MrSeb is hopelessly out of touch with reality if he thinks any country will issue an anonymous digital payment system. Well maybe some tax-haven might, but not likely since they want access to the international banking system. Do you not read the news at all, let alone releases from the senate, treasury department or IRS??
Or all the funds are transferred to a single account owned by some authority, who can then trace back who was participating in the ddos attacks by subpoenaing from banks the identities of all the accounts that had automated transfers made into the master account. Think fighting fire with fire.
Addicts can be treated with opiods, they just require much higher doses. Which, again, isn't an issue if it's really warranted. A cancer patient is rarely worried about drug dependency, their cancer is of the type that can't be treated. They just need pain killers to not suffer as much. More minor things, like surgeries, can be done with an opiod for a short time (during the inpatient phase) and moved over to another med before discharge.
I wonder if ramifications like this will be explained in detail (rather than in passing) before administration?
So you've got a bunch of people who are immune to the effects of heroin. And presumably every other opiod as well. What happens when one of them gets in a car accident? Needs surgery? Has cancer? Or any other occurence when a narcotic painkiller is administered, regardless of the persons history of drug use? I mean, a heroin addict who has cancer won't be denied painkillers, but where is the relief for them if their body can't accept the prescribed pain killer?
Short story is that bearer bonds pay to the bearer of them. There's no tracking of ownership. If you bought the bond and I stole it from you, you can't call the issuer to have them void that bond and issue a replacement. So literally, the bearer of the bond is the one who gets paid. Contrast that with a stock certificate - you have it, but the company knows who has them as well, or at least the transfer agent does. I steal your certificate, and you report it stolen to the transfer agent, and they void the old one in their records and issue a replacement to me.
The us government stopped issuing them in the 80s, I believe.
I dunno. I have a win7 pc hooked up to my tv to a ct as a media server, and while I was able to modify the windows theme to make it legible from the couch, while still playing 1080p media in all it's glory, the interface does look horrible. Legible, yes. Done gracefully? No at all.
I'm from mass and drove around boston a fair bit. Not even a sliver as terrifying as I-95 in south Florida. Driving here is just insane. Search for deadliest highways and I'm pretty sure you'll see reconfirnation of that
Each predator carries 2 missiles. I don't think we've got an extra 1000 predators lying around, or if we could keep that many aloft at one time without having a we midair collisions....
Saudi Arabia doesn't give us a good deal on oil. But what they do do is insure that most of the profits are turned around and invested back in the US, rather than "wasted" on their own people...
Why can't Jews forget the holocaust? Why will we never forget 9/11? Each impacted someone and vastly changed the tract of their history. Just like over throwing iran's democracy and replacing it with decades of dictatorship did to them. And then when they finally overthrew their tyrant , we unleashed our lapdog on them who showered them with chemical weapons, no less. With our lapdog being none other than saddam.
Do you really not read history? It's all right there in black and white.
First off if you're going to spout off about over population, realize that WE (us citizens) use FAR MORE resources per capita than any 2nd ofr 3rd worlder could dream of. So if you're going to spout off about lack of resources for the people of the world, understand that reducing our population in half would conserve more resources than reducing developing populations by a billion or more. Not that I advocate for that, I'm just sick of seeing how wasteful we are (including me) but seeing the finger pointed at all the people in the world who have only a sliver of what we have.
If you're saying that Iran is overpopulated because their land can't support the number of people there, I'd agree with that. I'd also suggest that the same is true for us. But the answer is already there: trade. We have arable land. But we couldn't cultivate it to feed all of us if not for fertilizers, which oil is a key ingredient. We couldn't get it from the "breadbasket" region to the population centers on the coasts, which means oil. And once it's on the coasts, supermarket or fridge, it needs to be kept from spoiling. Via electricity, so much of which is supplied by oil.
So we have one thing. Land to grow on. Absent oil it would be useless to us. Iran and so much else of the middle east lacks that. But they have the oil that WE need in order to not suffer mass starvation. And trade is the solution. It could be direct (food for oil) or it could be indirect (food for dollars, dollars to euros, euros for food). But the point is that we're mutually dependent.
So when we talk about sanctions, realize that depriving the population of resources directly. Less dollars so less to be ent on imports. So us doing that to them is essentially the same as them blocking all the highways leading away from our agricultural areas
World resources aren't spread evenly. But trade fixes that problem.
So before you spout off about over population point your finger at yourself,me, and The rest of us, as we are the resource hogs of the world. And realize that all of our own stuff would be useless if not for what we can import from overseas.
