He represented that even though it was the future, and the crew, their society and technology were massively more advanced than us in every way, that they still did not know everything and there were bigger fish in the universe.
Q always made it a point that humans were inferior in every way possible, but he was sufficiently impressed with them to toy around, and if there were very lucky, they might learn something in the process.
I always saw him as a checks and balances against the whole universe.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell publicly denounced the use of all modern medicine to save lives? Or is it that they have specific objections to specific technology (which is what my point was, and why the GP's position was such a strawman)?
Again, your post demands a big, fat, [citation needed].
The GP was not attempting to refute the statement that there were moderate Christians, and not refuting anything actually. The GP attempted to add the characterization of loud to what that poster was claiming was an "insignificant" group.
Without refutation, you cannot have a strawman. Now, I will admit it was terse and probably acerbic, but it is nonetheless accurate and insightful. It does not matter that the group of Christians is claimed to be small and not representative of the majority viewpoint if they are so "loud" that they seemingly represent a majority viewpoint in the media, and a significant representation in legislation and policy.
I could go on... but their position on stem cell research and bioethics is well known and based only the Bible. Although, Mr. Falwell was specific about a 3-part test including ethics, morality, and the Bible. Ethics is meaningless since it is just a lump of flesh freely given and whatever considerations for right and wrong are not derived from any inherent universal truth or logic. Morals in this instance are derived from the Bible and not from any distinct philosophy or culture. So really it just a Biblical test.
Also, "people who identify as christian" is absolutely worthless as a category. Check some of the polling stats to see how incredibly diverse that "category" is, from protestants to mormons to unitarians to people who went to church once back in '94. I think one poll had 75% identifying as christian, but only some 50% identifying Christ as the son of God, and even fewer believing in a personal God. I have no doubt that you can find self-identified christians who are in favor of just about anything you could think of.
That's kind of the whole point. The GP was stating that those Christians who opposed stem cell research were just a minority. Well, just about anybody can identify as Christian and sell their morality as the so-called correct derivation of Biblical truth. Heck, even the majority of KKK members claim to be Christian and can derive their racism from Biblical truth.
It is those who do so the loudest that are at issue here.
What do you know, Im one of them, because I dont think you can be a christian and have a subjective morality; it must be based on SOMETHING. That doesnt mean I deny the use of any modern medicine.
That sounds contradictory.
Without trying to offend you, I believe that all morality derived from the Bible is more or less subjective. By that, I mean that other than some universal truths in the Bible, most of the morals derived from it seem pretty damned arbitrary to me and mostly just related to the culture at that time.
The fact you mention subjective morality indicates to me that you are a thoughtful Christian and your faith is constructed by carefully reasoned interpretations of the Bible. Much better than some idiot just parrotin
Are you seriously asking for a citation? He is spot-freakin-on.
I can believe that the majority of Christians are more moderate in terms of medical research and simply remain silent and uninvolved on most of the contentious issues. Most people I run into that will align themselves as being Christian have quite moderate views, and most even support gay marriage. Only a few are so rabidly Christian to represent Christian fundamentalism (akin to the Taliban) with considerably less tolerance for others and strong pushes for faith based legislation (the inability to have separation of Church and State).
Crazy nutters like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry "The Purple Teletubby is gay" Falwell are notorious, and prime examples, of the largely-ignored, marginalized, but very loud section of Christians that would rather see people die than benefit from research conducted in a way that defies so-called Biblical truth.
His point about them be very loud even though they might be insignificant is very insightful and accurate. Through my lifetime I have seen plenty of professed Christians loudly representing that many actions, not limited to stem cell research, should be disallowed simply based on interpretations of the Bible and nothing more. This is not in person either, but through various media including, but not limited to, television, radio, and pamphlets left at my doorstop.
Whether or not they are a true minority is quite irrelevant. Their "loudness" actually affects legislation and policy when it comes to abortion, stem cell research, and evolution.
It is not a strawman either, because he does not attempt to refute the position of insignificance, but merely point out that it is irrelevant to the problem at hand, that problem being legislation and controversy affecting the research.
We use RBLs and a whole lot of other pattern recognition to delete/route unwanted emails, and I hardly see the difference here. Especially when that crap is actual malware, not objectionable material due to some sort sort of cultural/religious/political bias.
