Frankly, I think the best option is to wait until January 21, 2008, to look for any sanity from the Whitehouse, governing agencies, and laws.
All you have to do is look at how the general public regards those in power vs. the terrorism alert level. I won't go so far as to say that the Bush Administration is using the threat of terrorism as a way to shift public opinion, but it's striking how often the alert level vs. poor public perception seem to come together. On the other side of the coin, I think that it's a factor...
It isn't that I just hate Bush. I do, and I freely admit it. However, look to the wider situation as well, those that don't have strong political leanings have expressed doubt about this administration's ability to be honest. Many admit that they do not trust any news reports, annoucements from the Whitehouse, or the statements of those that are working there.
Hard to blame people for that attitude. Look how often a bill is named to make it seem like one thing, when it is an entirely different action.
(sarcasm) So, here we have three juvi deliquents killing trees, and we are shocked exactly WHY? I mean, after ALL, it's not like we were able to prohibt tree climbing games, crying out for the love of pete! I mean, those commie pinko freaks of the ACLU mucked up the justice system yet again!
It's like the situation with Syria and Iran. We can't reward 'bad behavior'. Next thing you know, we'll be rewarding 'acting out' too. Much better to kill these lawbreakers, refuse adequate representation at trial, and force them to work with an essentially b0rked appeals system, then execuite them with drugs so inhumane that we don't allow dogs to be put to sleep with them. Right? RIGHT!? I mean, after all, we're KILLING them, why should we be humane about it?! MAKE THEM SUFFER, the little future terrorists!
Serves the little law breakers right!(/sarcasm).
See sig. Says it all, eh?
My honor and trust goes to the People of the US, not a particular party or government.
Hope Dell is happy with the few cents they saved. BTW: It was only 6 servers, but our HP rep was happy to get the order.
We place no less than 300 orders for servers per year. Despite being self maintainers, we always get our quote back including Dell 4 hour support. That tends to increase the price by about 35%. When the server includes an HBA, we get some mysterious support cost of at least 50% of the server hardware for "SAN support", when we don't even use Dell's SAN.
Frankly, I'm tired of such tatics. Were it only my call to say, we'd have fired Dell three years ago (when we stopped buying HP due to the Compaq merger and went back to Dell. I'd have found someone else). At this point, I'd say Dell has about a 50% chance of keeping our business despite all they offer a large customer for the next three months. At one year, I'd say it's 75% likely we'll find another vendor.
Someone at Dell needs to get a clue, and start riding heard on their incompenent sales and support force.
But what do I know? I only buy 300+ servers a year, and 3,000+ desktops. What could I know, or influance?
New Delhi-based EXL Services, for example, terminated a contract with Dell Inc. because EXL was losing money in the deal."
Where I work, we buy a few thousand Dell systems a year. We are not happy with Dell. Strangely, we don't know who is our salesmans boss, and everytime a Dell screwup results in a major problem for us, no Dell Senior manager comes around to soothe ruffed feathers.
Dell is half a heartbeat away from losing our account entirely. Yet we don't even know who our salesman's boss is. If we did, we'd have a few words to say.
We thought that losing four major multi-hundreds of thousands of dollar contracts would have flushed out senior Dell managers, yet it hasn't.
I guess Dell doesn't care about customers that spend over a million dollers a year with them.
It seems that most of the people who are replying to this story haven't heard the expression "Innocent until proven guilty" We know what he's been charged with but we still have no idea whether he did it or not. So the people assuming he got what he deserved are just as guilty of jumping the gun as the people who assumed it was a conspiracy.
A trial is to establish guilt. In this case, it is alleged that he did it, he rented a car on the same day as the incidnet took place, a car answering that description was seen at the place where the crime (impersonating an FBI agent, witness tampering) took place, he was known to have flown into the area that day, he is known to work for the attorney on the case with the tampered witness. I also suspect he was picked out of a photo line up (knowing how these things work), however, I've not seen any reports of that.
It's circumatantial evidence that has been reported so far. However, what people forget is that frequently circumstantial evidence is more reliable than an eye witness. circumstantial evidence != hearsay.
I'll give you an example of circumstantial evidence
You've been in the office for 12 hours, you haven't seen or heard the weather reports. Your office is deep underground, so you can't hear anything from outside. You walk out of doors. The parking lot is dripping wet, there are low, grey and black clouds above, eveywhere you look there are puddles of water.
You can conclude that a fire truck went wild, sprayed water all around for blocks, or you can conclude that it rained.
Occam's razor points to a rain storm, not a fire truck gone wild.
