This still requires using an authenticated tunnel to maintain the user login state, rather than the traditional IP-over-media routing. That means a lot of servers the school has to deploy to hash all the bandwidth the students are using. This is a high cost for that last one percent of bandwidth. The school's basic concern is stolen bandwidth (at the cost of their infrastructure and upstream pipe). Once that cost is below the cost of security to decrease the loss, they are at the sweet point. The {RI,MP}AA want schools to expend much greater costs which do not benefit the school, but without paying the school for it. Maybe in the future these shysters might get something like that into law. But today, schools generally do not have 100% authentication of bandwidth used simply because it is not economical to do so. And as soon as schools are forced to pay this cost, we will see higher tuition, higher taxes, and some schools completely shutting off internet access.
Someone broke into my house and stole property. Maybe the local police should be required to keep track of every vehicle and person who has traveled on the road in front of my house, and retain these records for at least 10 days.
So someone gets assigned a static IPv6 address. That doesn't mean someone else can't use it. It will take more than just using IPv6 to prevent that. It will probably take a securely authenticated tunnel session (with corresponding overhead, which can be huge for the school's tunnel servers) to prevent someone from using someone else's IPv{4,6} address (because it's still way too easy to hijack MAC addresses).
Maybe I just listen to songs online. Maybe I listen just long enough to figure out which album, band, or song I like or dislike, and go buy the CD of the ones I like. BTI (before the internet), people had to choose albums based on slick marketing and faux cover art. Now days, people can hear just what is on the album by sampling what's online. This really does result in fewer album sales, and the RIAA members hate that. Their business model was based on people buying way more than they really wanted to keep. Just look at the efforts they have made to stop people from selling the CDs they bought (through used CD stores).
They can tie an IP address to a MAC address, although with less than total certainty. But, depending on how the network is wired, there is also no total certainty in tying a MAC address to a specific ethernet controller (and hence to a student). If their network is ethernet technology based, a MAC address can "float" from one port to another, even if there is a time delay in that from a switch flushing its cache.
All someone has to do is know the MAC addresses of other computers in the LAN. This can be known by sending IP packets to each of the addresses in the subnet, and checking what MAC addresses respond (and seen in the local ARP table). By scanning this network periodically, they can discover which computers get turned off or unplugged. As soon as that happens, the MAC address of the computer no longer responding is fed over to another computer which has an ethernet controller which allows substituting the MAC address by software. That other computer then assumes the MAC address and its associated IP address. Most ethernet switches will eventually associate that MAC address with a new port. Usually I see that happening within 3 to 10 seconds (the computer on the new port has to be sending ethernet frames with that MAC address as the source, plus some other computer trying to send ethernet frames to that MAC address). In the worst case I've seen it took 2 minutes for the switch to figure out where the MAC address "moved" to.
Once the switch associates the MAC address with a new port, the computer there can do whatever they want and there and it will be known under the original MAC and IP addresses.
There are means to prevent this. But would these means be implemented and deployed? One is for the switch to be configured to disallow a MAC address to move to another port. But that can make life difficult for students in dorms, where students with laptops, and even students with towers, are known to gather in one room, or a commons area, to work on things together with multiple computers (whether it is class work or otherwise). Another possibility is for the switch itself to log any port changes. That would at least reveal which dorm room a given MAC was "stolen" from. A more secure network would force all communications through an encrypted tunnel within the ethernet infrastructure, but this would be costly, impact performance, and require special drivers and/or proxies.
Imagine a plot of degree of security vs. cost. As you get close to 100% security, the cost begins to rise dramatically. At some point the cost of more security exceeds the potential loss due to that security not being 100%. Of course the **AA's would like to see their own losses figured into that, and without them having to pay for the extra security. The reality is, most schools will not achieve 100% security on their networks, and aside from the issue of piracy, will not be concerned with it. It's the same as the issue of how well do you secure your home from burglars. For most people it's just not worth tens of thousands of dollars in security equipment to protect tens of thousands of dollars of property. People like Bill Gates would certainly have a lot more security at home. But he's the exception. I'd expect the restricted areas of government intelligence agencies to have far more network security than any college or university.
So what it comes down to is, even the one and only student named as the user of a given MAC/IP combination, and even if their own computer was kept perfectly secure, may be just as much a victim of someone else doing the piracy, as the content owners are. And we know from history, the **AA's don't really care about making sure they have the true pirate.
If they would like to see the schools achieve 100% total security, maybe they should pay for it. Of course they don't want to. They want someone else to pay for maintaining their profit margins, even if that means raising taxes and/or tuition.
1 - Any programmer using any language could in less than 4 hours could write a program to first save then alter the files containing the employee's payrate. And then later restore the rate to its previous value.
