The patient information is a pretty serious concern. Any breach or loss of data covered under HIPAA, SOX, FERPA, or Privacy Act can result in some pretty severe expenses. The cost of notification to the individuals whose data was lost or exposed can run to more than $1,500 per individual, depending on the size of the breach. Base expenses start at $1-2M and go up fast. Litigation and fines can cost millions more. Anything that gets hacked or breached, that has information that should be protected, could put a company these days on the wrong side of the balance sheet.
Though you effectively restate statute and assert the kind of theoretical costs that you would find in a consultancy white paper, your numbers are very exaggerated and divorced from statistically likely costs. They contribute little to the body of knowledge needed to perform the kind of practical risk analysis that is strikingly uncommon in security administrators and other people who make a living doing security.
Of course, your points would be considered useful to an administrator who is more interested in the motions and rhetoric of compliance than actually advancing the interests of the populations that they are theoretically trying to protect. It would also be useful to any pitch-person in the business of security.
Sheesh.
When you consider that an economy is intended to create and distribute wealth, it is important to note that these "pirate" innovations turn $100 economic systems into $25 systems.
So when we examine the economic innovations of people who are first motivated by an unwillingness to pay money, it is not surprising that their economy offers substantially less capital for income.
It's a change. And it's cheaper. But as far a economies go, it's not an improvement.
It's ironic that the argument is being made that the power grid is ill-designed for wind farms. That's like saying an automobile is poorly designed for an engine that randomly revs up and sputters out to a halt. One might want to reconsider which part of the infrastructure is less-than-optimally designed for the service being rendered.
A challenge for many record retention policies, especially with email, is to prevent the proliferation of copies and avoid "unplanned retention." Many (most) of the emails being sought in this case were long iterative threads with large cc lists. When you factor for network distribution mechanisms and the variety of personal practices (use of various POP clients, personal folder management, people who still insist on printing stuff, desktop archive and cache settings, etc.), it is quite humorous and implausible to believe that the emails are gone. In fact, you can't practically make them go away.
You can, however, wipe the server and make the "Backup Tape" go away, and then try to keep people focused on that.
No, the rabbit really isn't in the magician's hat, and no, the rabbit didn't really disappear.
The parallel to tobacco fails when you consider that the smoker mainly injures himself when he smokes (and, yes, nearby others under the secondhand smoke theory). Very differently, the emitter of carbon dioxide [in theory] injures all people on earth. And note that the "fault" for tobacco injuries shifted to the smoker as soon as tobacco companies stopped being overtly deceptive about the risks of smoking.
The point here is that every person who believes in CO2-driven global warming and who emits carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is now a guilty party who is injuring others. That includes me as a guilty party. And probably you.
Isn't it wonderful to live in a litigious culture of self-righteous, sanctimonious, personal irresponsibility?
Here in The States, we legally (and spiritually) value corporations as the primary entity that produces economic value. Our laws treat a corporation much like a person.
How do we offset this seemingly overbearing allocation of power to corporations? We counter as individuals with pursuit of our self-interest: "I owe the corporation nothing." As usual, in the United States, the right of the individual reigns supreme. (You gotta love that.)
Consider that. A corporation is essentially the sum of its people's doings. But a cultural irony of the United States is that we who breathe such life into corporations deny them their most valued commitment: that of their employees. We deny them *us*.
And why, you might ask, could such a contradiction make sense?
It is because we trust neither corporations nor individuals. Both, by nature, are selfish. So we pose the two as adversaries, fodder in a competitive arena. They are merely two points of view dueling for a higher ground. From that competition of ideas (vocalized through media pronouncements and water-cooler banter) emerge various perspectives of the day. And as each of us adopts one or more of those perspectives, this informal but continuous voting process produces a seemingly nonsensical consensus that is Our View of Corporations (and Our Obligations to Corporations), for *today*.
Here in The States, we legally (and spiritually) value corporations as the primary entity that produces economic value. Our laws treat a corporation much like a person.
How do we offset this seemingly overbearing allocation of power to corporations? We counter as individuals with pursuit of our self-interest: "I owe the corporation nothing." As usual, in the United States, the right of the individual reigns supreme. (You gotta love that.)
Consider that. A corporation is essentially the sum of its people's doings. But a cultural irony of the United States is that we who breathe such life into corporations deny them their most valued commitment: that of their employees. We deny them *us*.
And why, you might ask, could such a contradiction make sense?
It is because we trust neither corporations nor individuals. Both, by nature, are selfish. So we pose the two as adversaries, fodder in a competitive arena. They are merely two points of view dueling for a higher ground. From that competition of ideas (vocalized through media pronouncements and water-cooler banter) emerge various perspectives of the day. And as each of us adopts one or more of those perspectives, this informal but continuous voting process produces a seemingly nonsensical consensus that is Our View of Corporations (and Our Obligations to Corporations), for *today*.
they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up
Said like a lousy manager, or one who doesn't appreciate what people actually do, or somebody who never worked in a large enough organization to appreciate the true cost of attrition, or I don't know what...