It's an attack on Slasdot that is directing people towards malware.
Maybe I need to change my Slashdot settings because what I see is all the malware posts compressed down to one line taking up most of the screen before you get to any actual posts.
In this case maybe Slashdot should add a -5 moderation for posts like this. Clearly differentiate it from "undesirable" posts that are just merely trolling or flaming someone. That way it does not show up at all.
That depends on the technology being used. Take ecolite concrete for example. I looked into it, and although prefab, it is pretty amazing stuff.
All steel and a special mixture of concrete. Amazing properties for fire resistance, insulation, strength, etc. All of the 3rd party test reports are available.
They just replace the load bearing structures and wall framing which is a pretty huge part of the cost and time. You can put up the entire framing of a house in 1-2 days and it will be far more durable and stronger than any wood framing could hope to be.
After that you can put up whatever you want against the ecolite walls. Sheetrock and textured walls, wood, whatever you want. It's up to you.
Hard to say that a steel and concrete house with amazing properties (I forgot to mention the acoustic properties) is crappier and will far apart quicker.
-- Slashdot Editors and Anyone There Who Gives A Fuck --
Seriously. You're not some random shitty Wordpress blog where the person might only be technical enough to install and configure plugins. You guys actually run a site for geeks/nerds/whatever and clearly have some money and a modicum of brains behind you.
It's NOT censorship. Just use a fucking regex match on the link, and the word, and delete the posts.
Whoever these people are, they are owning your asses and ruining the articles. Even with moderation it still takes up a ton of room on the page.
It's an embarrassment. Jeezus H. Jumped Up Christ, if you can't figure it out, email me I can help with the code. Just don't sit there getting ass raped and making those funny faces.
If IT is locking down the network completely while not giving an alternative, that is just stupid. I don't support that situation because it completely ignores human behavior and the needs of the employee. Ok, let's assume it does not exist.
Snooping on HTTPS sessions allows you to evaluate content. If your objection is based on concerns for privacy, well there is zero entitlement to privacy when you are conducting business on behalf of the company.
But.. but.. how can you tell the difference? That's the problem. You can't have it both ways. I'm a fierce advocate for privacy. In order to secure the network and secure business data I need to be able to see what you are doing. It's not really an invasion of privacy at all, but more a cooperative effort since we are on the same team right? Right?
Content filtering. That's really the only reason for HTTPS snooping, and even then, you can't always do it on all connections. My original post was not in support of HTTPS snooping specifically, but just support for securing business data and networks.
In the end it only makes sense to have the guest wireless network because it is the only way to address all the needs at the same time, without creating a war. The whole point of coming to work in the first place is to cooperate towards a common goal. The only thing I am asking is not to do personal web browsing on the corporate equipment, not stop it entirely.
I'd say it depends heavily on how often this is being done, but it still sounds rather like you're assuming everyone's mind works as yours does, which I think is a bad idea.
I'll admit that I am biased toward social networking. If you want to throw away your privacy that's fine, but you really don't need to check it literally every 5 minutes. With the restrictions in place it is much easier to spot since the employee is picking up their tablet or phone and looking at it.
I realize that other people don't work the same way I do and it would be a bad idea to judge them as if it does. That being said, I am just not impressed at all if you need to be checking something every 5 minutes like a person with a mental disorder. It looks like an addiction to me.
Well in my case, no such WiFi network existed so I was SOL. I suspect most places that do this kind of HTTPS lockdown don't provide such a thoughtful alternative. I also wasn't able to get any mobile phone signal in the building so that was out, too.
Well that is unfortunate and not very smart. Offering the guest wireless is a path of least resistance. Regardless of what I say, people would continue to try and get around the restrictions. I had one person, quite determined, attempt to install Hamachi so they could access their home network and watch live TV. Needless to say, they got their ass handed to them.
Offering the guest wireless is the only hope of enforcing security policies. Anything else breeds resentment and rebellion.
Other than two people, out of hundreds, I don't have a problem with the policy. It has been received quite well and employees are happy that they can do whatever they want privately.
Why, is this the malware thing again? If so, as I mentioned elsewhere, why is scanning HTTPS traffic as it comes through the router more secure than scanning it at the workstation end with some AV software?
