I don't have a problem with wiretapping or eavesdropping if the people wanting to do it go out and get a warrant. If you can prove to a judge that there is sufficient need to listen to a particular person's conversations without their knowing, that's fine. Before anyone goes down the "There isn't always time..." bollocks. If the need is there, then any paperwork can be rushed to the tune of insignificance.
What I do have a problem with is effectively taking off any and all controls about who does what and when. A blanket "telco's can't get into trouble" makes it much too easy for anyone to tune into anything they want.
Not to jump on the postback wagon, but isn't the whole concept of the American judicial system based on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't listening in on anyone's conversations sort of take a 180 degree turn on that whole concept?
For the record, I am neither in America or American.
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives.
But the problem is that we don't know who they are. You need to listen to millions of conversations to have a chance of getting down to what you are interested in.
And lets face it, it's not like they aren't going to be talking in coded messages to one another. I am sure that "Hey Terrorist friend, that bomb you asked for is running a day late, but we will still get it down there and blow shit up good" might sound like "Hi Bob, I will be picking up the milk on the way home, but I am running a little late."
As for the thought that there is some lowly paid government worker listening in on a conversation over the phone I have while away on business with my partner? Yeah, great. That just really works for me.
I hate to follow to logical conclusions, but correct me if I am wrong here:
1) Eaves dropping law gets passed.
2) Terrorist learn that they can be snooped on via phone.
3) Terrorists change communication method to avoid snooping.
4) Everyone else gets snooped on as the law is already enacted.
He wants to get himself off the hook for later, but can't be the one to do it. You can't pardon yourself, but if you stop anyone who will end up pointing the finger at you getting in trouble - they won't point the finger now will they?
So, does that mean that you are okay to effectively have anyone and everyone who wants to listening to your calls or reading your emails in case you are a terrorist waiting for the right moment?
Before you really answer, think about all the stuff that you write in email to close friends, or in sms to loved ones, or over the phone. All that embarrassing stuff that isn't meant for any audience outside you and the receiving end. All THAT stuff becomes open.
I might be naive in my thinking, but why spend billions on listening to everyone's conversations when you could spend the same money to make their lives good. Happy content people don't go blowing themselves up or shoot random (or not so random) people by the bucketful. Happy content people lead happy content and productive lives. Eavesdropping on everyone won't make everyone happy.
Why those mongols kept invading till someone built that big nasty wall up between backyards. I can see it now:
Mongol: Pssst, you got a yuan bag? Wall Guard: Oy! Get out of here, we don't do that at this tower, try two doors down. Mongol: Pssst, is Fey Shong Wei about? He always hooks me up. Wall Guard: I said piss off! I got my boss coming for an inspection in a bit. Mongol: Fine fine, sissy girly man, no wonder you need this big wall to keep out a few baked horsemen! Wall Guard: Get back to your tent you damned hippie! And get a REAL job! And a HAIRCUT! And have a SHOWER!
My experience has been that the bit paper opens doors to interviews much quicker, and allows to get a foot into a company easier, but the moment you are inside, it's worthless. Well, it might not be worthless - hopefully you learned a lot during doing it, but my point is that once inside, no-one cares. At that point where you go career wise depends totally and utterly on your aptitude to do good work.
I am pretty nerdy (in the good meaning) when it comes to PCs. I came into a business based on my retail knowledge and managed to get an "entry level" position in the head office of a multi-national retailer. I started on about 46k per year. Without a degree and living off common sense, a good memory and attention to detail in addition to IT smarts in a little over two years I have moved into a 103k package and it's not really showing signs of slowing down too much in the future.
I guess that really, a degree in the right hands would be great, but the right hands can go a long way without a degree as well.
That's pretty close to saying that cigarette companies have nothing to do with smokers dying of cancers and other smoking related illness.
They don't.
Yes they do. They manufacture the product which leads to their customers getting lung cancers and other illness. That's something right there. But, lets play by your logic:
It's okay for cigarette companies to advertise to little kids with fake lolly type cigarettes? I mean, it's their choice after all.