It's not a pay rate change. It's a minimum pay issuance. People will get the rest of the money they are due later (if they can figure out how to do it correctly). It's better than not being paid at all as other states do, or never being paid if temporarily laid off.
2 - This does not require a COBOL program change, which by the way given the file layout I could write the program in 30 minutes or less and do it in COBOL, FORTRAN, PASCAL, ORACLE procedure or BASIC (maybe).
Your program will need to calculate the pay due on the original pay rate, and calculate the pay to be issued on the minimum rate. It then needs to record the difference in the database for later issuance as pay. Then the tax programs need to do similar for the tax reports to the IRS. The tax is first calculated on the minimum pay issued. When the back pay is done, the tax calculations now have to be done on the combination of pay due for new earnings, as well as the back pay issued.
This all has to be integrated into the existing payroll system. Otherwise you're designing a new system. This is not anywhere near as trivial as you make it out to be.
3 - the state has employed programmers in the last 2 years, none of which were for their COBOL skills.
Either upgrade the existing COBOL system to handle split payments like this, or migrate the entire payroll system to modern methods and modern systems (something they are starting to work on, but will take at least a couple years to complete even if a maximum budget for the conversion is authorized).
Slashdot readers deserve that you check out the facts before publishing such crap.
Slashdot readers deserve analysis by someone experienced in these complex systems running on legacy computers, and/or someone experienced in conversion of large scale complex systems from one platform to another, and the testing procedures involved in both.
Lots of people probably can't survive on $6.55/hr for even this short period of time. Some may make it simply knowing the back pay will be there later. But this is better than furloughing people (a time period they don't work and thus never get paid for) or expecting them to work and be paid nothing at all for the duration.
And spend the next 2 years while some data entry clerk types in all the people's information? And then after that, how do you get either system to issue the difference backpay correctly?
This is NOT a salary/wage change. It is about issuing paychecks at the minimum wage for now, and paying back the difference later. So the calculation still has to be done for the true base salary/wage, so they can get the gross pay due (the original amount), and the gross pay issued (the minimum amount). The difference needs to be recorded on the gross amounts for each pay period so it can be re-issued later. Then taxes need to be calculated on this new amount (the existing tax phase programs are coded to use the actual salary/wage, so they need to be recoded to pick up the new issued amounts). Then all this needs to be done again in a different way to issue all the back pay correctly (with the correct taxes calculated on that).
The problem is more likely that the legacy system has not been upgraded much, and people haven't been retained that understand it well, simply because those upgrade resources would be better spent on converting the system to modern methods and systems (for example Java running on Solaris). The change the Governor wants really will involve a programmed logic change, and such changes need to be thoroughly tested. Getting the changes all done right and verifying they are right is what takes time. And that needs to be done twice, once to issue paychecks based on minimum wage, then again later to include the back pay not previously issued.
Give me a break, people switch job codes regularly via something called a "promotion". So you could change the job code and pay grade without issue.
Those are "permanent" changes that affect the actual pay due. What the governor is asking for is a change of pay issued.
As for the differnce as long as you have the orginal templates and the timeframe for the minimum wage payrate you could calculate differnces with a Perl script.
What templates? This is a legacy system. Good luck trying to get your Perl script to get all the correct information from the database and update it later to get it to issue pay correctly classified as backpay.
I am amazed how people like to over complicate things.
I am amazed how people like to make generalized assumptions over things they have no experience in.
This is not a case of changing pay rates. It is a case of paying minimum wage rates for now, recording the difference in gross pay, and paying that difference back later after the budget becomes law. This is different than what other states and even the Federal government has done, which is to furlough people (they don't get paid at all, ever, for time not working), or expect them to work without getting any pay until later.
This is a logic change in the programming. It needs to be changed not only in the programs that cut the checks, but also in the programs that calculate and report taxes. There could be dozens of places in various separate programs that need to have a logic change. And the database needs to keep the existing pay rates and record the differences for time actually worked so the correct pay difference can be done later.
COBOL is required because this is a change to an existing legacy system that is written in COBOL. Time is required because system analysis is needed to ensure all the correct places in the system are changed, the database has the right schema and record types to record these differences between issued and due wages, and because all this has to be tested thoroughly. It might be nice if this were a system in a modern language like Java or Python on a modern system like a farm of machines running Linux or Solaris. But the state apparently doesn't want to budget an upgrade of the state IT infrastructure (or at least the payroll system).
