Except for every few months when a disaster happens, then all eyes look to the US to see what they've done this time and how their interference benefits the US
Those people you call parasitic thrash are trying to do the best they can do in their situation. The same YOU would be doing if you were ever to wind up in their situation.
The problem is not the fairly small amount of economic refugees taking bits off of the bottom of the economy, it's the established upper 1% that are milking the sheeple for all they have that are the problem. They're the parasites; the economic refugees usually take on the jobs you probably feel above doing.
Looks like they've done a good job convincing you that the problem is caused by the 'parasitic thrash'. You would have been a great asset to the NSDAP some 70 years ago. Now pick up that can citizen, get in line and show me your papers.
You have that all wrong; that $600 million is trickling its way back into the economy.
At least that's the reasoning if you're one of the 1%-ers or one of the 99% percent of the population who thinks they're going to wind up in the 1% group in the future (good luck with that btw).
Not directly, but at least my expectation of a first world country would include excellent public transport. In the US public transport has been killed by privatisation and corporate lobbying.
Poor public services are an indication of a third world country however, the way things seems to be going in the US is that the only thing that's going to be 'first world' quality is the military.
Not only happening in the US though in Europe the neo-liberalist governments are killing affordable public transport, housing, healthcare and education as well. That does seem to happen due to influences from the US government; EU politicians trying to be more like the US.
At this point in time I couldn't care less about Sony or what they 'invent'.
The only reason I actually bothered to check out the story at all, was to look at responses; it appears I am not the only person totally uninterested in Sony anymore.
Brothel owners need to be discreet to stay in business and have, depending on the brothel, probably quite a lot of high ranking officials visiting. So, yes, I do believe that would be quite reliable.
Although I live in a part of the world where prostitution is not necessarily a crime, so that might colour my view. Then again if you live somewhere where it does equate to being a crime, that'll probably colour your view as well.
And that attack vector can completely be negated by having the BIOS read-only by default, while only enabling updates when the user toggles a physical switch when the BIOS needs an update.
And that's exactly the same thing for the people you're complaining about. They're doing their job to the full extent of what policy allows them to provide. If you don't like it, you either change policy or ask for exemption of the policy. The things you're complaining about needs to go through management, who should fix policy or give you an exemption, it then trickles down to the IT people actually implementing the changed policy/exemption, so you can do your job.
It does look like you are complaining mostly and not addressing the issues that are keeping you from doing your work (i.e. get management involved to change policy).
IMAP is a security hole and for policy reasons, they won't do so.
So which part of that is the sysadmins fault (that is if it *is* indeed policy and not an excuse). In a lot of companies willfully disregarding policy is a fireable offence. You apparently think it's reasonable to place someone in such a position, because it's convenient for you to have IMAP.
If this is indeed policy and you're not happy with it, you talk to the implementer of the policy to get the policy changed, you don't blame a co worker for actually adhering to policy.
I need wireless access. Policy states that no wireless device can be set up other than by IT. IT refuses to touch anything on my separate network
Again. If you need this, you go to the person who can actually sign off on you having a wireless network for testing purposes. You don't set up your own and connect it to the company network, because it's convenient and if you do set up yourself, you should have a good talk with HR.
Management approved the purchase and it was all fine. IT then blocked it saying that they supply our standard equipment from Dell and we shouldn't be ordering IT equipment separately.
That's essentially rubbish, but again; this may be policy; if you don't agree with the policy discuss policy changes with the policy makers.
but from my point of view, they do get in the way of us doing our jobs far more than they help
From my point of view, it looks like you're blaming people who follow policy for following policy. If policy is idiotic or if you need an exemption, you go through someone who can change policy or give you the exemption, probably not the persons you're complaining about.
That does sound like your IT department is not understaffed and evaluated on the 'number of tickets closed'.
This approach probably does not fare that well in a company where the bean counters have taken over.
You'll find innumerable similar examples out there. The GPLv3 which is supposed to give you more "freedom" from corporate "opression" is instead just making everyone flee from projects that use the new license, to no-one's benefit.
Again, I know this is quite selfish, but if I wrote code and I had the choice of writing code that's used by a smaller user group whose members have the same ethics and getting something back in return in the form of improvements OR writing code that's used by a huge group of users without ever getting anything (not even kudos) back *ever*, I'd go for option number one. Getting something back with BSD is not a requirement for companies, companies' only goal is to make money, ergo the time that a company actually does give something back is because it's cheaper to give something back than to keep it in-house.