How about the fatties in our world? Now, before I start on this one, I figure some background information makes this more poignant. I used to work in retail, in a reasonably physical role which meant that no matter what I ate I had a 30 inch waist, a great physique and didn't have to do any additional activity to maintain my appearance/fitness. Three years ago, I migrated from the shop floor to management in an office. Also around this time, I quit smoking. I ate more, I did less physical activity, and in two and a half years put on about twenty kilograms (around 44 pounds). I have since taken up a lot of long distance running, totally changed my diet and lost around 10kg of it in the last three months. I don't blame the junk food companies for making me fat. I took it upon myself to change and to work to get back to where I was, so I can sort of sympathize with your "it's not the companies fault" view on things, but it sort of really is.
If a car company knew there was a fault in a product and continued to market the product hiding the fault, they would well get sued. To further the point. If I walked along the road and got hit by a car because the driver was drunk, I wouldn't be angry at a car manufacturer, however if I got hit because the brakes were faulty and the manufacturer knew about it and hid it... wowsa, get your helmet on.
What it all comes down to, is that certain companies make and sell products that can be enjoyed, either in small doses or by the majority of people. Alcohol for example is bad if too much is had, but can be fine in measured doses. I don't have a problem with these. Certain things however, have no good, no matter the dose, no matter the situation.
Showering a clinically depressed person with that sort of mental torture could have had no benefit in any way shape or form - and Lori should take responsibility for what she did - bullies a depressed minor which was likely a significant contribution to her committing suicide.
1) People are not blaming Lori Drew for the depression in the young girl.
2) Inflicting this sort of mental anguish to someone who is clinically depressed is like feeding sugary treats by the bucket to someone with diabetes or lighting up cigarettes for someone with lung cancer.
Drew should have been put before a judge - I totally agree with that. Doing it for computer fraud is the wrong charges. If they didn't stick, she would be off scott free. If they do stick they open up the nasties can of worms on the rest of us just to punish this woman.
The fact that the victim chose to listen to her is no fault of Lori Drew's.
That's pretty close to saying that cigarette companies have nothing to do with smokers dying of cancers and other smoking related illness.
Again, my view is that the entire thing is a tragedy, one that wouldn't have happened had people not been so mean/stupid/whatever but charging them with computer fraud is not the right way to go about righting the wrongs that they did.
Hmmm, I was going to make a tasteless joke about being in the Australian Army and doing stunts in Apache helicopters, but my own internal MOD system kicked into "MOD DOWN" mode and I guess I better not post jokes about accidents that killed people. Dammit, I need another coffee to get over this internal MOD system glitch.
I hardly think that if aliens want to announce their life to the rest of the universe it will be done through concrete slabs sent out into space - or concrete anything sent out into space for that matter.
The evidence is much more likely to come through radio waves, not bits of concrete.
PS. You aren't in an Austin Power movie, you can't use double quotes like that and get away with it on slashdot.
I would love to reply, but I am busy grinding my sixth level 80 toon in World of Warcraft. Only came here as I was on a loading screen. Bye - got to go grind again now.
I wonder what happens if son/daughter is adopted and doesn't know, yet this shows DNA link to a criminal parent. That's a nasty shock to the system, I can just see it now:
Officer: Hi, can you tell us where that lowlife father of your is?
Kid: He is at work at the moment.
Officer: Yeah, drop the act kid, he ain't worked a day of his life. Now, where is he ya little lying bastard?
Kid: He will come home from work in three hours...
*three hours later*
Officer: This ain't your dad! Quit fucking with us here!
Kid: Whaaaaaaa! (Or any other such life changing crying sound when you suddenly find out you are adopted and your whole life has been a lie)
You know, I reckon it would have been much much better to shut the company down (yes the millions of dollars damages will shut it down and facebook might get a few grand out of it) but I say put the spammers into jail for a bit. Not over the top, but say six months?
Closing a company and starting it over in a new name isn't a deterrent. It's a business plan these guys have. Put the owner in the nick for a few months, and I bet he starts chirping a different tune.
The only two larger ISPs in Australia are both massive Telco's. They aren't stupid enough to go after someone like Telstra or Optus on silly lawsuits like this.