Still and all, if the prosecuition can't get an eyewitness confirmation that it was Rambam in the house, then I suspect the changes will be dropped if there isn't any other evidence. Stronger evidence would be a eyewitness that saw Rambam enter the house, his finger print in that house, someone Rambam told that he was going to impersonate an FBI agent, files in his office indicating that he tracked down the in-laws, a fake badge without a fine print disclaimer, or a entry in his dayplanner saying "Fly in, talk to the inlaws."
Remember, this is a serious crime. Tampering with a witness is a subversion of justice. The law is right to persue this, the only question (and one only a jury can answer) is if this particular person committed these acts or not.
"My sense of justice doesn't allow me to not object when an injustice is done, even if it's against someone I think deserves what happens for another reason. The law must be fair and just for everyone, even if I think a particular person is a piece of human garbage."
Welcome to what it feels like to be a lawyer for the ACLU...:(
The reason I respect the ACLU is because they go before a judge, present facts, their interpetation of the law, and request justice under the law. Others just belly ache and bawl like cattle to the general public about how "bad" the ACLU is. They don't go to an elected or appointed judge, they just try to get press and badmouth others.
I repect when someone stands up for their opinion (even when I don't agree with it), I don't respect those that appeal to the baser insticts or bigotry to make their points.
That's why I give as much as I do to the ACLU every year.
The question I have isn't why others object to the ACLU, but why they don't support a group that tries to protect the rights of everyone under the law as written. If they object to justice, then why do they say that they support freedom? They need to move to a county that will suport their narrow vision of what freedom is. Perhaps Iran will suit, since it's a country under the control of religious fundies. In my eyes, anyone that wants to force their moral beliefs on me by laws is as unacceptable as a terrorist.
It's a bit rich saying that when you've just advocated a life sentence for somebody when you don't even know what he's done. What if it's something as simple as unpaid parking tickets?
when I said
And again, this is in advance of knowing what Rambam is charged with. If it's silly, then I'll have to (yuck!) support him. If it is legitimate AND he's guilty, then I hope he gets tossed in jail and the key thrown away.
What is it about "silly" you don't understand? Or are you just so stupid and ignorant that you can't be bothered to read and understand what people write? Maybe you just have an ulterior motive for your post?
In any case, your statement is why I stopped caring for what "they" said many years ago. Most times it's just ignorant, sometimes it's for reasons that serve those that should be in jail on general principals.
As currently written, all anti-virus software will fail. The simple reason is that because anti-virus depends on a signature or a synthisis of actions to identify what is "bad" and what is "good". Last time I looked, using a moral imparitive in programming wasn't a system call. Like spam, viruses are not a technical problem, it is a human problem.
The chief problem is that anti-virus is a defensive posture. Sooner or later, any defense will fail, if only because it becomes outmoded and/or out flanked. Defend only the walls, you leave yourself open for an air attack. You see the quandry here: It is impossible to know all the various ways to mount an attack and defend against all of them.
You can do what many companies have started to do: Prohibt execuitbles in AD policy that are not specifically allowed. This protects (mostly, somewhat) corporate america, but doesn't protect the home user that doesn't have an active directory server, and likely wouldn't put up with that kind of restriction anyway.
Hard to comment when the reason for the arrest isn't known.
If only for Rambam's suit against oretec and Joe Jared, I'd say it was fate balancing the scales.
And again, this is in advance of knowing what Rambam is charged with. If it's silly, then I'll have to (yuck!) support him. If it is legitimate AND he's guilty, then I hope he gets tossed in jail and the key thrown away.
My sense of justice doesn't allow me to not object when an injustice is done, even if it's against someone I think deserves what happens for another reason. The law must be fair and just for everyone, even if I think a particular person is a piece of human garbage.
Seriously, though, the answer is quite simple. Change human nature so that murder is unthinkable, procreation is self limiting to available resources, self productivity is as vital as breathing, tolerance is second nature, and any injustice to anyone is intolerable to everyone.
How to go about making that happen, well, that is a problem of a different order. I confess I'm at a loss.
Or is the school, typically, pulling a policy out of its ass according to its whim? Because otherwise they're assuming a level of responsibility and maturity tantamount to being an adult which clearly a 15 year old is not.
Were this true, then EVERY fifteen year old would be making creditable death threats.
For instance schools ban gang signs because we pretty much know what "I'm gonna blast you" looks like. We ban banners that say things we ban all sorts of things. So its not as if the school is unable to make a particular case ahead of time on this issue. Otherwise they're going to hide behind the stupid argument of "Golly geewilligers! We didn't know these young whippersnappers could do that with their new fangled com-poot-ers and rock music!!!!!"
