When they talk about "privacy" they mean the privacy of the people who are not the police and not the politicians. They still get all the privacy they want.
Because of, you know, "national security" and "terrorists".
Drop the idea of "TV show". They've been done and you probably do not have any better ideas than the networks have.
Instead, look at the books you're selling. Create "mini-series" type programming from the literature that is already out there. Focus on story arcs where you can have a beginning and an end.
The Black Company by Glen Cook. Vlad Taltos by Steven Brust. A steam-punk version of Doc Savage. Perry Rhodan. Neal Stephenson either The Baroque Cycle or Cryptonomicon.
Go big. Bigger than the networks. Bigger than the movie studios. Fill the niche they aren't willing to.
What is special about gmail servers that would stop greylisting? Do they really not retry mail transmission?
The message gets bounced to a different server that tries delivering it. Since it is a different IP address it also gets greylisted.
So it bounces the message to a different server (probably not the first server) and tries again. And gets a different server greylisted. And so on and on and on.
After X failures the gmail system gives up and returns the message as undeliverable.
A lot of the big sites (hotmail, yahoo, etc) do things like that. So I exclude them from the greylisting option based upon their reverse DNS lookup. Which works most of the time.
First off, because spam is so bad (80% of messages by some counts) just about ANYTHING that ANYONE does will reduce their spam (ignoring false positives).
Secondly, READ YOUR LOGS!
There are broad categories of how different groups use email (and their email infrastructure). So what works great for one group sucks for a different group.
So I recommend something like SpamAssassin where you can tweak the settings to what works for your specific circumstances (and the people/groups that you send/receive email with).
Greylisting is great, except when you try to greylist gmail servers. So know how the tools work and think about situations where they would fail and then adjust the knobs to deal with those potential failures.
And if you don't accept EVERY email sent to you (I don't) then make sure that you customize the rejection notice so that the SENDER can contact you if his server includes the rejection message (which most of them do). I include my phone number.
In my opinion, the more knobs that you can adjust the better it is.
Instead, each person has a desk with low dividers, and people can grab conference rooms as needed â" much like the headquarters of a small tech company.
I've seen attempts at that. It quickly turns into whomever has the highest status permanently booking a conference room. In effect, turning it into their own office.
I'd recommend focusing on teaching science and skip the gimmicks.
Google the Safest The study concluded that while all the search engines the lab evaluated delivered malware, Google delivered the least. It was followed by Bing, which returned a disconcerting five times as much malware as Google.
They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.
And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable. Because you are, literally, joking about killing them.
They can change their pricing to be competitive if they really want; apparently they just dont see the need yet.
That's going to be a problem for them as well. Because their customers who have been paying the current price will be annoyed if the price drops just so VMWare can maintain marketshare.
They wont be "screwed" until their competitors have better features than them, but if you check their competitor's marketing pages, you will notice that none of them claim to be better-- just that theyre a better "value".
Except that "good enough" is good enough.
And once the smaller businesses go with a particular flavour of virtualization it becomes somewhat difficult to change. Their in-house expertise becomes focused on that flavour.
I started with VMWare back in the 90s. But I think that they're products are massively overpriced now.
He's goofily handsome in that way that women and some men often confuse with "confidence", although he does seem to possess a lot of actual confidence.
That's where I stopped reading. I'm not a cannibal. I don't care how attractive or confident the cook is. I don't care what women think of him.
Have a supply closet behind a locked door so you need your badge to open it up and a motion activated camera taking shots of you while you take whatever you want.
If inventory starts to drop then look at the photos to see if anyone is abusing the system.
And I encounter atheists who think medieval people though the Earth was flat, or that Copernicus was rejected by Christians, or that Galileo's heliocentrism was correct (hint: it wasn't, the reasons for him thinking the Earth moved were demonstrably false. So he came to the right conclusion, but for completely wrong reasons).
So it was because the Pope demonstrated that Galileo's calculations were incorrect that he was found guilty of heresy and died under house arrest?
I don't think so. I think it was more that Galileo's work wasn't sufficiently pro-Pope and pro-Catholicism. And THAT is the problem with religion being involved in science.
I think that the real problem is that religion is 100% a social institution.
