No joke, I know one guy who took out an $8,000 student loan basically to spend at bars. Now he has a degree in something or another, but spends his days inserting tab a into slot b so that he can pay off that debt. If he had just gone to work in the first place, he'd be doing the same job and have more money. And he could still go to bars.
Remember kids, don't risk YOUR present. Get down to Discount Time Machine Rentals TODAY so you'll know exactly how much effort to put into planning for your FUTURE.
Discount Time Machine Rentals - where good people don't happen to bad decisions.
Please, how many kids go to school to get a "well rounded education" - it is a nice argument but lets be honest.
If you're just talking about "school", then almost none of them. Because "school" would include all classes at all grades.
But when you are talking about colleges, while it may be your intent to get a degree so that they can get a "professional" job the colleges can and do have additional requirements.
Which is why CS majors also need credits in the humanities and why art majors need credits in math.
And with limits on education, you get limits on job opportunities. Fine, as long as it it the person who chooses such.
If it is someone else who is already making decent money at a decent job arguing that too many people are advancing their educations... fuck you. With a chainsaw.
Everyone LOVES doing the design and implementation phases. Except most people don't even get that right and sort of "design" it as it is being "implemented" (hack it until it APPEARS to work).
When the correct approach is to start from the maintenance point-of-view and work backwards.
Design and implementation are easy and fun and best of all they can be done during the regular work day/week.
With maintenance, you often have to schedule an outage, which means off-hours. And people have a strong opinion as to how it USED TO WORK BEFORE YOU TOUCHED IT. Being a day behind on design or implementation is one thing. Being down a day because of maintenance is another thing entirely.
If you design it to be easily maintained, and you correctly implement that design... it will be easy to maintain.
Social networking sites have proved valuable for sales-lead generation, marketing and general broker-client relations, but regulators have been quick to take notice and to offer the same warnings they did more than a decade ago when e-mail and instant messaging (IM) became common.
Seriously. What idiot wants his financial transactions posted on FaceBook?
For it would deprive us of these terrible sensationalist articles. The InterWebz is doomed!
Mistakes will be made. And some people will lose their Internet connectivity (in some form or other) for a period of time.
During that time, the people who control the routers will be working to fix whatever problem happened and the idiots who caused the problem will either learn how to do it CORRECTLY or be fired. Although the executives who insisted on cutting the budget so that they couldn't hire people with the knowledge in the first place will still keep their bonuses and their jobs.
At work, our Internet connection is through Verizon. Within the past two months, we've had 1 day of no connection (and Verizon still denies that there was any problem) and a few days massive packet loss (and still there is no problem noticed by Verizon).
BGP works and works well. But it does require people with the knowledge of how to make it work.
Saying that Microsoft 'misrepresented' and 'underestimated' the criticality of MS10-024 because it didn't reveal the two bugs, Core urged company administrators to 'consider re-assessing patch deployment priorities.
How so? If it is a patch, it needs to go through your testing process for deployment.
And yet, if government, because of this dynamic, continues not to be able to adopt modern transactional practices, then it's going to fall further behind the satisfaction curve.
With a BUSINESS, you can choose to go to a different business. One who's product more closely reflects what you want.
With a GOVERNMENT... there is only one. Of course there will be some people who are unhappy with it. Look at ANY law and you'll find some people who opposed it.
I don't want a company BUYING / SELLING / TRADING information about my purchases with them to other companies or government agencies.
If a company wants to sort through my buying history with them, that's just fine by me. But they can only use the information they themselves have collected through my interactions with them.
And I'm still more opposed to the government doing it because companies are orientated towards helping me buy their products. If I don't buy anything from Company X's latest sales drive... so what.
If they HAD discovered an exploit... why didn't they reveal that when they went for the job in the first place? Do you want employees who conceal vulnerabilities?
If they have NOT discovered an exploit... then they're just trying to use fear to get a paycheck. Not the kind of employees you'd want.
I can see Panda potentially using them as consultants of a sort, and very carefully maintaining an arms-length relationship with them that's clearly about paying them for specific analyses or something.
Ummm, I'd be wary of doing that.
It'd be like planting land mines under the office carpet.