I'm constantly suprized and amazed at what children can do. This is mostly a good thing, but from time to time it's a bad thing.
So again, unless the ninnynanner school which seemingly has a policy for everything and everything is covered by a policy - I'd have to let the kid go with a warning and leave it at that. After all, they assert in loco parentis. Isn't that would a parent would do?
Some more than others. Public schools get all kinds. As for what policy they used, I'm sure every school board has a "catchall" policy. "Actions determental to the order and safety of students, staff, or others." Climb down from your high horse. Schools are run to the most common denominator.
Bank of America (BofA) is moving thousands of tech jobs to India
Thanks for posting this. I was leaving my current bank because of oursourcing, trouble accessing my funds, and language barriers with the "service" rep getting it fixed. I was considering BofA, but not anymore.
I'm amazed at the number of people that come to interviews and think I haven't run a search on their name through Google or other search engines.
While I most likely wouldn't call anyone to an interview whose postings show indescretion, I often think of how I'd just like to see their face when I place a copy of their search results in front of them.
You file your IRS information because that's the law.
You don't file who you called, for how long, and how often, because that is not the law.
Today it is legal to call the psychic hotline. However, many religions hold that to be traffic with Saten. This administration has aligned itself with several right wing extreme religions. How would you like it if that call got into the hands of the local Bible Thumpers? They'd be on your doorstep, telling your children how evil you are, trying to arrest you, and watching you like a cat at a mousehole.
No, the problem isn't only that they look at the data. The problem is they retain it. Those records could be used years from now against you in ways we can't imagine now. Just look how RICO laws are now used. When enacted, they were to be used against mobsters. Now they are used for common fraud and other things they were not originally designed to be used against.
Were I planning to do things I'd rather not have Law Enforcement interested in, I'd use no contract, cash payment cell phones on both ends. And if I didn't want to do that, I'd use a one time pad encryption system to email. Sling a 1gb USB drive with the one time pad, and I've got hundreds if not thousands of email exchanges.
Lastly, do you ever remember hearing the phrase "The Rule of LAW!"? That's what George Bush and his cohorts promised. In no way what they are doing is within the rule of law. Now, think about this: would you have stood for this kind of thing going on under William Jefferson Clinton? What if the President were Hillery Clinton?
The problem, my dear friend, is not that I don't trust George W Bush (and I don't), but that I do not trust my Government, no matter who heads it, and for the same reason why I do not want to see a national ID card. Frankly, it's no legitimate business of our government where I go, who I see, and what I think. They answer to ME, not the other way around.
From what I have seen, unions will start off well, and then degenerate into just another bunch of corrupt people using their offices for personal gain and political power.
My local used to have a rule that the computer operators couldn't change lamps, and that management couldn't start the computer without a union guy. In the end, Union and management came to the agreement that electricians really weren't needed to change lamps, and that management could fire up the computer if Union people were late reporting. Why did this happen? Because customers were not interested in hearing excusing why work they needed done couldn't be done, and Union and Management worked together to answer the needs of the customers.
In this case, both the union and management worked to resolve a real problem. The reason the union worked with management was because we knew that without answering the need of the customer, both union and management would be out of jobs. Memebership forced the union to work with management.
So, can the union leadership stand in the way of getting a job done? Why, yes, thay can. But only at the expense of being removed by reasonable union membership. Can management impose silly rules? Sure, but only at the expense of a strike, if it's bad enough.
The real problem are people being too greedy. A reasonable share of value added is expected and required, but unreasonable demands by either the union or management will result in a strike or a lock out.
The real problem is that people tend to focus on what they want. If Labor gets too greedy, the company can't make a profit. If mangement wants profits at the expense of Labor, workers are cheated. If Labor and Management work to the common good (First, serve the needs of the customers, second, serve the needs of the workers, third, make a profit for shareholders) will things go smoothly. Often the problem comes down to what is a "reasonable" profit.
When management sees skilled labor to be had at 8KUSD per year vs. 80KUSD per year, bet they'll opt for the 8K. What labor needs to do is show a business case justification as to why US workers are better than Indian workers.
Put another way, show why a US worker is better at customer service than an Indian worker. Anyone shuffed off to a call center in India can answer that question.
Let me get this straight: IT jobs are already going overseas to reduce costs, and you're suggesting I should try to make it even more expensive and inefficient to employ me? Riiiight!
Try changing a drive from India, or plugging in a network cable. Get it now?
Heck man, a Union just makes it hard to get bonuses and raises! Like, wow dude, when's the last time you got a bonus or a raise?
