I'm a consultant. If any of my contractors or employees had a sig that said...
"I love clients - they make my boat payment."...which is lots less offensive than the Dibold sig, I'd rightly demand that the person remove the sig, and caution them to be careful even in their private life too.
Frankly, if I saw that behavior, I'd have to wonder about their judgement and would consider if I really wanted to continue to use them. Judgement is crucial - people that don't use it or use it poorly can do immense damage to you.
You ARE trolling, or acting as such even if you didn't intend it.
If he had posted the entire RFQ for you to read, I suspect his approach might have made more sense. But he wasn't intending to defend his approach here. He wanted to outline a potential solution to the current problem, and didn't spend much time defending the last problem's solution by giving all the reasons he selected his particular method.
Beside all that, we tend to select what we know. I suspect this is what he knew best.
You've just taken lots of pot-shots at someone when you have far less than ideal knowledge about the origional problem. Sheesh!
I believe that the "stated" purpose is to cover the costs incurred by the states etc from the causes of smoking, as well as to discourage the use of tobacco.
Frankly, the states don't forward that money to me to pay the additional health care costs burdened on me by those others covered by my insurance provider who do smoke and cost us all more, so that "stated" purpose isn't exactly correct.
However, provided additional costs do discourage smoking that I tend to think it's a good thing.
However, I do agree with you about state addiction to the taxes produced from that and lottery/gambling taxes. (Honest, I only rob banks to pay for my kid's college education! That should make it ok, right?)
Once you have the ability to determine what the contents are, what's to stop some zelous person from expanding the "hit" list to include whatever moral crucade that person is on now?
We'll only use this xray vision to look through your house to see if you're growing pot. We wouldn't use it to view your private behavior and use the things we found out to blackmail you.
Evidence gathered on you doesn't have to appear in court to get you jailed/imprisoned.
I can gather loose ends about you through illegal searches/surveillance and find the right string to pull. Then I "loose" the initial "illegal" evidence gathered through non-legal means, and pull the right strings the first time but via legal means this time. You'll never know (and never prove) we went on our initial fishing expidition illegally, just that we had this uncanny instinct to know EXACTLY where to probe.
Bang - you're in trouble.
The greater point here, is the more perview of your personal life you give the gvmt, the more they have the opportunity to use it to scrutinize your life and oppress you when it's convienient. No one is completely law abiding - even if you try.
Why should we legalize drugs when we can *kill* more than a quarter of a million citicizens every year with good old tobacco. We don't need to stinkin' drugs.
--- How many folks do you know that smoke some weed and beat the girlfriend/wife?
How many folks die from lung cancer from smoking weed? ---
Drugs are legalised. We've just picked a couple of the worst drugs imaginable to legalize. Tobacco and Alcohol are bad drugs. Frankly, I think pot and cocaine are bad too. But to have the jekyl and hyde approach of Tobacco and Alcohol are good, but these others are devil spawn is simply crazy.
Senator Jim Inhoffe ought to have his head checked if he actually believes in this dichotomy.
Bonus points for your using a dictionary that quoted Blacks...but I still think you lose. Sorry... (No hard feelings, JMHO)
See explaination about moot case vs. moot point. There is a clear difference. The more I read, the more I agree with G-parent. Again, sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, just observing.
Unless you were First Interstate Bank. A friend of mine was on the switch-over from Netware 3.X to NT 3.51.
Old Techronics building. Thousands of loan reps. (Prarie dog farm.)
The NT servers would let the SNA sessions die. Thousands of people would be idle for hours. Weeks went by. The company was about to pull the plug to go back to Netware.
Finally, after 39 escalations, they talked to the programmer who wrote the TCP/IP stack. He says.... Hmmm...considers the packet captures done and the problem. Says - "Try this undocumented switch..."
Poof - problem dissapears.
(Mind you, First Interstate switched to NT because it was cheaper. Cost too much to covert a dozen or two Netware boxes. Bah!)
What would be the cost of idling a thousand workers at $10/hour for six hours. $60,000 What might be the lost revenue cost? That's only a single outage.
Goodness me. Gotta love those MS products. Keeps us consultants fully employed. (I wish I could be doing more productive things, but oh well!)
However, when it comes time to cash in your Karma, life's deeds etc, I suspect, though I shouldn't judge, that Steve will be less upbeat about the prospects and "wiseness" of his companies actions.
Perhaps...Though people seem to waste vast amounts of karma on "funny" posts. Not that I hate funny posts, but many are really not very funny, and most are completely bogus. (It's a regular thing to browse at +5 and only find "funny" comments. The good techical ones languish at +3 and +4.
