...is legal and cultural.
The US penalizes innovation and experimentation more than anyone. The US government is responsible for the DMCA and massive efforts to punish people for hacking their own hardware and software, ludicrous prison terms, and so forth. On top of that you have a move away from generic, "hackable" computers to walled garden, Apple style technologies.
That kind of culture doesn't really nurture a generation of future hackers. We don't encourage youth people to explore technology, we want them to play by the rules and keep their noses clean. With hacking hardware and software so stubbornly discouraged, it's no wonder that not very many people have the desired skill set.
I found this interesting and pertinent. I work at an institution that's extremely interesting in "going green" as they have a large, growing IT department with their own data center and like to think of themselves as being "progressive."
Does anyone have any further information on this kind of project? Preferably something that dodges the buzz word bingo game and is actually constructive, rare as that may sound.
I'm more concerned about how this could limit the flexibility of these industries. Needing to run substantial IT changes through a federal agency could theoretically stifle innovation. You're adding another restrictive layer of bureaucracy. And then there's the age old... "they put something called linux on it, and it looked like something a hacker might use" problem. Let's hope the people monitoring this are IT people and not middle management people?
I understand that I need to properly secure my wireless network if I want security/privacy. I understand what kind of encryption is best, how to set up a proper firewall, proxy, and what to tell Facebook and what not to.
My mother does not.
It doesn't matter if all of Slashdot knows how to protect their data, the same can not be said for the world.
"Oh sorry, we thought you KNEW that our satellites could read your thoughts. Every techie I know is already wearing a tin foil hat, why aren't you? Sheesh, what an idiot."
If you RTFA you'll notice that Google didn't block Scroogle, they just upgraded without consideration to its functionality.
As soon as someone can explain why Google WOULD have Scroogle on a dependency chart we can all put our conspiracy hats back on.
You see the same thing in academic publishing. There seems to be a sentiment that getting paid for an article would somehow compromise the objectivity of the writer. However, people contributing these articles are doing it in fields they study professionally, and it is often essential resume building work.
This is not a situation I'd like to see mirrored in the computer world.
If this goes mainstream we won't get in trouble for downloading "stolen" products, we'll get in trouble for stealing/cracking encryption keys. That should be even harder to police.
The simple answer is that they have all of our personal information. Also, they're remarkably pervasive and monopolistic, which makes it difficult to avoid them - even if you do move though, there's no guarantee that the competition will be better once the business model is set. Finally, there can be a cost associated with changing products, for example in the case of organizations or companies that outsource their mail servers.
That's just it. They're not human! Google is a corporate entity and therefore motivated primarily by profit.
Google is dedicated, we're committed.
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
A pig and a chicken are walking down a road. The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?" The chicken thinks about it and says, "Why don't we call it 'Ham and Eggs'?" "I don't think so," says the pig, "I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."
Allowing any single entity to safeguard your "openness" is never a good idea, especially when that entity is governed by profits.
Even if those currently making decisions at Google are sincerely committed to openness who's to say the next ones will be?
It sounds to me like someone who understood nothing of the tech involved stepped in to squash what looked like some sort of unauthorized activity on their computers. Not understanding it they overreacted and are crushing the poor guy.
The whole article is absurd, it makes it sound like he's actually done something wrong... really this is the equivalent of forgetting to configure the hibernate mode or something.
Well the entire staff is split between either unionized support, or professional. Under that system even temps are union, and both the support and professionals are covered by collective bargaining agreements. The collective agreement is very reasonable, and does not have a lot of sneaky ways to screw us over. It helps that we're under the same agreement as academic staff, which is by necessity a fairly cushy position.
However... I realize that this isn't a normal situation.
At universities such at the one I work, the tech department is covered under the same contract as professional staff. It's faculty association, which isn't technically a union. IT that are considered "support staff" are covered under a genuine union.
It is rare, but it does exist. However, in this case we're talking about a contractor... and that does rule out any kind of collective bargaining.
I read the article.
It's the "do you need to contact the police?" choice that I'm dubious about.
Although I'm equally amused by the "almost" in that statement.
Slashdot Mirror
...is legal and cultural. The US penalizes innovation and experimentation more than anyone. The US government is responsible for the DMCA and massive efforts to punish people for hacking their own hardware and software, ludicrous prison terms, and so forth. On top of that you have a move away from generic, "hackable" computers to walled garden, Apple style technologies. That kind of culture doesn't really nurture a generation of future hackers. We don't encourage youth people to explore technology, we want them to play by the rules and keep their noses clean. With hacking hardware and software so stubbornly discouraged, it's no wonder that not very many people have the desired skill set.