Excepting the departures of Truly Useless People, those last two weeks are somebody's last chance to find out that which you don't know about that which you are about to inherit. I am so sick of watching stupid managers and stupid successors squander that invaluable last chance because they act like scorned girlfriends or just don't understand the true value of even people who would leave, and the undocumented knowledge they carry in their heads.
I've never met a leaving person who wouldn't be helpful in his own succession. Most, in fact, are incredulous as to how little anybody seems to care about the invaluable knowledge they are walking away with, and how much more difficult their successor's lives will be for the ignorance.
Shape up, managers and everybody else. Those defectors leaving your ranks should be more valuable to you in those last two weeks than in any other two weeks of their employ.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible if:
1. it constituted the last words of a person who was dying or thought he was dying, and
2. that person was aware that he or she was dying, and
3. that person made a statement, based on their actual knowledge, that relates in some way to the cause or circumstances of his or her death.
Haut's affidavit lacks any of the qualities of a Dying Declaration.
It is illegal in many places to carry "burglar's tools". Yes, there is no difference between a burglar's tools and common household tools. However, when a person is caught in the act of breaking into some place, it can [almost always] be reasonably inferred that the tools used to break in meet the definition of "burglar's tools."
Such a prohibition can be a valuable mechanism to invoke penalties against people who engage in criminal behavior but get caught before completing the act. So even though the potential victim has no loss, the perpetrator is still guilty of a crime, which in this case would be possession of burglar's tools.
If, when you are doing something, you see somebody with an emotional facial expression, you will be more likely to memorize that something (i.e. be able to recall it later). People with increased testosterone levels demonstrate an increase in that response (i.e. their memorization/recall is further increased).
You know...these days, when people really understand computers and apply system/application monitoring paradigms that didn't exist in the pre-iPod era.
You know...don't you?
(Nagios does a great job for me doing the stuff the parent poster talks about; he's as transparently shallow as you suggest.)
The real trend, my friend, is the disintegration of intellectual property rights and the loss of opportunities to form capital through those rights. Your assertion of "privatization" is laughable; the general public is having a field day appropriating other people's intellectual property for their own use. Those lawyers who you paint as being a mounting threat are just the leading edge of a losing battle. Witness the decline of the music industry (and the dwindling of the hundreds of thousands of not-rich people who work in it). The trend is overwhelmingly going your way while those demons who scare you are getting their asses kicked. And though you are able to paint a picture of a slippery slope down to trouble, the reality is that you've been sliding up that slope for years now, with no likely change of direction in sight.
Get a mirror.
Scheduled replacement sounds dubious and expensive. Regardless of scheduled replacement, random failures will occur. Assuming uptime is critical, contingency measures have to be in place and automatically engaged if downtime is to be avoided. If uptime isn't critical, then you handle your outages as they occur (according to less stringent service level constraints).
The increased cost of disk drives (~2x due to early retirement?) and maintenance labor (drive service every 3 years instead of ~6?) seems to only be offset by a shift of some percentage of disk repairs from unscheduled to scheduled work. That might make sense if you have to dispatch off-site people to effect repairs in very remote locations, but in a data center or large office environment, the labor is usually readily available without significant additional travel/scheduling costs.
I'd be interested in hearing a full justification of routine disk replacement.
It all depends on what you mean by "spying." If you mean to aggressively pursue information using legal methods, then spying can be a reasonable and useful tool for a company to understand its marketplace. But it'ss not okay if illegal methods (e.g. pretexting) are used to obtain information. It's not clear to me from the article that there is even an allegation of HP having illegally spied on Dell.
Still, if a responsible business such as HP chooses to pay a third party for information, I see little excuse for it failing to carefully examine the means by which the information was obtained. From a very practical standpoint, HP should want such an examination in order to determine the quality/meaning/usefulness of the information. Further, because information gathering tactics can so easily take advantage of deceit (and too often do), it is incumbent upon a responsible company to explicitly advise against wrongful practices, and if you're HP's size, that advice should be documented.
But...ummmmm...HP doesn't seem to have such a defense.
Hmmm...I think they all use your Social Security number because they all use your Social Security number. That is, after all, why it's so valuable; it's your cross-reference ID, your "foreign key," your "global unique identifier," and yes, the name by which you are truly known in the databases of this world.