Option number one is not to 'no one's benefit' it's to the benefit of members of a like minded group, with that group growing once the benefits become clearer to people outside that group, the alternative is benefit to corporations ONLY, without them ever being required to give anything back.
The actual divide in mindset deciding between GPL and BSD licencing, is priorities; BSD minded people probably believe that furthering technology is more important than freedom. I would rather not have cool technology if it meant that it's completely closed off and non-free.
Personally, from my point of view, it's more like:
GPL: had BSD been licenced under GPL, then I would not just have worked as free labour for Sony, but Sony actually had to give something in return for using my code (not money, but improvements).
BDS: I don't mind being free labour for multinationals and them making large amounts of money off of my work, as long as I am being credited in the code (which is not open sourced so nobody will actually see who wrote what).
I prefer GPL myself and I know that it's actually a more selfish choice, I do actually somewhat admire people who do seem to be completely selfless and use the BSD licence, the world would be a better place if everyone was like that. However, not everyone is like that and I am sure that if both BSD and Linux were both using the GPL licence, Sony would still not have gone through the trouble of developing their very own. That's called leveraging existing technology, where the main goal is saving money by not having to re-invent the wheel.
Sony now had the choice of:
- Some Free software, where they actually have to put effort in to provide their improvements back to the community
or
- Some free software, which they can use in which ever way they want without having to do anything in return.
How about stopping with bombing foreign countries first and taking their resources at gun point.
People only become extremists if they don't have anything else left to lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for every few months when a disaster happens, then all eyes look to the US to see what they've done this time and how their interference benefits the US
Those people you call parasitic thrash are trying to do the best they can do in their situation. The same YOU would be doing if you were ever to wind up in their situation.
The problem is not the fairly small amount of economic refugees taking bits off of the bottom of the economy, it's the established upper 1% that are milking the sheeple for all they have that are the problem. They're the parasites; the economic refugees usually take on the jobs you probably feel above doing.
Looks like they've done a good job convincing you that the problem is caused by the 'parasitic thrash'. You would have been a great asset to the NSDAP some 70 years ago. Now pick up that can citizen, get in line and show me your papers.
No, no, no.
You have that all wrong; that $600 million is trickling its way back into the economy.
At least that's the reasoning if you're one of the 1%-ers or one of the 99% percent of the population who thinks they're going to wind up in the 1% group in the future (good luck with that btw).
That probably should have read: "The rules of law should apply no matter who the person is."
In Europe the news was exactly the other way around... with the US spying for Boeing on Airbus.
Not directly, but at least my expectation of a first world country would include excellent public transport. In the US public transport has been killed by privatisation and corporate lobbying.
Poor public services are an indication of a third world country however, the way things seems to be going in the US is that the only thing that's going to be 'first world' quality is the military.
Not only happening in the US though in Europe the neo-liberalist governments are killing affordable public transport, housing, healthcare and education as well. That does seem to happen due to influences from the US government; EU politicians trying to be more like the US.
At this point in time I couldn't care less about Sony or what they 'invent'. The only reason I actually bothered to check out the story at all, was to look at responses; it appears I am not the only person totally uninterested in Sony anymore.
Terrorist. Grab the dolphin lover.
Humans are the only sub-sapient species on this planet. The proof is all around us.
That's just not true. BP gave it good go just fairly recently.
Republicans vs Democrats
Who ever wins, we lose.
It's supposed to be 'innocent UNLESS proven guilty'.
Although in this decade you're probably correct. Alphabet Soup agencies dig until they're able to prove you're guilty of something
Brothel owners need to be discreet to stay in business and have, depending on the brothel, probably quite a lot of high ranking officials visiting. So, yes, I do believe that would be quite reliable. Although I live in a part of the world where prostitution is not necessarily a crime, so that might colour my view. Then again if you live somewhere where it does equate to being a crime, that'll probably colour your view as well.
I thought Bing was just scraping Google results?
And that attack vector can completely be negated by having the BIOS read-only by default, while only enabling updates when the user toggles a physical switch when the BIOS needs an update.
For now, anyway.
