It's all automated. In the four seconds you mention a program parsed the document and noted certain key words. The computer than initiated a trade based on those key words. In all likelihood those trades were initiated well within.4 seconds of the release.
Think of it this way when trying to understand just how prevalent automated trading and latency have become for trading. You know when you see pictures of a stock exchange and surrounding it you see skyscrapers? Those skyscrapers are largely filled with data centers for various companies servers that are used for doing these types of trades.
Rents there are very expensive, and it's not for the fancy lobby, it's all about the real estate and shorter latency for the trade. I did a bunch of work for a well known exchange. They had so many servers in such a tight space that my only budgetary concern when specifying servers was in the amount of power they required.
There very well may be insider trading, I can't speak for that. However I can say with professional experience that the effect that you saw could have easily been done by automated systems in a completely legal manner using publicly available information.
Paragrsphs are your friend, they are my friend too. They make things easier to read, they were invented many centuries ago and are available to you now You don't have to pay license fees to use them. Please use them in the future.
That was informative and there is a world of difference between what your talking about (which sounds like a good idea) and stating that windows server simply won't have a GUI. The story needs to be corrected as debunked (assuming you are correct) with all the wind taken out of it's sails.
I stand by my contention that this will be an optional development and not a requirement. You can already get Windows server in a CLI only version.
I have no opposition to making a leaner version of Windows server that is kinder for cloud computing and so on. The heavy weight customers have the staff and will to look at moving to the cloud. The cloud likes servers that are CLI, they utilize less resources and are well suited. For those customers this could well make financial sense.
The problem is that a fair part the middle and almost all of the bottom parts of the market lack the skills or resources to even think about doing something like this. Since the middle and bottom parts of the market are substantially larger than the heavy weight part by volume that makes this a very questionable maneuver at best.
For these customers the only way your going to get them to move to CLI only is kicking and screaming as the learning curve, staffing resources, training and time would be considered a poor return on investment. These customers will not be willing to make the investment and it will be Windows Vista all over again.
Absolutely, you can do that and I have done so many times. My point was not about administering the servers themselves, it was about server based applications that require a GUI.
There aren't very many windows server based applications that can be used on a CLI only basis. Many middleware applications, enterprise management application and database applications require a GUI. If your going to require that entire market to rewrite their software for CLI only than they are going to look for the cheapest option of doing so.
Chances are that option is going to *nix based instead of Windows based. It's a matter of where the ecosystems are for everything from tools, dev kits to the developers themselves. Throw in the time it would take to train countless admins of different skill levels and you are talking about creating a significant barrier to entry. That would be market suicide and that is why I think the article is wrong.
I'm pretty comfortable with a CLI, it's what I grew up with and use on a routine basis for many things. That being said there is a lot out there in terms of server based applications that are wholly dependent upon having a GUI.
Were not talking about simply rearranging the desktop here, were talking about removing the very interface that is depended on by an entire ecosystem of software. That market is easily in the billions of dollars per year. If your going to force all those developers and legacy applications to run as CLI only than your giving those companies an opportunity to re-evaluate the platform they use for a CLI based tool.
If your giving companies the impetus to decide what platform to use for a CLI based tool than many of them are simply going to switch to *nix support since there is a strong legacy ecosystem to support it. In other words if Microsoft were to do this for all of the Window Server based platforms it would be suicidal. That's a pretty poor business case and it simply doesn't make sense.
I think the far more likely case is that certain versions of Windows server will be available as CLI only (web platform etc), which they already are. I really have to question if the source of the story got their facts right, it doesn't make sense unless they didn't.
That's because each Prius consumes the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of fuel before its odometer clicks to 1.
The referenced article expands on my point about the environmental cost in the article and referenced study the article is based on. You will note that I am not anti-hybrid. It is technology that I have followed out of interest since I first heard about it's use some 20 years ago in the large dump trucks that are used in strip mines.