Scanning HTTPS traffic at the gateway is easier than doing it on the workstation. HTTPS scanning and AV detection are not nearly the same thing.
HTTPS traffic can be used for applying content filters and policies. That's not what AV is for.
An intercepting proxy with a whitelist is more effective than all the rest of the methods combined many times over. Setting up firewall rules and denying all outbound traffic by default, and heavily restricting outbound traffic with a whitelist is a pretty damn good method of preventing data leaks.
I would rather have very strict policies than finding out one day that we lost hundreds of thousands of customer's sensitive data and having articles written that could be posted in Slashdot. Let's be honest... when those articles do come around do we not laugh about how stupid their CTO/IT department must have been?
Virus scanners are only as good as their definitions. Custom malware will defeat any virus scanner.
An intercepting proxy and whitelist is far, far, far more effective than any virus scanner alone. I don't need to rely on patches or updated virus definitions (still have them) when I know you can't get anywhere anyways.
The whitelist is simple and allows you to do your job and communicate with vendors and 3rd party SAAS portals. A few times a week it needs to be updated when an employee cannot access something, but turnaround time on updating the white list is within a 10-15 minutes at most. Most supervisors and upper management already have access and training to add to the whitelist.
Once again, why is it such a big deal when I gave you an alternative with all the privacy you wanted? What it really comes down to is that your actions are restricted on corporate equipment and that is somehow wrong and terrible even when it is primarily to protect business data.
You have a choice and a huge majority (huge) of employees are already bringing smartphones and tablets to work with them. They don't need to use their data plans because I gave them a guest wireless network. I even mentioned to another poster if there were really that many employees without their own devices, just put a guest terminal in the break room.
I'm really that evil for providing all of that and being security conscious?
StackExchange is not remotely the same as Facebook. Slashdot is not the same as some random entertainment blog.
I do judge people by their output, but I will still remain quite unimpressed if you need the constant reassurance of tweets and FB posts that the outside world exists every few minutes. Seriously, that's just ridiculous.
Our company has a very relaxed culture, just very strict rules. Employees understand how serious it is to protect company data. It is not my job specifically to evaluate work output, and only in extreme cases, have I ever mentioned somebody else's conduct as undesirable. I was not the only one either. Co-workers were saying it long before I did.
I honestly don't get why it is such a big hairy ass deal to use a separate guest wireless network to do your web surfing on your own devices. You got what you want right?
It's too dangerous to do it on the same machine that has access to corporate networks and customer data. Such an effective method while giving you the privacy and capabilities you want. Do you really need to fight it that hard just so you can open a browsing session on your workstation?
When I take breaks it is on a lapdock on the guest wireless network too.
You clearly missed the part about a wholly separate guest wireless network.
It is not monitored, only bandwidth usage per device is logged, and you have all the privacy you want. In fact, if you are in range of the wireless, you too can enjoy it right this minute. Password is right on the front of the building.
You forget that my extremely hard line policies basically amount to you having complete and total privacy while surfing the web on your own devices on a separate network.
As far as my opinions about why people are motivated to take so much time and surf the web, that is totally separate from security.
I don't care why you are doing it nearly as much as I care that you don't do it on the corporate network.
your hour is coming M$... ever thought about growing corn or raising cattle?
God I hope not.
Windows Genuine Advantage Corn products - We hook it up to your piehole and your cornhole to make sure it is real corn.. for your own good. Trust us.
Remember, Open Source Corn products are known to cause cancer!
Milk went up 2000% in price when it was announced that 1/3 of all cows mysteriously continue to BSOD after the latest service pack. MS is working on a fix and predicts it will come out soon.
30 MS software engineers were taking into custody today for a top secret research project on chickens, which MS predicts as a hot new market, for what authorities are saying was, "Just not right", "Crimes against poultry", "Will haunt my dreams".
You would have to be. My Penis tells me to do some incredibly dumb, stupid, and impulsive shit all the time that is quite counterproductive to my continued standard of living. If I listened to him, I would probably be penniless on the side of the road with two nuts for company.
Employees are not entitled to do that, and what I am talking about is that sense of entitlement. I don't like it. You're there to work, not play. I also know how much companies can abuse their employees too. I don't like it either.
The corporate networks and equipment are not there for personal use, regardless of the justification, for many reasons.