So, while your quibble might have some merit, I think there are far larger moderation problems.
DAMMIT, I want my current version fixed and for MS to foot the bill, Bill.
Personally, I don't think MS intends to fix security problems. The massive security review they did a while back...they could have found 95%+ of all these buffer overflows, but they didn't. Why could that be? My conclusion, they simply don't give a rat's ass about security.
Cheers, Greg
Re:Idiocy - bluetooth just taking off
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
GSM coverage everywhere.
Manhattan perhaps.
Try any of the western states. Bzzzzt. Half the time, you're lucky to get analog service.
Easter Oregon, Eastern Washington, both only have GSM service in metro area's and even here in Portland, I get GSM drops regularly. (TMobile/Voicestream/DTelecom)
Granted, it a lot better than when I started w/ VStream 5 years ago, but still far from universal coverage. I expect much of Utah, Arizona, N & NE Calif, Montana etc are much the same.
For profit telemarketing shops collecting for Charities have to follow the DNC rules too. (i.e., I believe if you're on the DNC, the charity can still call directly, but not a telemarketing firm for the charity.)
I know this from working with a client. The certification says, and I quote...
prohibited acts include...
"participating in any arrangement to share the cost of accessing the National Registry, including any arrangement with any telemarketer of service provider to divide the costs to access the National Registry among various clients of that telemarketer of service provider."
So, in short, each entity is required to purchase their own copy.
But that's no reason to cry for the above poster. IIRC, the list was availble early in Sep, and was only closed down for a few days. It was back available easily on Friday AM.
In fact, for small shops, one can use their webform lookup to check 10 numbers at a time.
If you're a big shop with autodialer equipment, and such, the costs and resources available to you should easily cover the time and effort needed to impliment this, even quickly.
Could we assume that the cost of really hardening Windows and the other core products should cost less than one billion dollars? (I'd certainly hope so.)
So, for 1/40th of MS's cash, or way less than the cost from all the worm/virus outbreaks, we could fix windows.
Lets see. Programmers cost $100K a year. (They should be serious kick ass programmers.) Lets also assume 25% of all costs are overhead and non-salary costs.
Thus, for $500,000,000 we should be able to hire 7500 programmers to fix the problem in 12 months.
Given these facts, it's clear that fixing the problem is really quite trivial, provided there is some real desire to do so. The obvious conclusion I reach, there is no real desire to fix things.
Thus, things will continue as they have. It's easier and cheaper to snow people with press-releases and speeches than actually doing anything.
If you call after hours, be sure to key in Peter Jacobs extension. You can leave him a nice polite voicemail informing him of the utter crap they produce.
602.267.7500 Extension 102 - Peter Jacobs, CEO (Chief Dolt?)
So, the chance of meeting an abusive patron goes from like 0.003% to 0.001%? So, is that a HUGE secondary benefit? No, IMHO.
Bouncers are such a tiny portion of the costs of any of these clubs or bars. It's trivial. So the lower costs in drinks would be minimal.
Relaxing a bit more is the most credible argument you've made, but I really don't think this potential benefit would outweigh the much more likely, IHMO, of the abuse of the data collected etc.
IP rights might be reasonable things to have, but IMHO, we've lost sight of the reason for creating them in the first place. The result? IP holders now think IP rights were created for ONLY the IP holders benefit. Bah!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a consultant. If any of my contractors or employees had a sig that said...
...which is lots less offensive than the Dibold sig, I'd rightly demand that the person remove the sig, and caution them to be careful even in their private life too.
"I love clients - they make my boat payment."
Frankly, if I saw that behavior, I'd have to wonder about their judgement and would consider if I really wanted to continue to use them. Judgement is crucial - people that don't use it or use it poorly can do immense damage to you.
Cheers,
Greg
You ARE trolling, or acting as such even if you didn't intend it.
If he had posted the entire RFQ for you to read, I suspect his approach might have made more sense. But he wasn't intending to defend his approach here. He wanted to outline a potential solution to the current problem, and didn't spend much time defending the last problem's solution by giving all the reasons he selected his particular method.
Beside all that, we tend to select what we know. I suspect this is what he knew best.
You've just taken lots of pot-shots at someone when you have far less than ideal knowledge about the origional problem. Sheesh!
I believe that the "stated" purpose is to cover the costs incurred by the states etc from the causes of smoking, as well as to discourage the use of tobacco.
Frankly, the states don't forward that money to me to pay the additional health care costs burdened on me by those others covered by my insurance provider who do smoke and cost us all more, so that "stated" purpose isn't exactly correct.