My point is that you need to consider your usage scenario. For most people they are going to better benefit themselves and the environment by buying a very efficient gas or diesel car. For certain people the hybrid is the better car, but for most it is nothing more than the green dick equivalent of driving a Hummer.
My secondary point is that people are letting politics try to dictate science and that is wrong. Science should always be free of politics. I'm not trolling, I drive a low emission vehicle and have driven small cars for years before it was the politically correct thing to do.
This is a good case for not mixing science and politics. There are certainly cases where hybrids function better (inner city, garbage trucks, buses etc). These work well because the type of driving for these scenarios is ideal for regenerative braking. This makes for a best case scenario for allowing the hybrid to recover energy and work at it's peak. These cases justify the environmental price of the hybrid because the environmental costs is offset by their use.
When you consider the environmental cost that a hybrid requires (the Prius is well documented on the Internet for what is required for it's battery packs) if your not using a hybrid in the right conditions you are arguably harming the environment. This is because you are exacting an environmental cost that is not repaid through your usage scenario.
My point is most consumers are better off getting a high efficiency gas or diesel engine car (Cruze, Jetta etc). Most consumers do not have a driving scenario that is ideal for a hybrid car. It has been decades since most people lived in core cities instead of suburbs or the country. The bottom line is that different technology is better suited for different drivers. One is not fundamentally better than the other in all cases.
People are letting politics try to dictate science, when science should always be free of politics and allowed to stand on it's own merits.
How much difficulty do you anticipate in getting and publishing records in Pacer? If there's one system that should be free it the decisions that our courts make and yet you are charged by the page just to view the results. Are you concerned about a court taking an unkind view on your archiving what is in Pacer?
I made a comment talking about how this was likely just a few days ago.
My point was the platform brings a lot of eyeballs, and has a value on that merit alone. That value has now been placed at 300 million dollars. Conspiracy theorists need to get a grip and remember that most things have simple explanations.
Firefox can't be bought or otherwise buried. However they can be joined, and there is nothing wrong with their doing so.
The separation of church and state was one of the most critical things the founding fathers did to ensure the success of the United States. We need to extend this same philosophy to the separation of science and politics.
Whether it is trying to stop stem cell research or medicinal lab animal research both main parties have a bad habit of trying to use or manipulate science to serve their agenda. Much like we set up the Federal Reserve Bank to operate at a certain arms length from daily politics, we need to do the same for science.
Science should never have a political agenda and it is inherently compromised anytime that it does, regardless of what that political agenda is. Science needs to be placed on a plinth above the daily back and forth of political agendas and left alone.
It's the same reason that Microsoft has advertised on Slashdot. By making the deal with Mozilla they get to be the default search engine on one of the most popular browsers. That is a lot of eyeballs. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the next contract replaced Google with Microsoft. Ad agencies go where the eyeballs are, does this really surprise anyone?
I take it you subscribe to the 'some evil is ok club'? Let me guess, traditional terrorism is ok depending on your victim too? I'll give you a hint *.terrorists = evil, and it doesn't matter what the * is. Every terrorist thinks that their morally justified to commit murder and inflict terror for their pet cause, they just substitute their pet cause for the *.
I would call you an idiot, with statements like 'once the oil runs out and the sea rises 20 feet', but I think your just plain evil. I'm guessing your the kind of person they had in mind when they looked at holding this information back from the public. Morally justifying murder for your pet cause doesn't make you good, it just makes you deranged.
The problem is that your assuming someone values control over the virus. Just as we once assumed that hijackers wanted to live after hijacking airplanes. It's a dangerous assumption to make.
A virus that would be out of control and could kill half the population of the world. It's an Eco-terrorists wet dream. Think of the carbon reduction from reducing the population by half? With one release of this virus you topple almost every government in the world, end globalization and meet just about every eco goal in existance.
Eco-terrorists are becoming increasingly radicalized, they already do things like break into research centers and release all of the animals into the wild without care for the fact that the animals will then all have to be euthanized. Assuming a bad guy is going to act rationally or have the same values as most people is a really good way to get screwed by the bad guys.