Because the private sector is completely unwilling to dump research dollars into anything. They just sit on their hands waiting for government innovations to occur so they can step in and monetize. Witness where all the cutting edge cancer research is occurring: not at big pharma, but in public universities. And government research, masquerading as military spending, is what brought us the Internet, satellite communications (gps, direct tv, sat radio, say phones, sat imaging, and weather forecasting), cell phones, solar panels and so much more. Pretty much every tech item you have had its roots in military spending. Because private industry is both unwilling and incapable of devoting that much money to research. And in order to find advancements, you have to go through a lot of bad ideas first.
If you're wasting your time complaing, you're just unaware of reality.
I haven't read all the previous posts yet, but my thought is "if it's not broke, no need to fix it".
If you've been working there for sometime, and you're turning to slashdot to answer questions like: "What are the business justifications for having a standalone IT department in a small business?" then you're contemplating something that even you can't think of the business justification for.
Really, if the station is profitable and is operating how normal stations operate, unless you can visualize how this would actually benefit the workflows, it sounds like you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. On the other hand, if producers and editors were constantly throwing up their hands in frustration about this or that, then that would be the time to step in and suggest a fix. But from your description, it doesn't sound like that's the case.
What exactly would the benefit be to having a unified IT department across 5 stations? What would that allow those stations to do that they can't do now? Would they become more profitable? Or would they be spending money on a new department that they had done without for all these years?
You can't spend it if you don't have electricity. Thats a MAJOR flaw in my book. And if you found a shop that accepted them, the transaction would be an incredible headache compared to paying cash. And if your wallet happens to get erased or corrupted and you're without backup (ie 99% of computer users), there goes your savings as well.
Horrible concept. Horrible implementation. I'm only looking into mining them because there are people that'll give me dollars for them!
Best learn to step out of the way, let people do their work, and learn to compliment their efforts rather than detract from them and uproot them with scare stories and the like.
Don't want an unauthorized device plugged into the network? MAC filtering seems to work just fine.
Is email remotely accessible? SSL authentication. If a persons device supports the protocol you've specified, why shouldn't they be able to choose what method they use to access it? If someone can access it from an iPhone, then why not from Thunderbird at home?
People shouldn't have to go around pleading their case to people like you to use the tool that works best for them. You're not in their seat doing their jobs. How would you like it if the CEO said "i want your to build this massive database with all these features... oh, and it should be built using Filemaker Bento". You'd call bullshit because you know that that tool isn't appropriate for the job. That's what the rest of the employees say when IT makes inane policy decisions.
Again it's the company network. You're not the gatekeeper. Yes. You make sure things work, and you set up policies to that effect. But if a device conforms to the policies you set (supports imapmover ssl, or whAtever else) then you don't need to acclimate to it or whatever. It's just another client on your network. Just as if you deploy a suite of applications and your users need something else and find a solution for it, the reaction shouldn't be "you were doing just fine 2years ago without it,so therefore Im going to remove it from the end users machines", but rather "so and so finds it useful,let's see if other people can improve their productivity with it too. Then let's negotiate a discount for purchasing 500 copies of it"
It's not rocket science, and users aren't getting new technologies jfor the hell of it they're getting them because they think theyll be able to do a better job.
When you call it "my corporate network", you have defined yourself as the exact IT staff users complain about. It's not your network, unlesss you own the corporation itself. It is the company's network. And your toils in the back office contribut zero to the bottom line. Sure you keep things up and running, but you're not making the products, or out there selling them. Therefore, you're job is wholly dependent on your ability to let the breadwinners of the company do what they do best. If they find they feel more comfortable on an iPad, your job isn't to defend "your" network from an unsanctioned device. Your job is to make sure the device works, so that the employee who is generating the dollars that pay your salary and benefits can continue to do so.
Really. You called it "my corporate network". As if it's more yours than any other employees.
Any company that doesn't realize this and enforce that attitude upon the staff is doomed. IT is not some sacred bastion. It's just a supporting roll. And no group should claim ownership of company resources. Those are, after all, the companies. Your job is to make sure they work. Because if the CEO comes in with a new device, I don't know about you, but I've never known it was an option to tell him "no, you have to go return that" if it was at all possible it would e made to work. And if their iPad or android tablet can work for them, it should be a no brainer that any other employee in the enterprise that requires remote email access should be able to use the same.
Again. You really called it "my" network. Astounding.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh... I remember back when slashdotters LIKED Apple and looked forward to new releases from them.
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/02/05/13/1245241/preview-of-mac-os-x-102
this brings us many steps closer to Total Recall!
Two weeks... two weeks... two weeks.... two weeks...
MrSeb is hopelessly out of touch with reality if he thinks any country will issue an anonymous digital payment system. Well maybe some tax-haven might, but not likely since they want access to the international banking system. Do you not read the news at all, let alone releases from the senate, treasury department or IRS??
It's higher than either Cisco (1.58%), IBM (1.45%) or Oracle (0.8%). Not as high as microsoft or intel, but still.