And that's exactly the same thing for the people you're complaining about. They're doing their job to the full extent of what policy allows them to provide. If you don't like it, you either change policy or ask for exemption of the policy. The things you're complaining about needs to go through management, who should fix policy or give you an exemption, it then trickles down to the IT people actually implementing the changed policy/exemption, so you can do your job. It does look like you are complaining mostly and not addressing the issues that are keeping you from doing your work (i.e. get management involved to change policy).
IMAP is a security hole and for policy reasons, they won't do so.
So which part of that is the sysadmins fault (that is if it *is* indeed policy and not an excuse). In a lot of companies willfully disregarding policy is a fireable offence. You apparently think it's reasonable to place someone in such a position, because it's convenient for you to have IMAP. If this is indeed policy and you're not happy with it, you talk to the implementer of the policy to get the policy changed, you don't blame a co worker for actually adhering to policy.
I need wireless access. Policy states that no wireless device can be set up other than by IT. IT refuses to touch anything on my separate network
Again. If you need this, you go to the person who can actually sign off on you having a wireless network for testing purposes. You don't set up your own and connect it to the company network, because it's convenient and if you do set up yourself, you should have a good talk with HR.
Management approved the purchase and it was all fine. IT then blocked it saying that they supply our standard equipment from Dell and we shouldn't be ordering IT equipment separately.
That's essentially rubbish, but again; this may be policy; if you don't agree with the policy discuss policy changes with the policy makers.
but from my point of view, they do get in the way of us doing our jobs far more than they help
From my point of view, it looks like you're blaming people who follow policy for following policy. If policy is idiotic or if you need an exemption, you go through someone who can change policy or give you the exemption, probably not the persons you're complaining about.
That does sound like your IT department is not understaffed and evaluated on the 'number of tickets closed'. This approach probably does not fare that well in a company where the bean counters have taken over.
You'll find innumerable similar examples out there. The GPLv3 which is supposed to give you more "freedom" from corporate "opression" is instead just making everyone flee from projects that use the new license, to no-one's benefit.
Again, I know this is quite selfish, but if I wrote code and I had the choice of writing code that's used by a smaller user group whose members have the same ethics and getting something back in return in the form of improvements OR writing code that's used by a huge group of users without ever getting anything (not even kudos) back *ever*, I'd go for option number one. Getting something back with BSD is not a requirement for companies, companies' only goal is to make money, ergo the time that a company actually does give something back is because it's cheaper to give something back than to keep it in-house.
Option number one is not to 'no one's benefit' it's to the benefit of members of a like minded group, with that group growing once the benefits become clearer to people outside that group, the alternative is benefit to corporations ONLY, without them ever being required to give anything back.
The actual divide in mindset deciding between GPL and BSD licencing, is priorities; BSD minded people probably believe that furthering technology is more important than freedom. I would rather not have cool technology if it meant that it's completely closed off and non-free.
Personally, from my point of view, it's more like:
GPL: had BSD been licenced under GPL, then I would not just have worked as free labour for Sony, but Sony actually had to give something in return for using my code (not money, but improvements).
BDS: I don't mind being free labour for multinationals and them making large amounts of money off of my work, as long as I am being credited in the code (which is not open sourced so nobody will actually see who wrote what).
I prefer GPL myself and I know that it's actually a more selfish choice, I do actually somewhat admire people who do seem to be completely selfless and use the BSD licence, the world would be a better place if everyone was like that. However, not everyone is like that and I am sure that if both BSD and Linux were both using the GPL licence, Sony would still not have gone through the trouble of developing their very own. That's called leveraging existing technology, where the main goal is saving money by not having to re-invent the wheel.
Sony now had the choice of:
- Some Free software, where they actually have to put effort in to provide their improvements back to the community
or
- Some free software, which they can use in which ever way they want without having to do anything in return.
Easy choice.
Apart from that, doesn't the state of California just imply that Bitcoin is a real currency?
What else would you have expected? It's Oracle. They've done the same with Solaris and OpenOffice. Now it's MySQL's turn.
Because of: 'Ausweiss bitte'. Look it up if you don't get the reference. Any society where you are required to identify yourself is not free.
How about stopping with bombing foreign countries first and taking their resources at gun point. People only become extremists if they don't have anything else left to lose.
You however seem to fail to understand who creates law and over time seems to dictate how it's interpreted as well.