That being said, censorship is something I find abhorrently wrong, one of societies great evils. I'm just saying that something that would allow the weaponization of a biological agent arguably does rank up there with the fine details of how to build a nuclear bomb. Biological weapons of mass destruction were widely used in WW2 and killed far more people than the atomic bombs ever did.
I would have to imagine that the panel would have told them to go fish if there wasn't a reasonable basis for them asking to begin with. That being said I am far from qualified to know if this paper would raise that kind of concern. Their argument is valid, even if in this case they are wrong, I just don't know.
He's become the new Jon Katz, how on earth did this guy ever get approved to write for an IT magazine? Your point about him lacking any companies that have any type of regulation to deal with is sound. We need a block on articles by this idiot.
Your horribly, horribly wrong. This is not a cost shift to employees, not even remotely. When you buy a device you think, I paid $600, it costs $600. When IT buys the device they think, I paid $600, it's going to cost me another $1200 to support it - if it's one we already have the support hammered out for.
If you bring in your own random device that isn't yet supported than support costs rise even further. You see if everyone has an iToy than the IT department knows how to support it, has the software to manage it and can bring down these costs with economies of scale. If everyone has 20 different versions of an iToy than achieving economies of scale becomes difficult and there are a lot of hidden support costs.
The idea that simply shifting this hardware costs to employees will save money could not be further from the truth. This is done as a service for employees for their convenience.
Now, if you want to know what is shifting costs to employees it is allowing work from home. I worked for a large (75,000) healthcare company and we had roughly half our work force working from home. It was a convenience to the employees and it was estimated to save the company hundreds of millions of dollars per year in things like office buildings and similar costs.
It also happens to be an incredibly green thing to do with a significant impact for the environment by keeping all of those people off of the roads etc.
Are these devices presenting information or storing information? There is a world of difference between the two and I can assure that both finance and health industries have regulation that require governance in the event that data is stored.
That being said if the information is simply being presented (you log into a vm from home and all data is kept in the cloud) that's typically going to be ok. If information is being stored than you have large amounts of regulatory requirements you have to work with.
Home use devices are not inherently bad on their own. Having done enterprise management for both healthcare and finance I can assure you that both of these industries take their requirements seriously. They also both support large numbers of people that work from home by making the service available in a manner that can be controlled. This is something the troll of yesterday's "IT is an obstacle" just didn't understand.
I think your idea has merit, however you would need to modify it somewhat to offset initial costs. Instead of jumping straight to 50% you could use a graduated requirement instead.
Every other year the amount has to increase by 5% instead. This allows things to start off on a small scale and gives people a chance to ramp up on things like skills, regulations and manufacturing.
Since it isn't overly onerous in the beginning you avoid the big push back of regulation killings jobs, costing too much etc. By gradually ramping up you achieve the desired in result without a massive jolt to the economy. By the time your done economies of scale will have driven down the prices enough for retrofits to be much more affordable.
All the grandiose ideas in the world are meaningless if they can't be made affordable. The trick isn't in the idea, it's how to make financially palpable. The real trick is to make it more financially advantageous to have a home outfit like without too large of a cost difference. Once you can do that the market will solve the rest.
All right, Mr Gruman you have trolled and since I'm one of your bad guys I'm going to respond and enlighten you:
They want control, and users who want to choose their technology tools are apostates to be crushed.
I have best practices that tell me to control these things that you want to let roam free. I also happen to have laws, and some of these laws have very large financial penalties or the possibility of jail time.
Mr Gruman, how many attorney generals have you had conversations with after someone went ahead and did what you wanted done? I'm willing to bet it's not as many as I have had and that you've never had to deal with the results of your company making the international news because someone decided to bypass IT.
When you come across an IT pro stupid enough to use the "toys" epithet, complain to your CIO. Send the IT person back and ask for someone who actually respects you. Marginalize and isolate these IT staffers before they do it to you.
Your insight into how to play dirty politics to get your "Toy" into the office shows your complete lack of an understanding of how the enterprise works. Is your department going to pay for the budget for the time needed to support your toys?