Or all the funds are transferred to a single account owned by some authority, who can then trace back who was participating in the ddos attacks by subpoenaing from banks the identities of all the accounts that had automated transfers made into the master account. Think fighting fire with fire.
Addicts can be treated with opiods, they just require much higher doses. Which, again, isn't an issue if it's really warranted. A cancer patient is rarely worried about drug dependency, their cancer is of the type that can't be treated. They just need pain killers to not suffer as much. More minor things, like surgeries, can be done with an opiod for a short time (during the inpatient phase) and moved over to another med before discharge.
I wonder if ramifications like this will be explained in detail (rather than in passing) before administration?
So you've got a bunch of people who are immune to the effects of heroin. And presumably every other opiod as well. What happens when one of them gets in a car accident? Needs surgery? Has cancer? Or any other occurence when a narcotic painkiller is administered, regardless of the persons history of drug use? I mean, a heroin addict who has cancer won't be denied painkillers, but where is the relief for them if their body can't accept the prescribed pain killer?
Wiki it
Short story is that bearer bonds pay to the bearer of them. There's no tracking of ownership. If you bought the bond and I stole it from you, you can't call the issuer to have them void that bond and issue a replacement. So literally, the bearer of the bond is the one who gets paid. Contrast that with a stock certificate - you have it, but the company knows who has them as well, or at least the transfer agent does. I steal your certificate, and you report it stolen to the transfer agent, and they void the old one in their records and issue a replacement to me.
The us government stopped issuing them in the 80s, I believe.
I dunno. I have a win7 pc hooked up to my tv to a ct as a media server, and while I was able to modify the windows theme to make it legible from the couch, while still playing 1080p media in all it's glory, the interface does look horrible. Legible, yes. Done gracefully? No at all.
I'm from mass and drove around boston a fair bit. Not even a sliver as terrifying as I-95 in south Florida. Driving here is just insane. Search for deadliest highways and I'm pretty sure you'll see reconfirnation of that
oils just a commodity. once its pumped you can't tell where it came from. so take away middle eastern oil and that reduces OUR supplies as well.
Each predator carries 2 missiles. I don't think we've got an extra 1000 predators lying around, or if we could keep that many aloft at one time without having a we midair collisions....
Saudi Arabia doesn't give us a good deal on oil. But what they do do is insure that most of the profits are turned around and invested back in the US, rather than "wasted" on their own people...
Why can't Jews forget the holocaust? Why will we never forget 9/11? Each impacted someone and vastly changed the tract of their history. Just like over throwing iran's democracy and replacing it with decades of dictatorship did to them. And then when they finally overthrew their tyrant , we unleashed our lapdog on them who showered them with chemical weapons, no less. With our lapdog being none other than saddam.
Do you really not read history? It's all right there in black and white.
Name a war that Iran started. Yeah. Didn't think so. Why don't you read something rather than watching fox news?
Wow. Talk about uneducated.
First off if you're going to spout off about over population, realize that WE (us citizens) use FAR MORE resources per capita than any 2nd ofr 3rd worlder could dream of. So if you're going to spout off about lack of resources for the people of the world, understand that reducing our population in half would conserve more resources than reducing developing populations by a billion or more. Not that I advocate for that, I'm just sick of seeing how wasteful we are (including me) but seeing the finger pointed at all the people in the world who have only a sliver of what we have.
If you're saying that Iran is overpopulated because their land can't support the number of people there, I'd agree with that. I'd also suggest that the same is true for us. But the answer is already there: trade. We have arable land. But we couldn't cultivate it to feed all of us if not for fertilizers, which oil is a key ingredient. We couldn't get it from the "breadbasket" region to the population centers on the coasts, which means oil. And once it's on the coasts, supermarket or fridge, it needs to be kept from spoiling. Via electricity, so much of which is supplied by oil.
So we have one thing. Land to grow on. Absent oil it would be useless to us. Iran and so much else of the middle east lacks that. But they have the oil that WE need in order to not suffer mass starvation. And trade is the solution. It could be direct (food for oil) or it could be indirect (food for dollars, dollars to euros, euros for food). But the point is that we're mutually dependent.
So when we talk about sanctions, realize that depriving the population of resources directly. Less dollars so less to be ent on imports. So us doing that to them is essentially the same as them blocking all the highways leading away from our agricultural areas
World resources aren't spread evenly. But trade fixes that problem.
So before you spout off about over population point your finger at yourself ,me, and The rest of us, as we are the resource hogs of the world. And realize that all of our own stuff would be useless if not for what we can import from overseas.