And that is exactly why. You'd NEVER be able to trust anything from those fools. So any task you'd assign them, you'd have to assign someone SMARTER than them to check it.
If there is someone there who insists that home machine be allowed on the network (beyond stupid in the first place) this might be the "compromise" that the IT department was able to reach.
You can have your home machine on the network... BUT... it must have full disk encryption.
Most everyone will be able to figure out that that means "leave your home computer at home".
We've had years and years of cases almost identical to your case. And still the legal system has not changed.
Let me change my statement, the legal system is set up for the ease of the legal system. And that ease results in people who try to follow the law facing more of a burden than those who do not.
It's not about justice and it hasn't been for many years (if it ever was).
But if you want me to believe that in your imagination, fantasize away.
Strange. You said exactly that in this statement:
He's a criminal. What happened between the time he was arrested and conviction isn't that unusual as the DA refined the case, let alone in a case with some technical complexity. He deserves to be where he is, in jail.
Yet now you're saying that what you posted is not what you meant.
I'll stand by my statements: Being found guilty in a court of law does NOT mean that you belong in jail.
And why it does LEGALLY classify you as a "criminal" it does NOT mean that you have committed any crime.
Again, no. The jury decided that he was guilty. You claimed that he belonged in jail.
Yet other people have been found guilty by juries for crimes they did not commit. Did they belong in jail for a crime they did not commit?
Which leads to my statement about his option to appeal. If he appeals and wins, then what you have posted is incorrect. And since one of your claims was about "staining" this profession, does that mean that you will be guilty of such "staining" if he wins on appeal?
He's a criminal.... He deserves to be where he is, in jail.
No. He was found guilty. He can appeal and that appeal may reverse that finding.
In which case, your statements would be wrong.
What happened between the time he was arrested and conviction isn't that unusual as the DA refined the case, let alone in a case with some technical complexity.
I don't care if it is "unusual" or not. The fact is that the FACTS were not available PRIOR to the trial. So there is no basis for your statement about how any of us "stained our profession".
If, upon appeal, this case is reversed, does that then mean that you have then "stained our profession"?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember kids, don't risk YOUR present. Get down to Discount Time Machine Rentals TODAY so you'll know exactly how much effort to put into planning for your FUTURE.
Discount Time Machine Rentals - where good people don't happen to bad decisions.
If you're just talking about "school", then almost none of them. Because "school" would include all classes at all grades.
But when you are talking about colleges, while it may be your intent to get a degree so that they can get a "professional" job the colleges can and do have additional requirements.
Which is why CS majors also need credits in the humanities and why art majors need credits in math.
Exactly.
And with limits on education, you get limits on job opportunities. Fine, as long as it it the person who chooses such.
If it is someone else who is already making decent money at a decent job arguing that too many people are advancing their educations ... fuck you. With a chainsaw.
Everyone LOVES doing the design and implementation phases. Except most people don't even get that right and sort of "design" it as it is being "implemented" (hack it until it APPEARS to work).
When the correct approach is to start from the maintenance point-of-view and work backwards.
Design and implementation are easy and fun and best of all they can be done during the regular work day/week.
With maintenance, you often have to schedule an outage, which means off-hours. And people have a strong opinion as to how it USED TO WORK BEFORE YOU TOUCHED IT. Being a day behind on design or implementation is one thing. Being down a day because of maintenance is another thing entirely.
If you design it to be easily maintained, and you correctly implement that design ... it will be easy to maintain.
The reason for the documention (and control that such requires) is to keep the company on the right side of the law.
Being able to show the EXACT communication that took place can save a lot of money in fines.
The problem with that is that you're only scamming the people who have already "friended" you.
And you're scam has to be visible to them. So if they "friend" anyone who asks, your message will probably be lost in the regular flood of messages.
I think this article is just badly written.
From TFA:
Seriously. What idiot wants his financial transactions posted on FaceBook?
For it would deprive us of these terrible sensationalist articles. The InterWebz is doomed!
Mistakes will be made. And some people will lose their Internet connectivity (in some form or other) for a period of time.
During that time, the people who control the routers will be working to fix whatever problem happened and the idiots who caused the problem will either learn how to do it CORRECTLY or be fired. Although the executives who insisted on cutting the budget so that they couldn't hire people with the knowledge in the first place will still keep their bonuses and their jobs.