Instead, you hear the code phrases, involving "security," "governance," "compliance," "risk," and "efficiency." These code phrases (the middle three are often referred to as a group via the acronym "GCR") boil down to "if you do it, it will be bad; if we do it, it will be good."
These code phrases are code for things like "mutli-million dollar fines", "angry attorney generals", "class action lawsuits", "criminal negligence", "security clearance", "ethics", "privacy" and other such things.
You see this is what happens when some petty ass whiny twit such as yourself goes to the CIO and says I want my toy and the IT department won't let me have it. The CIO comes to the IT department and says, "why won't you let this twit have his toy" and we're going to come back with something like "federal law, accountability, public relations disaster".
You know what Mr Gruman, I have never, ever lost that argument. When you take into account that regulation is only increasing the odds that I might lose that argument drop even further.
Now Mr Gruman, instead you should try the tactic of saying "IT Department, I want to use this toy for business purposes and not just as a toy, can you please look too see if we can?". You might have a perfectly legitimate case, and it might be very reasonable to do what you want, but you have to ask so that we can see if we can do that without avoiding nasty code words.
Just remember my code words can and have cost companies many millions of dollars when someone blew them off and ignored the IT department.
Than my apologies for misunderstanding what you meant. I will not argue at all about the US spying on and collecting unfathomable amounts of information...
I too often see the clueless who think that because they can't smoke pot or got a parking ticket that they live in a fascist government.
Be definition all government is authoritarian. That being said if you think the US is a leading culprit in being a/fascist/ government, than you really need to learn more about most other governments around the world actually operate. I certainly think they go to far on many things (SOPA etc), but to call them a prime example is ignorance at best.
I believe in the separation of science and politics. My point was to show something where politics gets mixed in with science.
I think perhaps a better way to get my point across is to say that I would lump them in with people who want to cut off funding for stem cell research. When science is dictated by politics science always loses.
I think you have a fair point, but is that really that much different from blocking stem cell research funding? I guess I put them both in the same category. A lot of people believe in the separation of church and state, I happen to believe in the separation of science and politics.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all automated. In the four seconds you mention a program parsed the document and noted certain key words. The computer than initiated a trade based on those key words. In all likelihood those trades were initiated well within .4 seconds of the release.
Think of it this way when trying to understand just how prevalent automated trading and latency have become for trading. You know when you see pictures of a stock exchange and surrounding it you see skyscrapers? Those skyscrapers are largely filled with data centers for various companies servers that are used for doing these types of trades.
Rents there are very expensive, and it's not for the fancy lobby, it's all about the real estate and shorter latency for the trade. I did a bunch of work for a well known exchange. They had so many servers in such a tight space that my only budgetary concern when specifying servers was in the amount of power they required.
There very well may be insider trading, I can't speak for that. However I can say with professional experience that the effect that you saw could have easily been done by automated systems in a completely legal manner using publicly available information.
Paragrsphs are your friend, they are my friend too. They make things easier to read, they were invented many centuries ago and are available to you now You don't have to pay license fees to use them. Please use them in the future.
That was informative and there is a world of difference between what your talking about (which sounds like a good idea) and stating that windows server simply won't have a GUI. The story needs to be corrected as debunked (assuming you are correct) with all the wind taken out of it's sails.
I think were pretty well on the same page.
I stand by my contention that this will be an optional development and not a requirement. You can already get Windows server in a CLI only version.
I have no opposition to making a leaner version of Windows server that is kinder for cloud computing and so on. The heavy weight customers have the staff and will to look at moving to the cloud. The cloud likes servers that are CLI, they utilize less resources and are well suited. For those customers this could well make financial sense.
The problem is that a fair part the middle and almost all of the bottom parts of the market lack the skills or resources to even think about doing something like this. Since the middle and bottom parts of the market are substantially larger than the heavy weight part by volume that makes this a very questionable maneuver at best.