I found this interesting and pertinent. I work at an institution that's extremely interesting in "going green" as they have a large, growing IT department with their own data center and like to think of themselves as being "progressive." Does anyone have any further information on this kind of project? Preferably something that dodges the buzz word bingo game and is actually constructive, rare as that may sound.
I'm more concerned about how this could limit the flexibility of these industries. Needing to run substantial IT changes through a federal agency could theoretically stifle innovation. You're adding another restrictive layer of bureaucracy. And then there's the age old... "they put something called linux on it, and it looked like something a hacker might use" problem. Let's hope the people monitoring this are IT people and not middle management people?
Ohio now allows police to guess whether or not pregnant mothers are carrying human offspring, or an animal hybrid. http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/06/03/1422213/OH-Senate-Passes-Bill-Banning-Human-Animal-Hybrids In cases where animal hybrids are suspected, the Ohio police are to issue a ticket immediately.
Or Steve Jobs in a sheep suit.
Critical bug! Product too versatile -- works with non-Apple operating systems.
Do we have to like Ubuntu 10.04 or can Linux fans in general gloat?
Clearly Ubuntu is some kind of crazy hacker operating system, and Apple should block their products from working with it.
I understand that I need to properly secure my wireless network if I want security/privacy. I understand what kind of encryption is best, how to set up a proper firewall, proxy, and what to tell Facebook and what not to. My mother does not. It doesn't matter if all of Slashdot knows how to protect their data, the same can not be said for the world. "Oh sorry, we thought you KNEW that our satellites could read your thoughts. Every techie I know is already wearing a tin foil hat, why aren't you? Sheesh, what an idiot."
I support any plan that involves nuking the ocean. Perhaps the Chinese could package any ocean life killed into "tuna" cans. Topical image: http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/nukewhale.jpg
If you RTFA you'll notice that Google didn't block Scroogle, they just upgraded without consideration to its functionality. As soon as someone can explain why Google WOULD have Scroogle on a dependency chart we can all put our conspiracy hats back on.
You see the same thing in academic publishing. There seems to be a sentiment that getting paid for an article would somehow compromise the objectivity of the writer. However, people contributing these articles are doing it in fields they study professionally, and it is often essential resume building work. This is not a situation I'd like to see mirrored in the computer world.
If this goes mainstream we won't get in trouble for downloading "stolen" products, we'll get in trouble for stealing/cracking encryption keys. That should be even harder to police.
The simple answer is that they have all of our personal information. Also, they're remarkably pervasive and monopolistic, which makes it difficult to avoid them - even if you do move though, there's no guarantee that the competition will be better once the business model is set. Finally, there can be a cost associated with changing products, for example in the case of organizations or companies that outsource their mail servers.
That's just it. They're not human! Google is a corporate entity and therefore motivated primarily by profit.
A pig and a chicken are walking down a road. The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?" The chicken thinks about it and says, "Why don't we call it 'Ham and Eggs'?" "I don't think so," says the pig, "I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."
Allowing any single entity to safeguard your "openness" is never a good idea, especially when that entity is governed by profits. Even if those currently making decisions at Google are sincerely committed to openness who's to say the next ones will be?
Google definitely wants us to be open with our information!
What it NEEDS is screen fonts that are analogous to the original print font.
I would love to see someone get fired for wasting resources and costing the company unnecessary money by installing Vista on their computers.
It sounds to me like someone who understood nothing of the tech involved stepped in to squash what looked like some sort of unauthorized activity on their computers. Not understanding it they overreacted and are crushing the poor guy. The whole article is absurd, it makes it sound like he's actually done something wrong... really this is the equivalent of forgetting to configure the hibernate mode or something.
I believe the change was implemented in order to prevent phosphor burn-in on older CRT monitors.
Well the entire staff is split between either unionized support, or professional. Under that system even temps are union, and both the support and professionals are covered by collective bargaining agreements. The collective agreement is very reasonable, and does not have a lot of sneaky ways to screw us over. It helps that we're under the same agreement as academic staff, which is by necessity a fairly cushy position. However... I realize that this isn't a normal situation.
At universities such at the one I work, the tech department is covered under the same contract as professional staff. It's faculty association, which isn't technically a union. IT that are considered "support staff" are covered under a genuine union. It is rare, but it does exist. However, in this case we're talking about a contractor... and that does rule out any kind of collective bargaining.
I read the article. It's the "do you need to contact the police?" choice that I'm dubious about. Although I'm equally amused by the "almost" in that statement.