At work, our Internet connection is through Verizon. Within the past two months, we've had 1 day of no connection (and Verizon still denies that there was any problem) and a few days massive packet loss (and still there is no problem noticed by Verizon).
BGP works and works well. But it does require people with the knowledge of how to make it work.
It is possible to get non-Cisco GBICs working on a Cisco switch. It's just difficult to find the correct command to do so.
The command you want is "service unsupported-transceiver".
How so? If it is a patch, it needs to go through your testing process for deployment.
I know a guy who can get you a slash 29, but it'll cost you.
More of a technical issue ... how are the people in this "black market" going to handle the routing?
With a BUSINESS, you can choose to go to a different business. One who's product more closely reflects what you want.
With a GOVERNMENT ... there is only one. Of course there will be some people who are unhappy with it. Look at ANY law and you'll find some people who opposed it.
I don't want a company BUYING / SELLING / TRADING information about my purchases with them to other companies or government agencies.
If a company wants to sort through my buying history with them, that's just fine by me. But they can only use the information they themselves have collected through my interactions with them.
And I'm still more opposed to the government doing it because companies are orientated towards helping me buy their products. If I don't buy anything from Company X's latest sales drive ... so what.
But it gets current code out there and in use.
That's where the LTS releases come in. If you don't want to upgrade, you don't have to. For years.
In the meantime, the other people are hammering on the short-release cycle code.
But right now they're just script-kiddies.
If they HAD discovered an exploit ... why didn't they reveal that when they went for the job in the first place? Do you want employees who conceal vulnerabilities?
If they have NOT discovered an exploit ... then they're just trying to use fear to get a paycheck. Not the kind of employees you'd want.
Ummm, I'd be wary of doing that.
And that is exactly why. You'd NEVER be able to trust anything from those fools. So any task you'd assign them, you'd have to assign someone SMARTER than them to check it.
Why waste time and money?
If there is someone there who insists that home machine be allowed on the network (beyond stupid in the first place) this might be the "compromise" that the IT department was able to reach.
You can have your home machine on the network ... BUT ... it must have full disk encryption.
Most everyone will be able to figure out that that means "leave your home computer at home".
We've had years and years of cases almost identical to your case. And still the legal system has not changed.
Let me change my statement, the legal system is set up for the ease of the legal system. And that ease results in people who try to follow the law facing more of a burden than those who do not.
It's not about justice and it hasn't been for many years (if it ever was).
The legal system seems specifically designed to punish the people who try to follow the laws.
The problem with your position is that most of the original charges were dropped PRIOR to the trial.
Strange. You said exactly that in this statement:
Yet now you're saying that what you posted is not what you meant.
I'll stand by my statements:
Being found guilty in a court of law does NOT mean that you belong in jail.
And why it does LEGALLY classify you as a "criminal" it does NOT mean that you have committed any crime.
So you believe that anyone found guilty in a court of law belongs in jail ... regardless of whether they have committed a crime or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Dale_Adams
Also available in movie format:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096257/
So no, being convicted by a jury does NOT mean that you belong in jail.
Again, no. The jury decided that he was guilty. You claimed that he belonged in jail.
Yet other people have been found guilty by juries for crimes they did not commit. Did they belong in jail for a crime they did not commit?
Which leads to my statement about his option to appeal. If he appeals and wins, then what you have posted is incorrect. And since one of your claims was about "staining" this profession, does that mean that you will be guilty of such "staining" if he wins on appeal?
"Denial of service". Words that the average person believes s/he understands. So s/he must understand the implications of that phrase, right?
No.
Which makes it even worse that the CCIE didn't correct the jury about.
A DoS means that a service your system is offering is being denied. It is NOT about humans providing services.
No. He was found guilty. He can appeal and that appeal may reverse that finding.
In which case, your statements would be wrong.
I don't care if it is "unusual" or not. The fact is that the FACTS were not available PRIOR to the trial. So there is no basis for your statement about how any of us "stained our profession".
If, upon appeal, this case is reversed, does that then mean that you have then "stained our profession"?
No? Then do not claim that others have.