I figure that they are going to try to make iiNet pay and pay and pay for the lawyers until they either quit wanting to pay or it scares the others enough not to play hardball like iiNet did. Personally I am with Internode (another decent ISP but not one of the biggest) and if I should ever need to change, I think I will support iiNet for standing up to both common sense and going in to bat for the small guy (That means sticking up for the underdog for you Americans:) by the way).
In my experience, age itself doesn't matter. I have dealt with young people who are hopeless and old people who are hopeless. I have also dealt with amazing older folks, and just as amazing younger "fresh" kids. The skills/traits that I look for in people these days are (Pretty much in order):
1) Common Sense - It goes so much further than anything else.
2) Ability to comprehend tasks - I don't want to have to explain things over and over for one. Secondly, if they understand what they are doing, there is a good chance they might have a good input to make it even better.
3) Communication skills - If they can't talk, articulate and be precise in asking questions or listening to answers, they won't do point 2 well.
4) Programming ability - Yes, it's way down on the list. Most programmers can program well enough. The value in good software/development isn't purely in scratching two seconds off an operation that takes three minutes. It's in making an application/solution that the customer wants to have - which isn't always exactly what they ask for.
As developers I look for people that COULD possibly be in the business role that they are developing for had they wanted to, but chose developing instead. People who can understand what the business/customer is doing will ALWAYS make better software than people who follow requirements to the letter. The four points above in that order will help you find people who will do the best work.
Of course, the last several years it's been easier than ever, with a president in office who just might believe you if you say "yes, sir, Hawaii is very much like the moon."
He might also believe very much if you said Las Vegas was like the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a problem with wiretapping or eavesdropping if the people wanting to do it go out and get a warrant. If you can prove to a judge that there is sufficient need to listen to a particular person's conversations without their knowing, that's fine. Before anyone goes down the "There isn't always time..." bollocks. If the need is there, then any paperwork can be rushed to the tune of insignificance.
What I do have a problem with is effectively taking off any and all controls about who does what and when. A blanket "telco's can't get into trouble" makes it much too easy for anyone to tune into anything they want.
Not to jump on the postback wagon, but isn't the whole concept of the American judicial system based on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't listening in on anyone's conversations sort of take a 180 degree turn on that whole concept?
For the record, I am neither in America or American.
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives.
But the problem is that we don't know who they are. You need to listen to millions of conversations to have a chance of getting down to what you are interested in.
And lets face it, it's not like they aren't going to be talking in coded messages to one another. I am sure that "Hey Terrorist friend, that bomb you asked for is running a day late, but we will still get it down there and blow shit up good" might sound like "Hi Bob, I will be picking up the milk on the way home, but I am running a little late."
As for the thought that there is some lowly paid government worker listening in on a conversation over the phone I have while away on business with my partner? Yeah, great. That just really works for me.
I hate to follow to logical conclusions, but correct me if I am wrong here:
1) Eaves dropping law gets passed.
2) Terrorist learn that they can be snooped on via phone.
3) Terrorists change communication method to avoid snooping.
4) Everyone else gets snooped on as the law is already enacted.
Did I miss something obvious?
If you want to be like that, then so does yours. You will never be able to eavesdrop on everyone.
He wants to get himself off the hook for later, but can't be the one to do it. You can't pardon yourself, but if you stop anyone who will end up pointing the finger at you getting in trouble - they won't point the finger now will they?
So, does that mean that you are okay to effectively have anyone and everyone who wants to listening to your calls or reading your emails in case you are a terrorist waiting for the right moment?
Before you really answer, think about all the stuff that you write in email to close friends, or in sms to loved ones, or over the phone. All that embarrassing stuff that isn't meant for any audience outside you and the receiving end. All THAT stuff becomes open.
I might be naive in my thinking, but why spend billions on listening to everyone's conversations when you could spend the same money to make their lives good. Happy content people don't go blowing themselves up or shoot random (or not so random) people by the bucketful. Happy content people lead happy content and productive lives. Eavesdropping on everyone won't make everyone happy.
Hmmm, I guess it's sort of like Al Gore winning the presidential election, but George Bush ending up the President?
/. paranoia is finally starting to rub off on me.