If I joined a union, I wouldn't be able to rise on my own merits!
Geee, I sure do appreciate my being promoted twice in the last four years! NOT
Unions are anti-business! If being anti-business means I want more of the share of the value I add to the business process, more protection from losing my job to a college or high school drop out that works for less than my gas bill, then I'm all for being anti-business. You are an expert at what you do. What did it cost you to be an expert? Time and money, I'll bet. Now, if the dropout knows his stuff, I'm not against him. But too many times have I seen qualified senior positions eleminated and management runs in three or four people to take the place of one person. The former employee get shafted, the new ones don't make squat, the job suffers, and the customers are left in the lurch.
Unions stifle innovation! Like when was the last time you got to innovate? More likely you were tasked with yet another crap death march project for more PHB eye-candy.
I do better without a Union involved! Chances are, if you look around, you can pick out two other people
that get paid more than you do and don't do as much. So where does that
leave you? With all the other programmers flipping burgers because a Paki works for $8,000 USD and likes it?
I HATE unions! There's no room for being me! I was in a union. We didn't critize or belittle people for being unique, able to do things with flair, or were better at their jobs than we were.
Unions will prevent me from going management! No, they won't. I went management (which is why I'm no longer union), and simply wrote a letter 30 days in advance informing them I was leaving the union. Note that it did not ask permission, it simply informed them of my upcoming new status.
Unions are almost like commie pinko communists! I double dog dare you to go up to a union member and call him a communist.
Unions run a business into the ground and force them into bankrupcy! Let me ask you, are you are reasonable person? Will you demand your employer give you so much that it will bankrupt them? Will you make unreasonable demands on health, life, retirement? Why do you assume a union will? Who told you they did? What agenda were they hiding?
Unions keep the deadwood in place and won't let management fire them. Not in my experience. When I was union, the shop steward repremanded people for job failings much more often than management did, and twice called a vote at the request of the membership to refer another member to Management that wasn't pulling his weight. One was drinking too much (went to rehab and did ok afterward) and one was smoking crack (couldn't hack rehab and was fired.)
Unions contribute to Liberals, and I don't like the Liberals! Depending on the union, that may be. In the IBEW, my local did not make contributions to political parties from their own funds, but only from funds specially earmarked by the member over and above the dues to be given to a particular party. There were Dems', Repubs', Sociliasts, Communists, Libertarian, Green, and a slew of others listed.
Dues! Why should I pay dues?! For the same reason you pay a cable bill. You get a service that benifits you. And let me add that while making 45K+, my dues were about $20USD month. A lot less than I paid for cable at the time.
Let me just say, I've spoken to a lot of people about a union. Most have a horrible misunderstanding of what a union is, does, or is responsiable for. Since almost all of the people have the same misunderstandings, I have to think that it isn't an accident they hold those misconceptions. A business would rather not to have to deal with a union, because then if they
I see a lot of "Oh, well, we get screwed again!" kind of comments.
The shame is that we (the voters) don't stand up and say "ENOUGH!"
Is it because we don't think what we want is right, or is it because we expect political special interests to win despite what we, the voters want?
The game is rigged, sure enough, just as long as we sit down, shut up, and don't vote. I don't care if you disagree with me, I just want you to vote.
"C|Net is reporting on a protestation by Dell's CTO, Kevin Kettler, who says quite loudly that they are not Microsoft and Intel's puppet."
I guess Mr. Kettler is running for Iraqi Information Minister.
FACT: You can't buy a PC from Dell without Windows on it unless you know exactly how to get to the single set of webpages that offer them. This has gotten better since Elliot Spitzer started sniffing around. In fact, now their site search engine will find the pages. In the past, this wasn't true.
FACT: These systems frequently cost more than equivelant systems running Windows. Even now, systems essentially the same cost 1,600 without windows versus about 900 with windows.
FACT: AMD powered systems are hard/impossible to find on their web pages. SeeZDNet's coverage from 11 April 2006.
Sure. Dell isn't a puppet dancing to the tune of MS and Intel. We believe you, Mr. Kettler. Sure we do.
Disclaimer: I do not like Dell for a lot of various reasons.
I tried to use something, ANYTHING, other than LookOut.
No dice. The company policy and AUP states that product to the exclusion of all else. It's a case of "do it their way". There's always the highway....
1. If I recall correctly, Ebay gave microsoft accounts the right to pull auctions directly. EG: MS employee logs in, scans auctions, finds one like "XP Pro for sale, I use Linux, don't need this" and pulls the auction. Reasoning: The XP Pro for sale was an OEM version without right to transfer without the hardware.