However, provided additional costs do discourage smoking that I tend to think it's a good thing.
However, I do agree with you about state addiction to the taxes produced from that and lottery/gambling taxes. (Honest, I only rob banks to pay for my kid's college education! That should make it ok, right?)
Cheers,
Greg
I think the concern is this...
Once you have the ability to determine what the contents are, what's to stop some zelous person from expanding the "hit" list to include whatever moral crucade that person is on now?
We'll only use this xray vision to look through your house to see if you're growing pot. We wouldn't use it to view your private behavior and use the things we found out to blackmail you.
Evidence gathered on you doesn't have to appear in court to get you jailed/imprisoned.
I can gather loose ends about you through illegal searches/surveillance and find the right string to pull. Then I "loose" the initial "illegal" evidence gathered through non-legal means, and pull the right strings the first time but via legal means this time. You'll never know (and never prove) we went on our initial fishing expidition illegally, just that we had this uncanny instinct to know EXACTLY where to probe.
Bang - you're in trouble.
The greater point here, is the more perview of your personal life you give the gvmt, the more they have the opportunity to use it to scrutinize your life and oppress you when it's convienient. No one is completely law abiding - even if you try.
Cheers,
Greg
In other news...
Senator Jim Inhoffe issued a press release today.
Why should we legalize drugs when we can *kill* more than a quarter of a million citicizens every year with good old tobacco. We don't need to stinkin' drugs.
---
How many folks do you know that smoke some weed and beat the girlfriend/wife?
How many folks die from lung cancer from smoking weed?
---
Drugs are legalised. We've just picked a couple of the worst drugs imaginable to legalize. Tobacco and Alcohol are bad drugs. Frankly, I think pot and cocaine are bad too. But to have the jekyl and hyde approach of Tobacco and Alcohol are good, but these others are devil spawn is simply crazy.
Senator Jim Inhoffe ought to have his head checked if he actually believes in this dichotomy.
Cheers,
Greg
*grin*
Bonus points for your using a dictionary that quoted Blacks...but I still think you lose. Sorry... (No hard feelings, JMHO)
See explaination about moot case vs. moot point. There is a clear difference. The more I read, the more I agree with G-parent. Again, sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, just observing.
Cheers,
Greg
IANAL...but
I suspect "moot" has SPECIFIC legal meaning. Using websters to check its *legal* meaning isn't an acceptable method.
I'm not saying the g-parent post is right, just that your analysis doesn't take into account specific *legal/legaleese* definitions.
Cheers,
Greg
>NT 3.5x, OTOH, was pretty good.
Unless you were First Interstate Bank. A friend of mine was on the switch-over from Netware 3.X to NT 3.51.
Old Techronics building. Thousands of loan reps. (Prarie dog farm.)
The NT servers would let the SNA sessions die. Thousands of people would be idle for hours. Weeks went by. The company was about to pull the plug to go back to Netware.
Finally, after 39 escalations, they talked to the programmer who wrote the TCP/IP stack. He says.... Hmmm...considers the packet captures done and the problem. Says - "Try this undocumented switch..."
Poof - problem dissapears.
(Mind you, First Interstate switched to NT because it was cheaper. Cost too much to covert a dozen or two Netware boxes. Bah!)
What would be the cost of idling a thousand workers at $10/hour for six hours. $60,000 What might be the lost revenue cost? That's only a single outage.
Goodness me. Gotta love those MS products. Keeps us consultants fully employed. (I wish I could be doing more productive things, but oh well!)
Cheers,
Greg
Perhaps it's worked well so far...
However, when it comes time to cash in your Karma, life's deeds etc, I suspect, though I shouldn't judge, that Steve will be less upbeat about the prospects and "wiseness" of his companies actions.
Cheers,
Greg
Goodness - perhaps you don't realize.
He's got an IBM server - probably a big production machine. It's almost certainly a SCSI Raid setup.
It's not possible to plug the array into the regular controller.
In any case, doesn't matter if this would fix it or not. It shouldn't happen EVER.
I'm not sure which is worse, I take the box down to patch, and get heart palpatations when it goes down catestrophically, or someone roots my box.
Either case, I'd be pissed.
Cheers,
Greg
It's from the time they tell the programmer there's a problem until they can get the thing to compile without syntax errors...
Sheesh!
Cheers
Greg
Perhaps...Though people seem to waste vast amounts of karma on "funny" posts. Not that I hate funny posts, but many are really not very funny, and most are completely bogus. (It's a regular thing to browse at +5 and only find "funny" comments. The good techical ones languish at +3 and +4.