Whereas science is not (100%). Even an unpopular person with an unpopular theory can (possibly) demonstrate that his theory give correct predictions.
When you have a power structure that is based upon tradition and social/political standing rather than science then you have all kinds of problems with that and science.
Sure, there can be people in that hierarchy who understand science and support scientific studies. But they are the exception. And the institution does not support them in any way.
I simply have zero interest in the crowd who wants to be different. Leet. 'Linux is supposed to be hard so it's exclusive' is just the dumbest thing that a smart person could say.
Where is the "crowd" that he referred to? Who wants Linux to be "hard"?
Everyone I know wants Linux to "work". And to work "consistently" with an internal "logic".
They had few performance metric and feel that by having the seats warm they will get more productivity./blockquote>From the other article, the "metric" was that the new CEO thought that the parking lot was too empty.
So it isn't even "performance" but more like "attendance".
If someone laughs at someone else' failure, that is a bad person you don't want on your team.
What was that you had just posted?
If you can't get along with your team members, they will laugh as you get pummeled by defense.
So now you're contradicting your previous claim.
Competence is not the same as team work, and if you really had military experience you should know this.
I'm guessing that you have trouble with English. Because what I said was "I'll take competence over sociability any day."
You seem to be unable to read English. But that's okay, isn't it?
I was on a quick reaction force where we had to work as a team or we died.
I think you read too many comic books. Because you're still confusing "team" with "like". They aren't the same.
In the team, the fundamentalist needs to know he can depend upon the atheist. And that they both know how to do their jobs. But they don't have to like each other.
Once you pull your head out of your comic books and get some real world experience you'll see that.
Until then, at least try to keep your points consistent.
Because I worked on the servers, I had VPN open from 8am to 6pm on most days... working. Now, I show up at 8, then leave at 5.
That has been my experience. There are two types of remote users: a. The ones who cannot handle the freedom/responsibility and slack off.
b. The ones who cannot disengage and work 10+ hours a day.
I was too busy on the phone in conferences w/ remote company clients, had deadlines to meet, and in IM sessions with other team members helping them out (and getting help).
From a productivity standpoint, it's even worse when you're in the office because people can walk into your office (even if your door is closed). Also meetings where you are physically present require you to quiesce all your other tasks ahead of time.
They still finished their task, and you still think they're a rock star unless you somehow know that the task should have only taken a couple hours (which in our line of work its very hard to know).
Isn't that what differentiates the "rock star" from the average? If you think that the task should take 8 hours and they finish it in 2 hours (as long as it is done correctly) then they're "rock stars".
You are, but you're also not getting as many assignments as you could.
Isn't that a management issue? The "rock star" is finishing the work in 1/4 the time allocated so why not let him pursue his own interests if the company does not have additional work for him?
Unless the team was deeply dysfunctional to start with - I have yet to see an environment where getting people together in one room to interact wasn't vastly more productive than trying to do so virtually.
Linux kernel development.
It's possible that they might be even more productive if they were all in the same room but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating that.
You can be the best quarter back in the world, but if you can't work with the center you will fail.
I think you just made my point. You're describing an environment where social interactions determine whether someone does their job to the best of their ability or not.
f you can't get along with your team members, they will laugh as you get pummeled by defense.
Isn't their job at that point to handle the defense? So you're postulating that: a. They failed to handle the defense. b. They laughed when their failure resulted in damage to a team member.
That is exactly the kind of behaviour I'm describing.
Sounds like you are an egocentric person that believes that you are all that's needed for your company to survive.
Mostly my team experience has been with the military. So I have a different outlook. I'll take competence over sociability any day. I don't have to like you to work with you and you don't have to like me to know that you can depend upon me.
"When you're reorganizing, just starting, or trying to turn the fortunes of your company around I think you really have to work 'together'."
In my experience the only "together" available person-to-person is social. So meetings become opportunities to socialize and play status games (I called a bigger meeting than you so I have more status than you) rather than tools to accomplish business objectives.
And when your TECH business is dependent upon social interactions of your employees then your business is failing. And demanding MORE socialization is not going to help it.
I'd have expected someone from Google to take the "monitor it and improve it" method instead. Look for patterns in the VPN habits and identify the people who are doing the work and promote them to the divisions that you depend upon.