It's all about thinking you are in a democracy, not actually being in one. Happy people are easier to control.
Lordy, I think all this
Why those mongols kept invading till someone built that big nasty wall up between backyards. I can see it now:
Mongol: Pssst, you got a yuan bag?
Wall Guard: Oy! Get out of here, we don't do that at this tower, try two doors down.
Mongol: Pssst, is Fey Shong Wei about? He always hooks me up.
Wall Guard: I said piss off! I got my boss coming for an inspection in a bit.
Mongol: Fine fine, sissy girly man, no wonder you need this big wall to keep out a few baked horsemen!
Wall Guard: Get back to your tent you damned hippie! And get a REAL job! And a HAIRCUT! And have a SHOWER!
Wow, they really did plan ahead for a rainy day didn't they? I mean, that's a fair bit of shrubbery to be hauling about by anyone's measure.
My experience has been that the bit paper opens doors to interviews much quicker, and allows to get a foot into a company easier, but the moment you are inside, it's worthless. Well, it might not be worthless - hopefully you learned a lot during doing it, but my point is that once inside, no-one cares. At that point where you go career wise depends totally and utterly on your aptitude to do good work.
I am pretty nerdy (in the good meaning) when it comes to PCs. I came into a business based on my retail knowledge and managed to get an "entry level" position in the head office of a multi-national retailer. I started on about 46k per year. Without a degree and living off common sense, a good memory and attention to detail in addition to IT smarts in a little over two years I have moved into a 103k package and it's not really showing signs of slowing down too much in the future.
I guess that really, a degree in the right hands would be great, but the right hands can go a long way without a degree as well.
That's pretty close to saying that cigarette companies have nothing to do with smokers dying of cancers and other smoking related illness. They don't.
Yes they do. They manufacture the product which leads to their customers getting lung cancers and other illness. That's something right there. But, lets play by your logic:
It's okay for cigarette companies to advertise to little kids with fake lolly type cigarettes? I mean, it's their choice after all.
How about the fatties in our world? Now, before I start on this one, I figure some background information makes this more poignant. I used to work in retail, in a reasonably physical role which meant that no matter what I ate I had a 30 inch waist, a great physique and didn't have to do any additional activity to maintain my appearance/fitness. Three years ago, I migrated from the shop floor to management in an office. Also around this time, I quit smoking. I ate more, I did less physical activity, and in two and a half years put on about twenty kilograms (around 44 pounds). I have since taken up a lot of long distance running, totally changed my diet and lost around 10kg of it in the last three months. I don't blame the junk food companies for making me fat. I took it upon myself to change and to work to get back to where I was, so I can sort of sympathize with your "it's not the companies fault" view on things, but it sort of really is.
If a car company knew there was a fault in a product and continued to market the product hiding the fault, they would well get sued. To further the point. If I walked along the road and got hit by a car because the driver was drunk, I wouldn't be angry at a car manufacturer, however if I got hit because the brakes were faulty and the manufacturer knew about it and hid it... wowsa, get your helmet on.
What it all comes down to, is that certain companies make and sell products that can be enjoyed, either in small doses or by the majority of people. Alcohol for example is bad if too much is had, but can be fine in measured doses. I don't have a problem with these. Certain things however, have no good, no matter the dose, no matter the situation.
Showering a clinically depressed person with that sort of mental torture could have had no benefit in any way shape or form - and Lori should take responsibility for what she did - bullies a depressed minor which was likely a significant contribution to her committing suicide.
1) People are not blaming Lori Drew for the depression in the young girl.
2) Inflicting this sort of mental anguish to someone who is clinically depressed is like feeding sugary treats by the bucket to someone with diabetes or lighting up cigarettes for someone with lung cancer.
Drew should have been put before a judge - I totally agree with that. Doing it for computer fraud is the wrong charges. If they didn't stick, she would be off scott free. If they do stick they open up the nasties can of worms on the rest of us just to punish this woman.
The fact that the victim chose to listen to her is no fault of Lori Drew's.
That's pretty close to saying that cigarette companies have nothing to do with smokers dying of cancers and other smoking related illness.