So, while your quibble might have some merit, I think there are far larger moderation problems.
Cheers,
Greg
Same song - different day.
It's always - "The next version will be killer!"
95, 98, 98SE, 2000, XP, Longhorn...
DAMMIT, I want my current version fixed and for MS to foot the bill, Bill.
Personally, I don't think MS intends to fix security problems. The massive security review they did a while back...they could have found 95%+ of all these buffer overflows, but they didn't. Why could that be? My conclusion, they simply don't give a rat's ass about security.
Cheers,
Greg
GSM coverage everywhere.
Manhattan perhaps.
Try any of the western states. Bzzzzt. Half the time, you're lucky to get analog service.
Easter Oregon, Eastern Washington, both only have GSM service in metro area's and even here in Portland, I get GSM drops regularly. (TMobile/Voicestream/DTelecom)
Granted, it a lot better than when I started w/ VStream 5 years ago, but still far from universal coverage. I expect much of Utah, Arizona, N & NE Calif, Montana etc are much the same.
Cheers,
Greg
That may be true, however, the class of hardware is pretty similar. This should present pretty similar results.
For profit telemarketing shops collecting for Charities have to follow the DNC rules too. (i.e., I believe if you're on the DNC, the charity can still call directly, but not a telemarketing firm for the charity.)
Cheers,
Greg
I know this from working with a client. The certification says, and I quote...
prohibited acts include...
"participating in any arrangement to share the cost of accessing the National Registry, including any arrangement with any telemarketer of service provider to divide the costs to access the National Registry among various clients of that telemarketer of service provider."
So, in short, each entity is required to purchase their own copy.
But that's no reason to cry for the above poster. IIRC, the list was availble early in Sep, and was only closed down for a few days. It was back available easily on Friday AM.
In fact, for small shops, one can use their webform lookup to check 10 numbers at a time.
If you're a big shop with autodialer equipment, and such, the costs and resources available to you should easily cover the time and effort needed to impliment this, even quickly.
Cheers,
Greg
Ok, troll.
The "trivial" cost is comparing the cost to what insecure software (Windows in particular) is costing the world.
10 billion over 5 years would be peanuts to what we've spent fixing it after the fact.
Even if windows's cost increased to $300 a pop, it would be cheap.
Cheers,
Greg
Lets just do the math.
Could we assume that the cost of really hardening Windows and the other core products should cost less than one billion dollars? (I'd certainly hope so.)
So, for 1/40th of MS's cash, or way less than the cost from all the worm/virus outbreaks, we could fix windows.
Lets see. Programmers cost $100K a year. (They should be serious kick ass programmers.) Lets also assume 25% of all costs are overhead and non-salary costs.
Thus, for $500,000,000 we should be able to hire 7500 programmers to fix the problem in 12 months.
Given these facts, it's clear that fixing the problem is really quite trivial, provided there is some real desire to do so. The obvious conclusion I reach, there is no real desire to fix things.
Thus, things will continue as they have. It's easier and cheaper to snow people with press-releases and speeches than actually doing anything.
Isn't that the ultimate PHB approach?
Cheers,
Greg
MS did this last year.
Was there a dramatic decline in Remote root exploits? Sure didn't look like it to me.
Explain to me again, why we should believe in it this time?
MS is a day late and a dollar short. Security hasn't been a marketable feature, according to MS. Thus, they haven't done much with it.
Now it's too late. MS is known as a broken dick dog on security. They are not going to lose that reputation for years.
Good luck Steve. Your company sucks.
Cheers,
Greg
If you call after hours, be sure to key in Peter Jacobs extension. You can leave him a nice polite voicemail informing him of the utter crap they produce.
602.267.7500
Extension 102 - Peter Jacobs, CEO (Chief Dolt?)
Good luck,
Greg
So, the chance of meeting an abusive patron goes from like 0.003% to 0.001%? So, is that a HUGE secondary benefit? No, IMHO.
Bouncers are such a tiny portion of the costs of any of these clubs or bars. It's trivial. So the lower costs in drinks would be minimal.
Relaxing a bit more is the most credible argument you've made, but I really don't think this potential benefit would outweigh the much more likely, IHMO, of the abuse of the data collected etc.
Cheers,
Greg
Amen Brotha!
Exellent defence. Bravo
That, and I agree with you.
IP rights might be reasonable things to have, but IMHO, we've lost sight of the reason for creating them in the first place. The result? IP holders now think IP rights were created for ONLY the IP holders benefit. Bah!
Cheers,
Greg
That's ok, because you've got a little dainty school boy penis. It's all even in the end.
LOL