If they insist on it AND your manager cannot shield you THEN it might be time to look for a different job.
In the meantime, make sure that those are fully patched AND monitor them (and firewall as much as possible) because they WILL be cracked, eventually. Although you should be doing this for all your systems any way.
I disagree. He's supposed to be a programmer. For a programmer to complain about the packages is... stupid.
If the LSB worked...
That's a whole different issue.
... while non linux geeks use distros like Ubuntu or Mint, which are the only platforms commercial developers tend to target.
And Red Hat. For servers. And maybe SuSE. And...
In the end it all depends upon who you are and what kind of work you are trying to accomplish.
Macs are great. But if his complaint is about packages then Macs are probably not the ideal platform for him. What's he going to do if there is a bug in the proprietary software?
Slashdot Mirror
When they talk about "privacy" they mean the privacy of the people who are not the police and not the politicians. They still get all the privacy they want.
Because of, you know, "national security" and "terrorists".
Drop the idea of "TV show". They've been done and you probably do not have any better ideas than the networks have.
Instead, look at the books you're selling. Create "mini-series" type programming from the literature that is already out there. Focus on story arcs where you can have a beginning and an end.
The Black Company by Glen Cook.
Vlad Taltos by Steven Brust.
A steam-punk version of Doc Savage.
Perry Rhodan.
Neal Stephenson either The Baroque Cycle or Cryptonomicon.
Go big. Bigger than the networks. Bigger than the movie studios. Fill the niche they aren't willing to.
The message gets bounced to a different server that tries delivering it. Since it is a different IP address it also gets greylisted.
So it bounces the message to a different server (probably not the first server) and tries again. And gets a different server greylisted. And so on and on and on.
After X failures the gmail system gives up and returns the message as undeliverable.
A lot of the big sites (hotmail, yahoo, etc) do things like that. So I exclude them from the greylisting option based upon their reverse DNS lookup. Which works most of the time.
First off, because spam is so bad (80% of messages by some counts) just about ANYTHING that ANYONE does will reduce their spam (ignoring false positives).
Secondly, READ YOUR LOGS!
There are broad categories of how different groups use email (and their email infrastructure). So what works great for one group sucks for a different group.
So I recommend something like SpamAssassin where you can tweak the settings to what works for your specific circumstances (and the people/groups that you send/receive email with).
Greylisting is great, except when you try to greylist gmail servers. So know how the tools work and think about situations where they would fail and then adjust the knobs to deal with those potential failures.
And if you don't accept EVERY email sent to you (I don't) then make sure that you customize the rejection notice so that the SENDER can contact you if his server includes the rejection message (which most of them do). I include my phone number.
In my opinion, the more knobs that you can adjust the better it is.
I've seen attempts at that. It quickly turns into whomever has the highest status permanently booking a conference room. In effect, turning it into their own office.
I'd recommend focusing on teaching science and skip the gimmicks.
From TFA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMxbqyz1VY8
Although I fully expect the US version to be as bad (or worse) than the US version of Red Dwarf.
They have to. Because they cannot rule out that someone crazy/stupid enough to bring a bomb on a plane would not also be crazy/stupid enough to brag about it.
And it also serves to discourage such jokes that make the other passengers uncomfortable. Because you are, literally, joking about killing them.
That's going to be a problem for them as well. Because their customers who have been paying the current price will be annoyed if the price drops just so VMWare can maintain marketshare.
Except that "good enough" is good enough.
And once the smaller businesses go with a particular flavour of virtualization it becomes somewhat difficult to change. Their in-house expertise becomes focused on that flavour.
I started with VMWare back in the 90s. But I think that they're products are massively overpriced now.
You don't have to read the whole thing.
Sentence #4 after the "fold":
That's where I stopped reading. I'm not a cannibal. I don't care how attractive or confident the cook is. I don't care what women think of him.
The problem is locating the attacker.
Rather than the cracked computer that Grandma hasn't updated since she bought it 8 years ago.
Any cracker should be going through at least 2 levels of zombies he controls that are configured to dump all the logs to /dev/null.
Drone strike on the senior center.