Perhaps you might challenge their practices with a converse and more secure alternative: why don't they all use their own unique identifiers? Answer: that wouldn't be very useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Though you effectively restate statute and assert the kind of theoretical costs that you would find in a consultancy white paper, your numbers are very exaggerated and divorced from statistically likely costs. They contribute little to the body of knowledge needed to perform the kind of practical risk analysis that is strikingly uncommon in security administrators and other people who make a living doing security. Of course, your points would be considered useful to an administrator who is more interested in the motions and rhetoric of compliance than actually advancing the interests of the populations that they are theoretically trying to protect. It would also be useful to any pitch-person in the business of security. Sheesh.
When you consider that an economy is intended to create and distribute wealth, it is important to note that these "pirate" innovations turn $100 economic systems into $25 systems.
So when we examine the economic innovations of people who are first motivated by an unwillingness to pay money, it is not surprising that their economy offers substantially less capital for income.
It's a change. And it's cheaper. But as far a economies go, it's not an improvement.
It's ironic that the argument is being made that the power grid is ill-designed for wind farms. That's like saying an automobile is poorly designed for an engine that randomly revs up and sputters out to a halt. One might want to reconsider which part of the infrastructure is less-than-optimally designed for the service being rendered.
A challenge for many record retention policies, especially with email, is to prevent the proliferation of copies and avoid "unplanned retention." Many (most) of the emails being sought in this case were long iterative threads with large cc lists. When you factor for network distribution mechanisms and the variety of personal practices (use of various POP clients, personal folder management, people who still insist on printing stuff, desktop archive and cache settings, etc.), it is quite humorous and implausible to believe that the emails are gone. In fact, you can't practically make them go away.
You can, however, wipe the server and make the "Backup Tape" go away, and then try to keep people focused on that.
No, the rabbit really isn't in the magician's hat, and no, the rabbit didn't really disappear.
The parallel to tobacco fails when you consider that the smoker mainly injures himself when he smokes (and, yes, nearby others under the secondhand smoke theory). Very differently, the emitter of carbon dioxide [in theory] injures all people on earth. And note that the "fault" for tobacco injuries shifted to the smoker as soon as tobacco companies stopped being overtly deceptive about the risks of smoking.
The point here is that every person who believes in CO2-driven global warming and who emits carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is now a guilty party who is injuring others. That includes me as a guilty party. And probably you.
Isn't it wonderful to live in a litigious culture of self-righteous, sanctimonious, personal irresponsibility?
Ummm...in this case, it would be a "clique" with the "power" to edit a Wikipedia article.
So we're really just talking about a few retards with an internet connection.
Call me naive.
Here in The States, we legally (and spiritually) value corporations as the primary entity that produces economic value. Our laws treat a corporation much like a person.
How do we offset this seemingly overbearing allocation of power to corporations? We counter as individuals with pursuit of our self-interest: "I owe the corporation nothing." As usual, in the United States, the right of the individual reigns supreme. (You gotta love that.)
Consider that. A corporation is essentially the sum of its people's doings. But a cultural irony of the United States is that we who breathe such life into corporations deny them their most valued commitment: that of their employees. We deny them *us*.
And why, you might ask, could such a contradiction make sense?
It is because we trust neither corporations nor individuals. Both, by nature, are selfish. So we pose the two as adversaries, fodder in a competitive arena. They are merely two points of view dueling for a higher ground. From that competition of ideas (vocalized through media pronouncements and water-cooler banter) emerge various perspectives of the day. And as each of us adopts one or more of those perspectives, this informal but continuous voting process produces a seemingly nonsensical consensus that is Our View of Corporations (and Our Obligations to Corporations), for *today*.
I reiterate to you my response here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=357043&cid=21317333.
Here in The States, we legally (and spiritually) value corporations as the primary entity that produces economic value. Our laws treat a corporation much like a person.
How do we offset this seemingly overbearing allocation of power to corporations? We counter as individuals with pursuit of our self-interest: "I owe the corporation nothing." As usual, in the United States, the right of the individual reigns supreme. (You gotta love that.)
Consider that. A corporation is essentially the sum of its people's doings. But a cultural irony of the United States is that we who breathe such life into corporations deny them their most valued commitment: that of their employees. We deny them *us*.
And why, you might ask, could such a contradiction make sense?
It is because we trust neither corporations nor individuals. Both, by nature, are selfish. So we pose the two as adversaries, fodder in a competitive arena. They are merely two points of view dueling for a higher ground. From that competition of ideas (vocalized through media pronouncements and water-cooler banter) emerge various perspectives of the day. And as each of us adopts one or more of those perspectives, this informal but continuous voting process produces a seemingly nonsensical consensus that is Our View of Corporations (and Our Obligations to Corporations), for *today*.
Said like a lousy manager, or one who doesn't appreciate what people actually do, or somebody who never worked in a large enough organization to appreciate the true cost of attrition, or I don't know what...
Excepting the departures of Truly Useless People, those last two weeks are somebody's last chance to find out that which you don't know about that which you are about to inherit. I am so sick of watching stupid managers and stupid successors squander that invaluable last chance because they act like scorned girlfriends or just don't understand the true value of even people who would leave, and the undocumented knowledge they carry in their heads.