Because the private sector is completely unwilling to dump research dollars into anything. They just sit on their hands waiting for government innovations to occur so they can step in and monetize. Witness where all the cutting edge cancer research is occurring: not at big pharma, but in public universities. And government research, masquerading as military spending, is what brought us the Internet, satellite communications (gps, direct tv, sat radio, say phones, sat imaging, and weather forecasting), cell phones, solar panels and so much more. Pretty much every tech item you have had its roots in military spending. Because private industry is both unwilling and incapable of devoting that much money to research. And in order to find advancements, you have to go through a lot of bad ideas first.
If you're wasting your time complaing, you're just unaware of reality.
I haven't read all the previous posts yet, but my thought is "if it's not broke, no need to fix it".
If you've been working there for sometime, and you're turning to slashdot to answer questions like: "What are the business justifications for having a standalone IT department in a small business?" then you're contemplating something that even you can't think of the business justification for.
Really, if the station is profitable and is operating how normal stations operate, unless you can visualize how this would actually benefit the workflows, it sounds like you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. On the other hand, if producers and editors were constantly throwing up their hands in frustration about this or that, then that would be the time to step in and suggest a fix. But from your description, it doesn't sound like that's the case.
What exactly would the benefit be to having a unified IT department across 5 stations? What would that allow those stations to do that they can't do now? Would they become more profitable? Or would they be spending money on a new department that they had done without for all these years?
Yeah, because no one can profit from selling other peoples gpl'ed code. Got that redhat, suse, debian, etc?
You can't spend it if you don't have electricity. Thats a MAJOR flaw in my book. And if you found a shop that accepted them, the transaction would be an incredible headache compared to paying cash. And if your wallet happens to get erased or corrupted and you're without backup (ie 99% of computer users), there goes your savings as well.
Horrible concept. Horrible implementation. I'm only looking into mining them because there are people that'll give me dollars for them!
False. Why don't you read their reasoning itself rather than make up ideas?
(this from someone - me - thinks the whole bitcoin system is a worthless construct)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin
I don't think you have to ship the source, you just need to make it available to anyone who's received the executable.
Whatever. Todays front page article further reinforces what i just said.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/19/1526229/businesses-now-driving-bring-your-own-device-trend
Best learn to step out of the way, let people do their work, and learn to compliment their efforts rather than detract from them and uproot them with scare stories and the like.
Don't want an unauthorized device plugged into the network? MAC filtering seems to work just fine.
Is email remotely accessible? SSL authentication. If a persons device supports the protocol you've specified, why shouldn't they be able to choose what method they use to access it? If someone can access it from an iPhone, then why not from Thunderbird at home?
People shouldn't have to go around pleading their case to people like you to use the tool that works best for them. You're not in their seat doing their jobs. How would you like it if the CEO said "i want your to build this massive database with all these features... oh, and it should be built using Filemaker Bento". You'd call bullshit because you know that that tool isn't appropriate for the job. That's what the rest of the employees say when IT makes inane policy decisions.
Let's carry this over to the new story...
Again it's the company network. You're not the gatekeeper. Yes. You make sure things work, and you set up policies to that effect. But if a device conforms to the policies you set (supports imapmover ssl, or whAtever else) then you don't need to acclimate to it or whatever. It's just another client on your network. Just as if you deploy a suite of applications and your users need something else and find a solution for it, the reaction shouldn't be "you were doing just fine 2years ago without it,so therefore Im going to remove it from the end users machines", but rather "so and so finds it useful,let's see if other people can improve their productivity with it too. Then let's negotiate a discount for purchasing 500 copies of it"
It's not rocket science, and users aren't getting new technologies jfor the hell of it they're getting them because they think theyll be able to do a better job.
Guess what?
When you call it "my corporate network", you have defined yourself as the exact IT staff users complain about. It's not your network, unlesss you own the corporation itself. It is the company's network. And your toils in the back office contribut zero to the bottom line. Sure you keep things up and running, but you're not making the products, or out there selling them. Therefore, you're job is wholly dependent on your ability to let the breadwinners of the company do what they do best. If they find they feel more comfortable on an iPad, your job isn't to defend "your" network from an unsanctioned device. Your job is to make sure the device works, so that the employee who is generating the dollars that pay your salary and benefits can continue to do so.
Really. You called it "my corporate network". As if it's more yours than any other employees.
Any company that doesn't realize this and enforce that attitude upon the staff is doomed. IT is not some sacred bastion. It's just a supporting roll. And no group should claim ownership of company resources. Those are, after all, the companies. Your job is to make sure they work. Because if the CEO comes in with a new device, I don't know about you, but I've never known it was an option to tell him "no, you have to go return that" if it was at all possible it would e made to work. And if their iPad or android tablet can work for them, it should be a no brainer that any other employee in the enterprise that requires remote email access should be able to use the same.
Again. You really called it "my" network. Astounding.