2. MS alleges that many people selling Windows were selling their original install disks, and were still running the install on their own hardware. That would be a license violation.
3. All this has led to now: I have a laptop for Windows, but can't find the OEM image disk for it. I have to buy a full copy of Windows for this laptop now because FSCKing spammers got an execuitable through that didn't trip anti-virus, and due to job requirements, I have to use OutLook. BAMPH! Auto-infected (I didn't open the email, the pre-view pane was enough), spyware laden, zombified spam-spewing undead computer from hell. And yes, it's off any sort of internet connection (wireless is off in BIOS) until it's fixed.
Big thing to watch for is insist on seeing a simularly sized system to what you want in operation before you sign anything. When you are running the system, do a lot of browser backs. Interupt it in the middle of things. Bring up six live views at once.
Watch for systems that have to have componets reset/restarted. Computers, cameras, hubs, things like that. Insist on references, and check them. (Good idea for anything, really.)
Slashdot Mirror
All you have to do is look at how the general public regards those in power vs. the terrorism alert level. I won't go so far as to say that the Bush Administration is using the threat of terrorism as a way to shift public opinion, but it's striking how often the alert level vs. poor public perception seem to come together. On the other side of the coin, I think that it's a factor...
It isn't that I just hate Bush. I do, and I freely admit it. However, look to the wider situation as well, those that don't have strong political leanings have expressed doubt about this administration's ability to be honest. Many admit that they do not trust any news reports, annoucements from the Whitehouse, or the statements of those that are working there.
Hard to blame people for that attitude. Look how often a bill is named to make it seem like one thing, when it is an entirely different action.
It's like the situation with Syria and Iran. We can't reward 'bad behavior'. Next thing you know, we'll be rewarding 'acting out' too. Much better to kill these lawbreakers, refuse adequate representation at trial, and force them to work with an essentially b0rked appeals system, then execuite them with drugs so inhumane that we don't allow dogs to be put to sleep with them. Right? RIGHT!? I mean, after all, we're KILLING them, why should we be humane about it?! MAKE THEM SUFFER, the little future terrorists!
Serves the little law breakers right!(/sarcasm).
See sig. Says it all, eh?
My honor and trust goes to the People of the US, not a particular party or government.
We place no less than 300 orders for servers per year. Despite being self maintainers, we always get our quote back including Dell 4 hour support. That tends to increase the price by about 35%. When the server includes an HBA, we get some mysterious support cost of at least 50% of the server hardware for "SAN support", when we don't even use Dell's SAN.
Frankly, I'm tired of such tatics. Were it only my call to say, we'd have fired Dell three years ago (when we stopped buying HP due to the Compaq merger and went back to Dell. I'd have found someone else). At this point, I'd say Dell has about a 50% chance of keeping our business despite all they offer a large customer for the next three months. At one year, I'd say it's 75% likely we'll find another vendor.
Someone at Dell needs to get a clue, and start riding heard on their incompenent sales and support force.
But what do I know? I only buy 300+ servers a year, and 3,000+ desktops. What could I know, or influance?
Where I work, we buy a few thousand Dell systems a year. We are not happy with Dell. Strangely, we don't know who is our salesmans boss, and everytime a Dell screwup results in a major problem for us, no Dell Senior manager comes around to soothe ruffed feathers.
Dell is half a heartbeat away from losing our account entirely. Yet we don't even know who our salesman's boss is. If we did, we'd have a few words to say.
We thought that losing four major multi-hundreds of thousands of dollar contracts would have flushed out senior Dell managers, yet it hasn't.
I guess Dell doesn't care about customers that spend over a million dollers a year with them.
A trial is to establish guilt. In this case, it is alleged that he did it, he rented a car on the same day as the incidnet took place, a car answering that description was seen at the place where the crime (impersonating an FBI agent, witness tampering) took place, he was known to have flown into the area that day, he is known to work for the attorney on the case with the tampered witness. I also suspect he was picked out of a photo line up (knowing how these things work), however, I've not seen any reports of that.
It's circumatantial evidence that has been reported so far. However, what people forget is that frequently circumstantial evidence is more reliable than an eye witness.
circumstantial evidence != hearsay.
I'll give you an example of circumstantial evidence
You've been in the office for 12 hours, you haven't seen or heard the weather reports. Your office is deep underground, so you can't hear anything from outside. You walk out of doors. The parking lot is dripping wet, there are low, grey and black clouds above, eveywhere you look there are puddles of water.
You can conclude that a fire truck went wild, sprayed water all around for blocks, or you can conclude that it rained.