Have a supply closet behind a locked door so you need your badge to open it up and a motion activated camera taking shots of you while you take whatever you want.
If inventory starts to drop then look at the photos to see if anyone is abusing the system.
So it was because the Pope demonstrated that Galileo's calculations were incorrect that he was found guilty of heresy and died under house arrest?
I don't think so. I think it was more that Galileo's work wasn't sufficiently pro-Pope and pro-Catholicism. And THAT is the problem with religion being involved in science.
I think that the real problem is that religion is 100% a social institution.
Whereas science is not (100%). Even an unpopular person with an unpopular theory can (possibly) demonstrate that his theory give correct predictions.
When you have a power structure that is based upon tradition and social/political standing rather than science then you have all kinds of problems with that and science.
Sure, there can be people in that hierarchy who understand science and support scientific studies. But they are the exception. And the institution does not support them in any way.
Where is the "crowd" that he referred to? Who wants Linux to be "hard"?
Everyone I know wants Linux to "work". And to work "consistently" with an internal "logic".
What was that you had just posted?
So now you're contradicting your previous claim.
I'm guessing that you have trouble with English. Because what I said was "I'll take competence over sociability any day."
You seem to be unable to read English. But that's okay, isn't it?
I think you read too many comic books. Because you're still confusing "team" with "like". They aren't the same.
In the team, the fundamentalist needs to know he can depend upon the atheist. And that they both know how to do their jobs. But they don't have to like each other.
Once you pull your head out of your comic books and get some real world experience you'll see that.
Until then, at least try to keep your points consistent.
I'm pretty sure that Linus has delegated most of his authority on that that issue.
Linus is an example of a good manager who can handle remote workers. Don't blame the workers when it is a management issue.
That has been my experience. There are two types of remote users:
a. The ones who cannot handle the freedom/responsibility and slack off.
b. The ones who cannot disengage and work 10+ hours a day.
From a productivity standpoint, it's even worse when you're in the office because people can walk into your office (even if your door is closed). Also meetings where you are physically present require you to quiesce all your other tasks ahead of time.
Isn't that what differentiates the "rock star" from the average? If you think that the task should take 8 hours and they finish it in 2 hours (as long as it is done correctly) then they're "rock stars".
Isn't that a management issue? The "rock star" is finishing the work in 1/4 the time allocated so why not let him pursue his own interests if the company does not have additional work for him?
If there is additional work then give it to him.
It's about management.
Linux kernel development.
It's possible that they might be even more productive if they were all in the same room but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating that.
I think you just made my point. You're describing an environment where social interactions determine whether someone does their job to the best of their ability or not.
Isn't their job at that point to handle the defense? So you're postulating that:
a. They failed to handle the defense.
b. They laughed when their failure resulted in damage to a team member.
That is exactly the kind of behaviour I'm describing.
Mostly my team experience has been with the military. So I have a different outlook. I'll take competence over sociability any day. I don't have to like you to work with you and you don't have to like me to know that you can depend upon me.
"When you're reorganizing, just starting, or trying to turn the fortunes of your company around I think you really have to work 'together'."
In my experience the only "together" available person-to-person is social. So meetings become opportunities to socialize and play status games (I called a bigger meeting than you so I have more status than you) rather than tools to accomplish business objectives.
And when your TECH business is dependent upon social interactions of your employees then your business is failing. And demanding MORE socialization is not going to help it.
I'd have expected someone from Google to take the "monitor it and improve it" method instead. Look for patterns in the VPN habits and identify the people who are doing the work and promote them to the divisions that you depend upon.
If they insist on it AND your manager cannot shield you THEN it might be time to look for a different job.
In the meantime, make sure that those are fully patched AND monitor them (and firewall as much as possible) because they WILL be cracked, eventually. Although you should be doing this for all your systems any way.
And keep looking for a better job.
I disagree. He's supposed to be a programmer. For a programmer to complain about the packages is ... stupid.
That's a whole different issue.
And Red Hat. For servers. And maybe SuSE. And ...
In the end it all depends upon who you are and what kind of work you are trying to accomplish.
Macs are great. But if his complaint is about packages then Macs are probably not the ideal platform for him. What's he going to do if there is a bug in the proprietary software?