Banks are horrible, and bankers especially, are worthless excuses for human beings. Very few businesses can service the customer so poorly and still remain in business. The laziest people on the planet that refuse to have hours open that actually assist their customers.
Granted, that is an example of one business we are forced to deal with that makes life a living hell.
You have to consider all the changes when setting a policy, not just one in isolation.
I believe that I have. Mini-breaks, that are not excessive, and online errands during lunch time are not the problem. It is when it is taken to excess that I have issues with it. Particularly, Facebook/Twitter. It is not acceptable to be keeping a persistent session and checking every 5 minutes. Let it go. Wait until lunch, a break, or after work to reconnect with friends and family. We don't need these ever persistent communication sessions distracting from work.
Please remember, I did state several times that I provide a guest wireless network (that is not monitored) for employees to do whatever they want, at any time.
My real interest is keeping the corporate network safe, which is why I provide it. It is not monitored, there are no time restrictions, it is available 24/7. I realize the people are going to need to run online errands, and still try to keep persistent communication sessions regardless of whether or not it is appropriate. Instead of fighting that (not fighting the online errands) I provide a path of least resistance to keep them off the corporate networks.
They can get fired for using corporate equipment for personal reasons... or just use their own devices with complete privacy whenever they want. Their choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Q was never meant to be a villain.
He represented that even though it was the future, and the crew, their society and technology were massively more advanced than us in every way, that they still did not know everything and there were bigger fish in the universe.
Q always made it a point that humans were inferior in every way possible, but he was sufficiently impressed with them to toy around, and if there were very lucky, they might learn something in the process.
I always saw him as a checks and balances against the whole universe.
Ferengis look stupid and because of that, the show looks dorky as fuck
Arrogant Hooman!
Your just jealous because we have the lobes for business and control our females! Or as you hoomans say it, we got all the money and bitches!
someone could probably write a doctoral dissertation on Gul Dukat or Garak
Gul Dukat I can understand... but Garak was just a simple unassuming tailor.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell publicly denounced the use of all modern medicine to save lives? Or is it that they have specific objections to specific technology (which is what my point was, and why the GP's position was such a strawman)?
Again, your post demands a big, fat, [citation needed].
The GP was not attempting to refute the statement that there were moderate Christians, and not refuting anything actually. The GP attempted to add the characterization of loud to what that poster was claiming was an "insignificant" group.
Without refutation, you cannot have a strawman. Now, I will admit it was terse and probably acerbic, but it is nonetheless accurate and insightful. It does not matter that the group of Christians is claimed to be small and not representative of the majority viewpoint if they are so "loud" that they seemingly represent a majority viewpoint in the media, and a significant representation in legislation and policy.
As for citations,
News story about Pat Robertson's organization
Interview by Pat Robertson of a Doctors book on bioethics in which he aligns himself with viewpoints supporting my characterization of him being against stem cell research
Jerry Falwell obit summarizing position against stem cell research
Another news story that expands upon the position in the obit
I could go on... but their position on stem cell research and bioethics is well known and based only the Bible. Although, Mr. Falwell was specific about a 3-part test including ethics, morality, and the Bible. Ethics is meaningless since it is just a lump of flesh freely given and whatever considerations for right and wrong are not derived from any inherent universal truth or logic. Morals in this instance are derived from the Bible and not from any distinct philosophy or culture. So really it just a Biblical test.
Also, "people who identify as christian" is absolutely worthless as a category. Check some of the polling stats to see how incredibly diverse that "category" is, from protestants to mormons to unitarians to people who went to church once back in '94. I think one poll had 75% identifying as christian, but only some 50% identifying Christ as the son of God, and even fewer believing in a personal God. I have no doubt that you can find self-identified christians who are in favor of just about anything you could think of.
That's kind of the whole point. The GP was stating that those Christians who opposed stem cell research were just a minority. Well, just about anybody can identify as Christian and sell their morality as the so-called correct derivation of Biblical truth. Heck, even the majority of KKK members claim to be Christian and can derive their racism from Biblical truth.
It is those who do so the loudest that are at issue here.
What do you know, Im one of them, because I dont think you can be a christian and have a subjective morality; it must be based on SOMETHING. That doesnt mean I deny the use of any modern medicine.
That sounds contradictory.