Occam's razor points to a rain storm, not a fire truck gone wild.
Still and all, if the prosecuition can't get an eyewitness confirmation that it was Rambam in the house, then I suspect the changes will be dropped if there isn't any other evidence. Stronger evidence would be a eyewitness that saw Rambam enter the house, his finger print in that house, someone Rambam told that he was going to impersonate an FBI agent, files in his office indicating that he tracked down the in-laws, a fake badge without a fine print disclaimer, or a entry in his dayplanner saying "Fly in, talk to the inlaws."
Remember, this is a serious crime. Tampering with a witness is a subversion of justice. The law is right to persue this, the only question (and one only a jury can answer) is if this particular person committed these acts or not.
Welcome to what it feels like to be a lawyer for the ACLU...
The reason I respect the ACLU is because they go before a judge, present facts, their interpetation of the law, and request justice under the law. Others just belly ache and bawl like cattle to the general public about how "bad" the ACLU is. They don't go to an elected or appointed judge, they just try to get press and badmouth others.
I repect when someone stands up for their opinion (even when I don't agree with it), I don't respect those that appeal to the baser insticts or bigotry to make their points.
That's why I give as much as I do to the ACLU every year.
The question I have isn't why others object to the ACLU, but why they don't support a group that tries to protect the rights of everyone under the law as written. If they object to justice, then why do they say that they support freedom? They need to move to a county that will suport their narrow vision of what freedom is. Perhaps Iran will suit, since it's a country under the control of religious fundies. In my eyes, anyone that wants to force their moral beliefs on me by laws is as unacceptable as a terrorist.
And has about the same moral authority.
when I said
And again, this is in advance of knowing what Rambam is charged with. If it's silly, then I'll have to (yuck!) support him. If it is legitimate AND he's guilty, then I hope he gets tossed in jail and the key thrown away.
What is it about "silly" you don't understand? Or are you just so stupid and ignorant that you can't be bothered to read and understand what people write? Maybe you just have an ulterior motive for your post?
In any case, your statement is why I stopped caring for what "they" said many years ago. Most times it's just ignorant, sometimes it's for reasons that serve those that should be in jail on general principals.
As currently written, all anti-virus software will fail. The simple reason is that because anti-virus depends on a signature or a synthisis of actions to identify what is "bad" and what is "good". Last time I looked, using a moral imparitive in programming wasn't a system call. Like spam, viruses are not a technical problem, it is a human problem.
The chief problem is that anti-virus is a defensive posture. Sooner or later, any defense will fail, if only because it becomes outmoded and/or out flanked. Defend only the walls, you leave yourself open for an air attack. You see the quandry here: It is impossible to know all the various ways to mount an attack and defend against all of them.
You can do what many companies have started to do: Prohibt execuitbles in AD policy that are not specifically allowed. This protects (mostly, somewhat) corporate america, but doesn't protect the home user that doesn't have an active directory server, and likely wouldn't put up with that kind of restriction anyway.
If only for Rambam's suit against oretec and Joe Jared, I'd say it was fate balancing the scales.
And again, this is in advance of knowing what Rambam is charged with. If it's silly, then I'll have to (yuck!) support him. If it is legitimate AND he's guilty, then I hope he gets tossed in jail and the key thrown away.
My sense of justice doesn't allow me to not object when an injustice is done, even if it's against someone I think deserves what happens for another reason. The law must be fair and just for everyone, even if I think a particular person is a piece of human garbage.
Carefully.
Seriously, though, the answer is quite simple. Change human nature so that murder is unthinkable, procreation is self limiting to available resources, self productivity is as vital as breathing, tolerance is second nature, and any injustice to anyone is intolerable to everyone.
How to go about making that happen, well, that is a problem of a different order. I confess I'm at a loss.
Were this true, then EVERY fifteen year old would be making creditable death threats.
For instance schools ban gang signs because we pretty much know what "I'm gonna blast you" looks like. We ban banners that say things we ban all sorts of things. So its not as if the school is unable to make a particular case ahead of time on this issue. Otherwise they're going to hide behind the stupid argument of "Golly geewilligers! We didn't know these young whippersnappers could do that with their new fangled com-poot-ers and rock music!!!!!"
I'm constantly suprized and amazed at what children can do. This is mostly a good thing, but from time to time it's a bad thing.
So again, unless the ninnynanner school which seemingly has a policy for everything and everything is covered by a policy - I'd have to let the kid go with a warning and leave it at that. After all, they assert in loco parentis. Isn't that would a parent would do?