For these customers the only way your going to get them to move to CLI only is kicking and screaming as the learning curve, staffing resources, training and time would be considered a poor return on investment. These customers will not be willing to make the investment and it will be Windows Vista all over again.
Absolutely, you can do that and I have done so many times. My point was not about administering the servers themselves, it was about server based applications that require a GUI.
There aren't very many windows server based applications that can be used on a CLI only basis. Many middleware applications, enterprise management application and database applications require a GUI. If your going to require that entire market to rewrite their software for CLI only than they are going to look for the cheapest option of doing so.
Chances are that option is going to *nix based instead of Windows based. It's a matter of where the ecosystems are for everything from tools, dev kits to the developers themselves. Throw in the time it would take to train countless admins of different skill levels and you are talking about creating a significant barrier to entry. That would be market suicide and that is why I think the article is wrong.
I'm pretty comfortable with a CLI, it's what I grew up with and use on a routine basis for many things. That being said there is a lot out there in terms of server based applications that are wholly dependent upon having a GUI.
Were not talking about simply rearranging the desktop here, were talking about removing the very interface that is depended on by an entire ecosystem of software. That market is easily in the billions of dollars per year. If your going to force all those developers and legacy applications to run as CLI only than your giving those companies an opportunity to re-evaluate the platform they use for a CLI based tool.
If your giving companies the impetus to decide what platform to use for a CLI based tool than many of them are simply going to switch to *nix support since there is a strong legacy ecosystem to support it. In other words if Microsoft were to do this for all of the Window Server based platforms it would be suicidal. That's a pretty poor business case and it simply doesn't make sense.
I think the far more likely case is that certain versions of Windows server will be available as CLI only (web platform etc), which they already are. I really have to question if the source of the story got their facts right, it doesn't make sense unless they didn't.
http://helenathegreat.hubpages.com/hub/Prius
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr/
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_09usedcars
The referenced article expands on my point about the environmental cost in the article and referenced study the article is based on. You will note that I am not anti-hybrid. It is technology that I have followed out of interest since I first heard about it's use some 20 years ago in the large dump trucks that are used in strip mines.
My point is that you need to consider your usage scenario. For most people they are going to better benefit themselves and the environment by buying a very efficient gas or diesel car. For certain people the hybrid is the better car, but for most it is nothing more than the green dick equivalent of driving a Hummer.
My secondary point is that people are letting politics try to dictate science and that is wrong. Science should always be free of politics. I'm not trolling, I drive a low emission vehicle and have driven small cars for years before it was the politically correct thing to do.
This is a good case for not mixing science and politics. There are certainly cases where hybrids function better (inner city, garbage trucks, buses etc). These work well because the type of driving for these scenarios is ideal for regenerative braking. This makes for a best case scenario for allowing the hybrid to recover energy and work at it's peak. These cases justify the environmental price of the hybrid because the environmental costs is offset by their use.
When you consider the environmental cost that a hybrid requires (the Prius is well documented on the Internet for what is required for it's battery packs) if your not using a hybrid in the right conditions you are arguably harming the environment. This is because you are exacting an environmental cost that is not repaid through your usage scenario.
My point is most consumers are better off getting a high efficiency gas or diesel engine car (Cruze, Jetta etc). Most consumers do not have a driving scenario that is ideal for a hybrid car. It has been decades since most people lived in core cities instead of suburbs or the country. The bottom line is that different technology is better suited for different drivers. One is not fundamentally better than the other in all cases.
People are letting politics try to dictate science, when science should always be free of politics and allowed to stand on it's own merits.
How much difficulty do you anticipate in getting and publishing records in Pacer? If there's one system that should be free it the decisions that our courts make and yet you are charged by the page just to view the results. Are you concerned about a court taking an unkind view on your archiving what is in Pacer?
I made a comment talking about how this was likely just a few days ago.
My point was the platform brings a lot of eyeballs, and has a value on that merit alone. That value has now been placed at 300 million dollars. Conspiracy theorists need to get a grip and remember that most things have simple explanations.
