10, Debian 4 (and other distros) too.
I'm really beginning to wonder about these anti-Vista remarks I read all over the place. Seems like band-wagon jumping to me.... Yes, some things with Vista are stupid, and a bit counter-intuitive. But, XP Pro was a horrible OS when it came out, and wasn't fully embraced until SP2. Do people really expect a SP2-quality initial release? Anybody who works in software testing should be able to attest that this is impossible. No matter how thorough you check, test, and attempt to break the product, bugs still make it through. "Features" like UAC still make it through.
That's life, not the worst OS ever....
actually, i liked the joke.
Working previously for a major IT reseller in the SMB marketplace, and currently for a major IT reseller in the enterprise marketplace, you'd be surprised how many companies are willing to see how far they can stretch that OEM license, or, how many IT managers don't want to be the ones to tell the CIO, CFO, CTO, CCO, etc that they are not and have not been compliant for years, and that it will take tens of thousands of dollars to get on the right track. (even though it's the big Cs that can take the brunt of the fine, especially in the SMB market).
:)
when referring to your multi-national and very large enterprises, yes, i would say you're absolutely correct.
i've been to client visits, though, where their license keycodes are printed out on a paper, the same ones you'll find on a pirated copy of server 2003 enterprise, with a note that says "if key #1 doesn't work, try key #2", and so on.
remember this the next time your reseller partner is trying to get you compliant... the margins on software typically suck. but most of us understand licensing and the implications of misuse and misunderstanding of licensing programs.
ok, i'm done
my suggestion is to call ibm. if you're concerned about windows and windows-based application vulnerabilities, ibm's xforce is responsible for finding a large percentage of known MS vulnerabilities. a couple of years ago, ibm acquired Internet Security Solutions, and incorporated their portfolio into the ibm high performance line.
of all security products that i'm aware of, it's the only one people never seem to be let down by.
check them out, give them a call, ask them questions. if it's not for you, they'll tell you so. www.iss.net
battery backed write cache (usually only costs a couple/few hundred extra on a decent server)
don't you know how dangerous it is to post a link to xkcd on slashdot? what was originally just hours of wasted productivity has now increased exponentially. i'm still not doing anything tomorrow right now!
my wrt54g v5 has been awesome. *had* to reset it maybe twice in the 2.5 years i've owned it. one of those times was due to some major power fluctuations, as stated above, that effected the whole house/neighborhood.
!insightful
you have a choice between XP and Linux. it's in TFA, and on any site that sells them.
i was thinking more along the lines of godspeed you! black emperor, silver mt zion (and all other godspeed spin-offs), arcade fire, leonard cohen, etc. but, sure. as long as we all agree it remains intact.
no no no. leave quebec out of it, they at least produce good music out of montreal. open game on the rest of the country though. (what do they do there?)
doesn't the military use a blue/pinkish-orange color scheme as their computer operators typically sit at their workstations for very extended periods of time? this is mostly done in low-light conditions, i believe, so may not necessarily help if you're using full ambient light...
parallax.com - it's a company that makes chips, boards, etc, and they offer classes for hobbyists. they're in CA, so if you're elsewhere, might want to look at a similar company in your location (sorry, no ideas there). check out this link: http://www.engadget.com/?06051835 to see some things the propellor chip (from Parallax) is used in.
wait, play a SPecial Information Tone to see if it's SPIT? I'm confused
see above, titled "IBM"
has been doing this on their blades for about a year.
i think the idea is that they're less likely to fall for an online phishing scam, click a phony "your computer is broken, click here to fix it" popup, etc. i have 3 things installed that aren't ok'd by IT at work. in order of installation: google toolbar for ie6, firefox (with adblock, google toolbar, noscript, etc), putty. every time someone in IT has to remote into my machine to fix a broken update, they comment to me that firefox isn't authorized. in fact, it's grounds for immediate dismissal. i acknowledge that, yes, it is unauthorized, they fix the problems, and we all move on.
sorry, but i think you're wrong. it's not "very misleading" to say that "muslim groups attempt to censor wikipedia". it is, in fact, one of many ways to say that muslims are attempting to censor wikipedia. we can quibble over the word choice. i say "some muslims", you say, "no, only a handful", and so on. i'd be inclined to think that your response to the description is based entirely upon what you bring to the table for this topic. which is not wrong.
however, i believe that this is the fundamental problem with religious discussion in general, whether the participants are or are not religious. i think that some people find it difficult to leave their personal feelings out of the conversation, even if only for a few moments, and consider the big picture.
when i read the description, i was immediately interested, not because the word choice made me believe that either mobs were rioting, or hostages were taken, or bombs exploded, etc. i was interested because i saw the words "censor wikipedia". but that's me. others above mentioned that they believed the description was misleading because it made it sound as if violence were taking place to force the censorship. it should be equally obvious what this person brings to the table.
the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people in the world, with a lot of beliefs. we've put so many things on a pedestal, religion being one thing, and offense. it's been discussed here before, and above on this topic. while many people that i would label "level-headed" would state that they respect a person's religion, their right to believe and/or practice as they choose, in the end, besides some sort of educational or generic form of curiosity, i do not care. and i think that's ok. why should i? why should you care what i believe? i don't know too much about psychology, but maybe it's a need to fit in, or belong? maybe it's because while we may all wish we were, or may see our selves as such, we may not really be the type of people who could stand up for what we believe, even if we were literally the only person in the world who believed. if so, it's because of weakness and fear...?
anyway, ultimately, my point, or one of my points, is that it's real easy to be offended if you're trying to be offended, if you're already on the defensive about something. at some point, people have to grow up and understand that only stress, pain, heartache, and wasted time comes from wearing your feelings on your sleeve.
dude. never never ever ask why.
(if i'm not mistaken, the penalty for such questions is death.)
pr0n. what kind of car do i get?
was going to say it was police quest, on my dad's 286. then i remembered all (relatively) the late nights playing Pirate's Cove and Dracula on the Commodore 64 my uncle gave me. (to be clear, late = 9pm, as i was like 6, no floppy, cartridges and tapes only, hooked up to a b&w tv thru vhf). that pretty much did me in/doomed me.
is it safe to assume that XPP x64 is not effected? as i understand it, it's built off of server 2k3. i didn't rtfa, but any thoughts?