Again, my view is that the entire thing is a tragedy, one that wouldn't have happened had people not been so mean/stupid/whatever but charging them with computer fraud is not the right way to go about righting the wrongs that they did.
Hmmm, I was going to make a tasteless joke about being in the Australian Army and doing stunts in Apache helicopters, but my own internal MOD system kicked into "MOD DOWN" mode and I guess I better not post jokes about accidents that killed people. Dammit, I need another coffee to get over this internal MOD system glitch.
Mod parent up Informative please. Simple common sense solution to lack of being able to call directly.
I hardly think that if aliens want to announce their life to the rest of the universe it will be done through concrete slabs sent out into space - or concrete anything sent out into space for that matter.
The evidence is much more likely to come through radio waves, not bits of concrete.
PS. You aren't in an Austin Power movie, you can't use double quotes like that and get away with it on slashdot.
Sorry, I would have joined the conversation earlier, but being in blimey o'l England, I was still waiting for the page to load.
I would love to reply, but I am busy grinding my sixth level 80 toon in World of Warcraft. Only came here as I was on a loading screen. Bye - got to go grind again now.
I wonder what happens if son/daughter is adopted and doesn't know, yet this shows DNA link to a criminal parent. That's a nasty shock to the system, I can just see it now:
Officer: Hi, can you tell us where that lowlife father of your is?
Kid: He is at work at the moment.
Officer: Yeah, drop the act kid, he ain't worked a day of his life. Now, where is he ya little lying bastard?
Kid: He will come home from work in three hours...
*three hours later*
Officer: This ain't your dad! Quit fucking with us here!
Kid: Whaaaaaaa! (Or any other such life changing crying sound when you suddenly find out you are adopted and your whole life has been a lie)
You know, I reckon it would have been much much better to shut the company down (yes the millions of dollars damages will shut it down and facebook might get a few grand out of it) but I say put the spammers into jail for a bit. Not over the top, but say six months?
Closing a company and starting it over in a new name isn't a deterrent. It's a business plan these guys have. Put the owner in the nick for a few months, and I bet he starts chirping a different tune.
The only two larger ISPs in Australia are both massive Telco's. They aren't stupid enough to go after someone like Telstra or Optus on silly lawsuits like this.
:) by the way).
I figure that they are going to try to make iiNet pay and pay and pay for the lawyers until they either quit wanting to pay or it scares the others enough not to play hardball like iiNet did. Personally I am with Internode (another decent ISP but not one of the biggest) and if I should ever need to change, I think I will support iiNet for standing up to both common sense and going in to bat for the small guy (That means sticking up for the underdog for you Americans
Expensive toolbag? Pfft. I ask what woman needs to apply lippy from her dolche and gabanna handbag in the middle of a spacewalk?
Yeah great, now I can drink people's sneezes as they walk past my big cup of water maker thing.
In my experience, age itself doesn't matter. I have dealt with young people who are hopeless and old people who are hopeless. I have also dealt with amazing older folks, and just as amazing younger "fresh" kids. The skills/traits that I look for in people these days are (Pretty much in order):
1) Common Sense - It goes so much further than anything else.
2) Ability to comprehend tasks - I don't want to have to explain things over and over for one. Secondly, if they understand what they are doing, there is a good chance they might have a good input to make it even better.
3) Communication skills - If they can't talk, articulate and be precise in asking questions or listening to answers, they won't do point 2 well.
4) Programming ability - Yes, it's way down on the list. Most programmers can program well enough. The value in good software/development isn't purely in scratching two seconds off an operation that takes three minutes. It's in making an application/solution that the customer wants to have - which isn't always exactly what they ask for.
As developers I look for people that COULD possibly be in the business role that they are developing for had they wanted to, but chose developing instead. People who can understand what the business/customer is doing will ALWAYS make better software than people who follow requirements to the letter. The four points above in that order will help you find people who will do the best work.
I dunno, I think I might prefer the secret moonbase if it was in Hawaii.
Of course, the last several years it's been easier than ever, with a president in office who just might believe you if you say "yes, sir, Hawaii is very much like the moon."
He might also believe very much if you said Las Vegas was like the moon.