Firefox can't be bought or otherwise buried. However they can be joined, and there is nothing wrong with their doing so.
The separation of church and state was one of the most critical things the founding fathers did to ensure the success of the United States. We need to extend this same philosophy to the separation of science and politics.
Whether it is trying to stop stem cell research or medicinal lab animal research both main parties have a bad habit of trying to use or manipulate science to serve their agenda. Much like we set up the Federal Reserve Bank to operate at a certain arms length from daily politics, we need to do the same for science.
Science should never have a political agenda and it is inherently compromised anytime that it does, regardless of what that political agenda is. Science needs to be placed on a plinth above the daily back and forth of political agendas and left alone.
There's also another very simple reason.
Eyeballs.
It's the same reason that Microsoft has advertised on Slashdot. By making the deal with Mozilla they get to be the default search engine on one of the most popular browsers. That is a lot of eyeballs. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the next contract replaced Google with Microsoft. Ad agencies go where the eyeballs are, does this really surprise anyone?
I take it you subscribe to the 'some evil is ok club'? Let me guess, traditional terrorism is ok depending on your victim too? I'll give you a hint *.terrorists = evil, and it doesn't matter what the * is. Every terrorist thinks that their morally justified to commit murder and inflict terror for their pet cause, they just substitute their pet cause for the *.
I would call you an idiot, with statements like 'once the oil runs out and the sea rises 20 feet', but I think your just plain evil. I'm guessing your the kind of person they had in mind when they looked at holding this information back from the public. Morally justifying murder for your pet cause doesn't make you good, it just makes you deranged.
The problem is that your assuming someone values control over the virus. Just as we once assumed that hijackers wanted to live after hijacking airplanes. It's a dangerous assumption to make.
A virus that would be out of control and could kill half the population of the world. It's an Eco-terrorists wet dream. Think of the carbon reduction from reducing the population by half? With one release of this virus you topple almost every government in the world, end globalization and meet just about every eco goal in existance.
Eco-terrorists are becoming increasingly radicalized, they already do things like break into research centers and release all of the animals into the wild without care for the fact that the animals will then all have to be euthanized. Assuming a bad guy is going to act rationally or have the same values as most people is a really good way to get screwed by the bad guys.
That being said, censorship is something I find abhorrently wrong, one of societies great evils. I'm just saying that something that would allow the weaponization of a biological agent arguably does rank up there with the fine details of how to build a nuclear bomb. Biological weapons of mass destruction were widely used in WW2 and killed far more people than the atomic bombs ever did.
I would have to imagine that the panel would have told them to go fish if there wasn't a reasonable basis for them asking to begin with. That being said I am far from qualified to know if this paper would raise that kind of concern. Their argument is valid, even if in this case they are wrong, I just don't know.
The very name takes the wind out of the fan boys that will want to proclaim 'apple invented this, it was their idea'. Clever
He's become the new Jon Katz, how on earth did this guy ever get approved to write for an IT magazine? Your point about him lacking any companies that have any type of regulation to deal with is sound. We need a block on articles by this idiot.
Does Douglas Adam's estate get to sue if we get an introduction of our pork by our pork?
Your horribly, horribly wrong. This is not a cost shift to employees, not even remotely. When you buy a device you think, I paid $600, it costs $600. When IT buys the device they think, I paid $600, it's going to cost me another $1200 to support it - if it's one we already have the support hammered out for.
If you bring in your own random device that isn't yet supported than support costs rise even further. You see if everyone has an iToy than the IT department knows how to support it, has the software to manage it and can bring down these costs with economies of scale. If everyone has 20 different versions of an iToy than achieving economies of scale becomes difficult and there are a lot of hidden support costs.
The idea that simply shifting this hardware costs to employees will save money could not be further from the truth. This is done as a service for employees for their convenience.
Now, if you want to know what is shifting costs to employees it is allowing work from home. I worked for a large (75,000) healthcare company and we had roughly half our work force working from home. It was a convenience to the employees and it was estimated to save the company hundreds of millions of dollars per year in things like office buildings and similar costs.