Some more than others. Public schools get all kinds. As for what policy they used, I'm sure every school board has a "catchall" policy. "Actions determental to the order and safety of students, staff, or others." Climb down from your high horse. Schools are run to the most common denominator.
Thanks for posting this. I was leaving my current bank because of oursourcing, trouble accessing my funds, and language barriers with the "service" rep getting it fixed. I was considering BofA, but not anymore.
While I most likely wouldn't call anyone to an interview whose postings show indescretion, I often think of how I'd just like to see their face when I place a copy of their search results in front of them.
Why do you think I post under a 'nym?
You don't file who you called, for how long, and how often, because that is not the law.
Today it is legal to call the psychic hotline. However, many religions hold that to be traffic with Saten. This administration has aligned itself with several right wing extreme religions. How would you like it if that call got into the hands of the local Bible Thumpers? They'd be on your doorstep, telling your children how evil you are, trying to arrest you, and watching you like a cat at a mousehole.
No, the problem isn't only that they look at the data. The problem is they retain it. Those records could be used years from now against you in ways we can't imagine now. Just look how RICO laws are now used. When enacted, they were to be used against mobsters. Now they are used for common fraud and other things they were not originally designed to be used against.
Were I planning to do things I'd rather not have Law Enforcement interested in, I'd use no contract, cash payment cell phones on both ends. And if I didn't want to do that, I'd use a one time pad encryption system to email. Sling a 1gb USB drive with the one time pad, and I've got hundreds if not thousands of email exchanges.
Lastly, do you ever remember hearing the phrase "The Rule of LAW!"? That's what George Bush and his cohorts promised. In no way what they are doing is within the rule of law. Now, think about this: would you have stood for this kind of thing going on under William Jefferson Clinton? What if the President were Hillery Clinton?
The problem, my dear friend, is not that I don't trust George W Bush (and I don't), but that I do not trust my Government, no matter who heads it, and for the same reason why I do not want to see a national ID card. Frankly, it's no legitimate business of our government where I go, who I see, and what I think. They answer to ME, not the other way around.
My local used to have a rule that the computer operators couldn't change lamps, and that management couldn't start the computer without a union guy. In the end, Union and management came to the agreement that electricians really weren't needed to change lamps, and that management could fire up the computer if Union people were late reporting. Why did this happen? Because customers were not interested in hearing excusing why work they needed done couldn't be done, and Union and Management worked together to answer the needs of the customers.
In this case, both the union and management worked to resolve a real problem. The reason the union worked with management was because we knew that without answering the need of the customer, both union and management would be out of jobs. Memebership forced the union to work with management.
So, can the union leadership stand in the way of getting a job done? Why, yes, thay can. But only at the expense of being removed by reasonable union membership. Can management impose silly rules? Sure, but only at the expense of a strike, if it's bad enough.
The real problem are people being too greedy. A reasonable share of value added is expected and required, but unreasonable demands by either the union or management will result in a strike or a lock out.
The real problem is that people tend to focus on what they want. If Labor gets too greedy, the company can't make a profit. If mangement wants profits at the expense of Labor, workers are cheated. If Labor and Management work to the common good (First, serve the needs of the customers, second, serve the needs of the workers, third, make a profit for shareholders) will things go smoothly. Often the problem comes down to what is a "reasonable" profit.
When management sees skilled labor to be had at 8KUSD per year vs. 80KUSD per year, bet they'll opt for the 8K. What labor needs to do is show a business case justification as to why US workers are better than Indian workers.
Put another way, show why a US worker is better at customer service than an Indian worker. Anyone shuffed off to a call center in India can answer that question.
Try changing a drive from India, or plugging in a network cable. Get it now?
Heck man, a Union just makes it hard to get bonuses and raises!
Like, wow dude, when's the last time you got a bonus or a raise?
If I joined a union, I wouldn't be able to rise on my own merits!
Geee, I sure do appreciate my being promoted twice in the last four years! NOT
Unions are anti-business!
If being anti-business means I want more of the share of the value I add to the business process, more protection from losing my job to a college or high school drop out that works for less than my gas bill, then I'm all for being anti-business. You are an expert at what you do. What did it cost you to be an expert? Time and money, I'll bet. Now, if the dropout knows his stuff, I'm not against him. But too many times have I seen qualified senior positions eleminated and management runs in three or four people to take the place of one person. The former employee get shafted, the new ones don't make squat, the job suffers, and the customers are left in the lurch.
Unions stifle innovation!
Like when was the last time you got to innovate? More likely you were tasked with yet another crap death march project for more PHB eye-candy.
I do better without a Union involved!