I've never met a leaving person who wouldn't be helpful in his own succession. Most, in fact, are incredulous as to how little anybody seems to care about the invaluable knowledge they are walking away with, and how much more difficult their successor's lives will be for the ignorance.
Shape up, managers and everybody else. Those defectors leaving your ranks should be more valuable to you in those last two weeks than in any other two weeks of their employ.
I don't understand why Reuters didn't call them Muslims. It seems better to further besmirch an even more besmirched title.
<bart
From Wikipedia:
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible if:
1. it constituted the last words of a person who was dying or thought he was dying, and
2. that person was aware that he or she was dying, and
3. that person made a statement, based on their actual knowledge, that relates in some way to the cause or circumstances of his or her death.
Haut's affidavit lacks any of the qualities of a Dying Declaration.
It is illegal in many places to carry "burglar's tools". Yes, there is no difference between a burglar's tools and common household tools. However, when a person is caught in the act of breaking into some place, it can [almost always] be reasonably inferred that the tools used to break in meet the definition of "burglar's tools."
Such a prohibition can be a valuable mechanism to invoke penalties against people who engage in criminal behavior but get caught before completing the act. So even though the potential victim has no loss, the perpetrator is still guilty of a crime, which in this case would be possession of burglar's tools.
If, when you are doing something, you see somebody with an emotional facial expression, you will be more likely to memorize that something (i.e. be able to recall it later). People with increased testosterone levels demonstrate an increase in that response (i.e. their memorization/recall is further increased).
You know...these days, when people really understand computers and apply system/application monitoring paradigms that didn't exist in the pre-iPod era.
You know...don't you?
(Nagios does a great job for me doing the stuff the parent poster talks about; he's as transparently shallow as you suggest.)
...and I'll show you someone who isn't much interested in learning about the universe.
Jeez...must we know about everything we don't know about?
The real trend, my friend, is the disintegration of intellectual property rights and the loss of opportunities to form capital through those rights. Your assertion of "privatization" is laughable; the general public is having a field day appropriating other people's intellectual property for their own use. Those lawyers who you paint as being a mounting threat are just the leading edge of a losing battle. Witness the decline of the music industry (and the dwindling of the hundreds of thousands of not-rich people who work in it). The trend is overwhelmingly going your way while those demons who scare you are getting their asses kicked. And though you are able to paint a picture of a slippery slope down to trouble, the reality is that you've been sliding up that slope for years now, with no likely change of direction in sight. Get a mirror.
Scheduled replacement sounds dubious and expensive. Regardless of scheduled replacement, random failures will occur. Assuming uptime is critical, contingency measures have to be in place and automatically engaged if downtime is to be avoided. If uptime isn't critical, then you handle your outages as they occur (according to less stringent service level constraints).
The increased cost of disk drives (~2x due to early retirement?) and maintenance labor (drive service every 3 years instead of ~6?) seems to only be offset by a shift of some percentage of disk repairs from unscheduled to scheduled work. That might make sense if you have to dispatch off-site people to effect repairs in very remote locations, but in a data center or large office environment, the labor is usually readily available without significant additional travel/scheduling costs.
I'd be interested in hearing a full justification of routine disk replacement.
It all depends on what you mean by "spying." If you mean to aggressively pursue information using legal methods, then spying can be a reasonable and useful tool for a company to understand its marketplace. But it'ss not okay if illegal methods (e.g. pretexting) are used to obtain information. It's not clear to me from the article that there is even an allegation of HP having illegally spied on Dell.
Still, if a responsible business such as HP chooses to pay a third party for information, I see little excuse for it failing to carefully examine the means by which the information was obtained. From a very practical standpoint, HP should want such an examination in order to determine the quality/meaning/usefulness of the information. Further, because information gathering tactics can so easily take advantage of deceit (and too often do), it is incumbent upon a responsible company to explicitly advise against wrongful practices, and if you're HP's size, that advice should be documented.
But...ummmmm...HP doesn't seem to have such a defense.
You'll just have to keep working your days and nights, and then one day, you'll die.
But you should die knowing you gave it your best.
<bart
Hmmm...I think they all use your Social Security number because they all use your Social Security number. That is, after all, why it's so valuable; it's your cross-reference ID, your "foreign key," your "global unique identifier," and yes, the name by which you are truly known in the databases of this world.
Perhaps you might challenge their practices with a converse and more secure alternative: why don't they all use their own unique identifiers? Answer: that wouldn't be very useful.
<bart
<bart
<bart
I knew a woman who "reverse engineered" the lines on the palm of my hand and determined that I had 10 inches of manhood.
I think she went to the same school as Slashdot's engineer.
<bart