Without trying to offend you, I believe that all morality derived from the Bible is more or less subjective. By that, I mean that other than some universal truths in the Bible, most of the morals derived from it seem pretty damned arbitrary to me and mostly just related to the culture at that time.
The fact you mention subjective morality indicates to me that you are a thoughtful Christian and your faith is constructed by carefully reasoned interpretations of the Bible. Much better than some idiot just parrotin
there's no real regard for reason in an institution that depends entirely on a lack thereof
Wow. That is an amazingly worded statement about faith. As good as anything I have heard quoted.
Well done.
Are you seriously asking for a citation? He is spot-freakin-on.
I can believe that the majority of Christians are more moderate in terms of medical research and simply remain silent and uninvolved on most of the contentious issues. Most people I run into that will align themselves as being Christian have quite moderate views, and most even support gay marriage. Only a few are so rabidly Christian to represent Christian fundamentalism (akin to the Taliban) with considerably less tolerance for others and strong pushes for faith based legislation (the inability to have separation of Church and State).
Crazy nutters like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry "The Purple Teletubby is gay" Falwell are notorious, and prime examples, of the largely-ignored, marginalized, but very loud section of Christians that would rather see people die than benefit from research conducted in a way that defies so-called Biblical truth.
His point about them be very loud even though they might be insignificant is very insightful and accurate. Through my lifetime I have seen plenty of professed Christians loudly representing that many actions, not limited to stem cell research, should be disallowed simply based on interpretations of the Bible and nothing more. This is not in person either, but through various media including, but not limited to, television, radio, and pamphlets left at my doorstop.
Whether or not they are a true minority is quite irrelevant. Their "loudness" actually affects legislation and policy when it comes to abortion, stem cell research, and evolution.
It is not a strawman either, because he does not attempt to refute the position of insignificance, but merely point out that it is irrelevant to the problem at hand, that problem being legislation and controversy affecting the research.
yes... but this is low external pressures. I don't think women are capable of producing 14.5psi.
Yet they can still suck the life out of you......
penis skin can handle the pressure
I thought they were designed to handle a lot of pressure before they blow....
Really? On What?
Which party is fucking you missionary style or doggy style? The most likely to offer reach arounds?
They are all whores that answer to business interests. Period.
To think citizens, morals, or ideals such as right and wrong are served by people in Congress is horribly naive.
Deleting the posts really is not that sinister.
We use RBLs and a whole lot of other pattern recognition to delete/route unwanted emails, and I hardly see the difference here. Especially when that crap is actual malware, not objectionable material due to some sort sort of cultural/religious/political bias.
It's an attack on Slasdot that is directing people towards malware.
Maybe I need to change my Slashdot settings because what I see is all the malware posts compressed down to one line taking up most of the screen before you get to any actual posts.
In this case maybe Slashdot should add a -5 moderation for posts like this. Clearly differentiate it from "undesirable" posts that are just merely trolling or flaming someone. That way it does not show up at all.
That depends on the technology being used. Take ecolite concrete for example. I looked into it, and although prefab, it is pretty amazing stuff.
All steel and a special mixture of concrete. Amazing properties for fire resistance, insulation, strength, etc. All of the 3rd party test reports are available.
They just replace the load bearing structures and wall framing which is a pretty huge part of the cost and time. You can put up the entire framing of a house in 1-2 days and it will be far more durable and stronger than any wood framing could hope to be.
After that you can put up whatever you want against the ecolite walls. Sheetrock and textured walls, wood, whatever you want. It's up to you.
Hard to say that a steel and concrete house with amazing properties (I forgot to mention the acoustic properties) is crappier and will far apart quicker.
-- Slashdot Editors and Anyone There Who Gives A Fuck --
Seriously. You're not some random shitty Wordpress blog where the person might only be technical enough to install and configure plugins. You guys actually run a site for geeks/nerds/whatever and clearly have some money and a modicum of brains behind you.
It's NOT censorship. Just use a fucking regex match on the link, and the word, and delete the posts.
Whoever these people are, they are owning your asses and ruining the articles. Even with moderation it still takes up a ton of room on the page.
It's an embarrassment. Jeezus H. Jumped Up Christ, if you can't figure it out, email me I can help with the code. Just don't sit there getting ass raped and making those funny faces.
Can't wait to be forced to provide mouth swabs at airports.