It also happens to be an incredibly green thing to do with a significant impact for the environment by keeping all of those people off of the roads etc.
Are these devices presenting information or storing information? There is a world of difference between the two and I can assure that both finance and health industries have regulation that require governance in the event that data is stored.
That being said if the information is simply being presented (you log into a vm from home and all data is kept in the cloud) that's typically going to be ok. If information is being stored than you have large amounts of regulatory requirements you have to work with.
Home use devices are not inherently bad on their own. Having done enterprise management for both healthcare and finance I can assure you that both of these industries take their requirements seriously. They also both support large numbers of people that work from home by making the service available in a manner that can be controlled. This is something the troll of yesterday's "IT is an obstacle" just didn't understand.
I think your idea has merit, however you would need to modify it somewhat to offset initial costs. Instead of jumping straight to 50% you could use a graduated requirement instead.
Every other year the amount has to increase by 5% instead. This allows things to start off on a small scale and gives people a chance to ramp up on things like skills, regulations and manufacturing.
Since it isn't overly onerous in the beginning you avoid the big push back of regulation killings jobs, costing too much etc. By gradually ramping up you achieve the desired in result without a massive jolt to the economy. By the time your done economies of scale will have driven down the prices enough for retrofits to be much more affordable.
All the grandiose ideas in the world are meaningless if they can't be made affordable. The trick isn't in the idea, it's how to make financially palpable. The real trick is to make it more financially advantageous to have a home outfit like without too large of a cost difference. Once you can do that the market will solve the rest.
All right, Mr Gruman you have trolled and since I'm one of your bad guys I'm going to respond and enlighten you:
I have best practices that tell me to control these things that you want to let roam free. I also happen to have laws, and some of these laws have very large financial penalties or the possibility of jail time.
Mr Gruman, how many attorney generals have you had conversations with after someone went ahead and did what you wanted done? I'm willing to bet it's not as many as I have had and that you've never had to deal with the results of your company making the international news because someone decided to bypass IT.
Your insight into how to play dirty politics to get your "Toy" into the office shows your complete lack of an understanding of how the enterprise works. Is your department going to pay for the budget for the time needed to support your toys?
These code phrases are code for things like "mutli-million dollar fines", "angry attorney generals", "class action lawsuits", "criminal negligence", "security clearance", "ethics", "privacy" and other such things.
You see this is what happens when some petty ass whiny twit such as yourself goes to the CIO and says I want my toy and the IT department won't let me have it. The CIO comes to the IT department and says, "why won't you let this twit have his toy" and we're going to come back with something like "federal law, accountability, public relations disaster".
You know what Mr Gruman, I have never, ever lost that argument. When you take into account that regulation is only increasing the odds that I might lose that argument drop even further.
Now Mr Gruman, instead you should try the tactic of saying "IT Department, I want to use this toy for business purposes and not just as a toy, can you please look too see if we can?". You might have a perfectly legitimate case, and it might be very reasonable to do what you want, but you have to ask so that we can see if we can do that without avoiding nasty code words.
Just remember my code words can and have cost companies many millions of dollars when someone blew them off and ignored the IT department.
Than my apologies for misunderstanding what you meant. I will not argue at all about the US spying on and collecting unfathomable amounts of information...
I too often see the clueless who think that because they can't smoke pot or got a parking ticket that they live in a fascist government.
Be definition all government is authoritarian. That being said if you think the US is a leading culprit in being a /fascist/ government, than you really need to learn more about most other governments around the world actually operate. I certainly think they go to far on many things (SOPA etc), but to call them a prime example is ignorance at best.
I believe in the separation of science and politics. My point was to show something where politics gets mixed in with science.
I think perhaps a better way to get my point across is to say that I would lump them in with people who want to cut off funding for stem cell research. When science is dictated by politics science always loses.
I think you have a fair point, but is that really that much different from blocking stem cell research funding? I guess I put them both in the same category. A lot of people believe in the separation of church and state, I happen to believe in the separation of science and politics.