Chances are, if you look around, you can pick out two other people that get paid more than you do and don't do as much. So where does that leave you? With all the other programmers flipping burgers because a Paki works for $8,000 USD and likes it?
I HATE unions! There's no room for being me!
I was in a union. We didn't critize or belittle people for being unique, able to do things with flair, or were better at their jobs than we were.
Unions will prevent me from going management!
No, they won't. I went management (which is why I'm no longer union), and simply wrote a letter 30 days in advance informing them I was leaving the union. Note that it did not ask permission, it simply informed them of my upcoming new status.
Unions are almost like commie pinko communists!
I double dog dare you to go up to a union member and call him a communist.
Unions run a business into the ground and force them into bankrupcy!
Let me ask you, are you are reasonable person? Will you demand your employer give you so much that it will bankrupt them? Will you make unreasonable demands on health, life, retirement? Why do you assume a union will? Who told you they did? What agenda were they hiding?
Unions keep the deadwood in place and won't let management fire them.
Not in my experience. When I was union, the shop steward repremanded people for job failings much more often than management did, and twice called a vote at the request of the membership to refer another member to Management that wasn't pulling his weight. One was drinking too much (went to rehab and did ok afterward) and one was smoking crack (couldn't hack rehab and was fired.)
Unions contribute to Liberals, and I don't like the Liberals!
Depending on the union, that may be. In the IBEW, my local did not make contributions to political parties from their own funds, but only from funds specially earmarked by the member over and above the dues to be given to a particular party. There were Dems', Repubs', Sociliasts, Communists, Libertarian, Green, and a slew of others listed.
Dues! Why should I pay dues?!
For the same reason you pay a cable bill. You get a service that benifits you. And let me add that while making 45K+, my dues were about $20USD month. A lot less than I paid for cable at the time.
Let me just say, I've spoken to a lot of people about a union. Most have a horrible misunderstanding of what a union is, does, or is responsiable for. Since almost all of the people have the same misunderstandings, I have to think that it isn't an accident they hold those misconceptions. A business would rather not to have to deal with a union, because then if they
The shame is that we (the voters) don't stand up and say "ENOUGH!" Is it because we don't think what we want is right, or is it because we expect political special interests to win despite what we, the voters want?
The game is rigged, sure enough, just as long as we sit down, shut up, and don't vote. I don't care if you disagree with me, I just want you to vote.
I guess Mr. Kettler is running for Iraqi Information Minister.
FACT: You can't buy a PC from Dell without Windows on it unless you know exactly how to get to the single set of webpages that offer them. This has gotten better since Elliot Spitzer started sniffing around. In fact, now their site search engine will find the pages. In the past, this wasn't true.
FACT: These systems frequently cost more than equivelant systems running Windows. Even now, systems essentially the same cost 1,600 without windows versus about 900 with windows.
FACT: AMD powered systems are hard/impossible to find on their web pages. SeeZDNet's coverage from 11 April 2006.
Sure. Dell isn't a puppet dancing to the tune of MS and Intel. We believe you, Mr. Kettler. Sure we do. Disclaimer: I do not like Dell for a lot of various reasons.
I tried to use something, ANYTHING, other than LookOut. No dice. The company policy and AUP states that product to the exclusion of all else. It's a case of "do it their way". There's always the highway....
All 6 of my other computers run Linux. Thanks. It's not an adventure, it's a way of living.
2. MS alleges that many people selling Windows were selling their original install disks, and were still running the install on their own hardware. That would be a license violation.
3. All this has led to now: I have a laptop for Windows, but can't find the OEM image disk for it. I have to buy a full copy of Windows for this laptop now because FSCKing spammers got an execuitable through that didn't trip anti-virus, and due to job requirements, I have to use OutLook. BAMPH! Auto-infected (I didn't open the email, the pre-view pane was enough), spyware laden, zombified spam-spewing undead computer from hell. And yes, it's off any sort of internet connection (wireless is off in BIOS) until it's fixed.
Thanks for "protecting" me, Microsoft.
Yeah, and $DAYJOB is panting after crackberrys. Since this is settled now, I expect that to get pushed hard.
Skyway Security
Star Dot Technologies
Big thing to watch for is insist on seeing a simularly sized system to what you want in operation before you sign anything. When you are running the system, do a lot of browser backs. Interupt it in the middle of things. Bring up six live views at once.
Watch for systems that have to have componets reset/restarted. Computers, cameras, hubs, things like that. Insist on references, and check them. (Good idea for anything, really.)
Obviouly, I don't know what I'm talking about. Thank you for joggin my (failing) memory.