It doesn't take an oracle to figure out that orifice is optimistic.
Citation please....
I've never heart about that. It's almost unbelievable, but then again, the Patriot Act was passed..
kind of medical evaluation for the prostrate
So it is a medical evaluation for those who are laying flat?
If IT is locking down the network completely while not giving an alternative, that is just stupid. I don't support that situation because it completely ignores human behavior and the needs of the employee. Ok, let's assume it does not exist.
Snooping on HTTPS sessions allows you to evaluate content. If your objection is based on concerns for privacy, well there is zero entitlement to privacy when you are conducting business on behalf of the company.
But.. but.. how can you tell the difference? That's the problem. You can't have it both ways. I'm a fierce advocate for privacy. In order to secure the network and secure business data I need to be able to see what you are doing. It's not really an invasion of privacy at all, but more a cooperative effort since we are on the same team right? Right?
Content filtering. That's really the only reason for HTTPS snooping, and even then, you can't always do it on all connections. My original post was not in support of HTTPS snooping specifically, but just support for securing business data and networks.
In the end it only makes sense to have the guest wireless network because it is the only way to address all the needs at the same time, without creating a war. The whole point of coming to work in the first place is to cooperate towards a common goal. The only thing I am asking is not to do personal web browsing on the corporate equipment, not stop it entirely.
I'd say it depends heavily on how often this is being done, but it still sounds rather like you're assuming everyone's mind works as yours does, which I think is a bad idea.
I'll admit that I am biased toward social networking. If you want to throw away your privacy that's fine, but you really don't need to check it literally every 5 minutes. With the restrictions in place it is much easier to spot since the employee is picking up their tablet or phone and looking at it.
I realize that other people don't work the same way I do and it would be a bad idea to judge them as if it does. That being said, I am just not impressed at all if you need to be checking something every 5 minutes like a person with a mental disorder. It looks like an addiction to me.
Well in my case, no such WiFi network existed so I was SOL. I suspect most places that do this kind of HTTPS lockdown don't provide such a thoughtful alternative. I also wasn't able to get any mobile phone signal in the building so that was out, too.
Well that is unfortunate and not very smart. Offering the guest wireless is a path of least resistance. Regardless of what I say, people would continue to try and get around the restrictions. I had one person, quite determined, attempt to install Hamachi so they could access their home network and watch live TV. Needless to say, they got their ass handed to them.
Offering the guest wireless is the only hope of enforcing security policies. Anything else breeds resentment and rebellion.
Other than two people, out of hundreds, I don't have a problem with the policy. It has been received quite well and employees are happy that they can do whatever they want privately.
Why, is this the malware thing again? If so, as I mentioned elsewhere, why is scanning HTTPS traffic as it comes through the router more secure than scanning it at the workstation end with some AV software?
Scanning HTTPS traffic at the gateway is easier than doing it on the workstation. HTTPS scanning and AV detection are not nearly the same thing.
HTTPS traffic can be used for applying content filters and policies. That's not what AV is for.
An intercepting proxy with a whitelist is more effective than all the rest of the methods combined many times over. Setting up firewall rules and denying all outbound traffic by default, and heavily restricting outbound traffic with a whitelist is a pretty damn good method of preventing data leaks.
I would rather have very strict policies than finding out one day that we lost hundreds of thousands of customer's sensitive data and having articles written that could be posted in Slashdot. Let's be honest... when those articles do come around do we not laugh about how stupid their CTO/IT department must have been?
Virus scanners are only as good as their definitions. Custom malware will defeat any virus scanner.
An intercepting proxy and whitelist is far, far, far more effective than any virus scanner alone. I don't need to rely on patches or updated virus definitions (still have them) when I know you can't get anywhere anyways.
The whitelist is simple and allows you to do your job and communicate with vendors and 3rd party SAAS portals. A few times a week it needs to be updated when an employee cannot access something, but turnaround time on updating the white list is within a 10-15 minutes at most. Most supervisors and upper management already have access and training to add to the whitelist.
Once again, why is it such a big deal when I gave you an alternative with all the privacy you wanted? What it really comes down to is that your actions are restricted on corporate equipment and that is somehow wrong and terrible even when it is primarily to protect business data.
You have a choice and a huge majority (huge) of employees are already bringing smartphones and tablets to work with them. They don't need to use their data plans because I gave them a guest wireless network. I even mentioned to another poster if there were really that many employees without their own devices, just put a guest terminal in the break room.
I'm really that evil for providing all of that and being security conscious?
StackExchange is not remotely the same as Facebook. Slashdot is not the same as some random entertainment blog.
I do judge people by their output, but I will still remain quite unimpressed if you need the constant reassurance of tweets and FB posts that the outside world exists every few minutes. Seriously, that's just ridiculous.
Our company has a very relaxed culture, just very strict rules. Employees understand how serious it is to protect company data. It is not my job specifically to evaluate work output, and only in extreme cases, have I ever mentioned somebody else's conduct as undesirable. I was not the only one either. Co-workers were saying it long before I did.
I honestly don't get why it is such a big hairy ass deal to use a separate guest wireless network to do your web surfing on your own devices. You got what you want right?
It's too dangerous to do it on the same machine that has access to corporate networks and customer data. Such an effective method while giving you the privacy and capabilities you want. Do you really need to fight it that hard just so you can open a browsing session on your workstation?
When I take breaks it is on a lapdock on the guest wireless network too.
You clearly missed the part about a wholly separate guest wireless network.
It is not monitored, only bandwidth usage per device is logged, and you have all the privacy you want. In fact, if you are in range of the wireless, you too can enjoy it right this minute. Password is right on the front of the building.
You forget that my extremely hard line policies basically amount to you having complete and total privacy while surfing the web on your own devices on a separate network.
As far as my opinions about why people are motivated to take so much time and surf the web, that is totally separate from security.
I don't care why you are doing it nearly as much as I care that you don't do it on the corporate network.
your hour is coming M$... ever thought about growing corn or raising cattle?
God I hope not.
Windows Genuine Advantage Corn products - We hook it up to your piehole and your cornhole to make sure it is real corn.. for your own good. Trust us.
Remember, Open Source Corn products are known to cause cancer!
Milk went up 2000% in price when it was announced that 1/3 of all cows mysteriously continue to BSOD after the latest service pack. MS is working on a fix and predicts it will come out soon.
30 MS software engineers were taking into custody today for a top secret research project on chickens, which MS predicts as a hot new market, for what authorities are saying was, "Just not right", "Crimes against poultry", "Will haunt my dreams".
I think I have been misunderstood.
My point was that both pot and beer can make somebody pretty stupid. It usually does not take as much pot though.
Neither should banned.
also you are always at war with your own penis
Are we not all at war with our own penises?
You would have to be. My Penis tells me to do some incredibly dumb, stupid, and impulsive shit all the time that is quite counterproductive to my continued standard of living. If I listened to him, I would probably be penniless on the side of the road with two nuts for company.
I understand that.
Employees are not entitled to do that, and what I am talking about is that sense of entitlement. I don't like it. You're there to work, not play. I also know how much companies can abuse their employees too. I don't like it either.
The corporate networks and equipment are not there for personal use, regardless of the justification, for many reasons.
Banks are horrible, and bankers especially, are worthless excuses for human beings. Very few businesses can service the customer so poorly and still remain in business. The laziest people on the planet that refuse to have hours open that actually assist their customers.
Granted, that is an example of one business we are forced to deal with that makes life a living hell.
You have to consider all the changes when setting a policy, not just one in isolation.
I believe that I have. Mini-breaks, that are not excessive, and online errands during lunch time are not the problem. It is when it is taken to excess that I have issues with it. Particularly, Facebook/Twitter. It is not acceptable to be keeping a persistent session and checking every 5 minutes. Let it go. Wait until lunch, a break, or after work to reconnect with friends and family. We don't need these ever persistent communication sessions distracting from work.
Please remember, I did state several times that I provide a guest wireless network (that is not monitored) for employees to do whatever they want, at any time.
My real interest is keeping the corporate network safe, which is why I provide it. It is not monitored, there are no time restrictions, it is available 24/7. I realize the people are going to need to run online errands, and still try to keep persistent communication sessions regardless of whether or not it is appropriate. Instead of fighting that (not fighting the online errands) I provide a path of least resistance to keep them off the corporate networks.
They can get fired for using corporate equipment for personal reasons... or just use their own devices with complete privacy whenever they want. Their choice.