The Governor is stuck because he apparently has to actually keep people working AND paid (at least something) due to whatever law the California Supreme Court decided on. The State Controller is stuck because he has a legacy system and has not been given a budget to modernize it. It sure sounds like politics, and no doubt a lot of it really is. But both the Governor and the State Controller are working from positions they really don't have much control over. The net effect may well be that the state as a whole does not have the means to comply with the law (at least as the Governor interprets a court decision).
Let's not ignore the rest of the circumstances here -- the Governor is acting on a 2003 California Supreme Court decision (though it is an interpretation of that decision). Another fact is that this is not a pay cut. It is just the amount to be paid for now. Other states that have faced this situation have had to simply not pay anyone at all (effectively furloughing all state workers). Even the Federal government has had this issue. So I'm guessing that the California Supreme Court decision is saying that not paying at all, or furloughing as a means to not pay, is not an option, and that a minimum wage still has to be paid for now, for anyone still on the job.
Then there is the complication that the difference between what people should have been paid, and what they do get paid (minimum wage), be paid back later once the budget is approved and passes. That kind of logic is apparently not yet coded into the payroll system. The problem is more a case that the state has not budgeted to the state IT department the resources to implement, test, and deploy, a system the California Supreme Court decision may require under existing laws (or better yet, upgrade it to an all new system in a modern language on modern computers... such as Java or Python running on Linux or Solaris).
This is NOT lowering salaries/wages... it is just paying them a minimum amount now for staying on the job, and the difference later once the budget becomes law.
This is NOT "vindictively striking out at rank and file workers"... it is trying to make sure they are paid something for now, rather than nothing at all, or the possibility of them not even working (time for which they then would never be paid).
There's more to it than that. A lot more. They also need to calculate the gross pay based on the original amount, subtract the minimum wage gross pay, and record these difference amounts in the database. So they cannot just substitute the pay rate in the database with the minimum pay rate. The reason for this is because all that difference has to be paid back later when the budget is finally passed. And that back pay calculation also has to be coded into the system. And this change of logic has to be done not just in one place. Different programs do their runs in separate batches. There are probably dozens of programs that would be affected by the logic change. The database may also need a schema change. It will at least need new fields and/or new record types. And all this change will need testing which probably means dozens of runs of a system that they probably have no more machine capacity to run twice as often, if that. Payroll systems are huge and ugly. These estimates seems about right to me assuming they had COBOL programmers on staff that know this system.
... to get the system to issue payroll checks at a $6.55/hr amount, including doing the correct calculation based on reported hours, including the 1.5x factor for overtime, do all the correct tax calculations, generate all the reports like what goes to the IRS, print the checks... while keeping (but ignoring, for now) the original pay rates in the database. This change in logic would require probably several hundreds, if not thousands, of lines of computer code in hundreds of modules, just to be sure everything got processed in exactly the correct way uniformly everywhere. And then there is testing. A lot of testing is needed to make sure there no parts of the system were overlooked, and each changed part was done correctly.
You might think it is as simple as changing "MULTIPLY HOURS-WORKED BY PAY-RATE GIVING GROSS-PAY." with "MULTIPLY HOURS-WORKED BY 655 GIVING GROSS-PAY." but I can assure you it is far, far, more complex than that.
Alternatives that are also unworkable for a quick change include literally changing all the pay rates in the database, then changing them back again later. Substituting a temporary database is also unlikely because this is likely a massive database that contains far more than just names, SSNs, and pay rates.
And are they even sure they have all the source code to all the modules in the system? Do they even have the machine capacity to do several dozen payroll runs in just a couple weeks time just to complete the testing?
But "swapping in a malicious bootloader" requires that the OS be rootkitted/bypassed. Ergo, you essentially said that you would be pissed if compromising the system can be trivially accomplished by merely compromising the system. Well, then I guess you're pissed.
Or you briefly lost physical access to your laptop while you were (insert some manly entertainment activity here).
If the attacker can install a bootloader, that means you were rooted and your precious data can be grabbed from the memory of the program that happens to be using it.
If the bootloader is installed while the OS is not running, that means you do not have adequate physical security.
I think someone had the idea this might protect data on stolen laptops. So somehow this might be intended to provide data protection even when there is inadequate physical protection.
One problem is they could install a boot loader that, in theory, modifies the OS image it loads to include a program that overrides the check on the bootloader, which briefly places the original bootloader back in place during the check, and puts its own nasty bootloader back immediately afterwards, every time the check is invoked.
Now, I have no problem with them preventing me from using unlicensed music. That's perfectly legitimate. However, in the 6-7 years I've dealt with DRM encrypted music, in every instance in which I have had to find some workaround to play encrypted music, I (or someone in my family) had legitimately purchased the music for use on our computer.
That just means Microsoft still has bugs in the DRM logic. Nothing new here. Move along.
If it's my computer, I should be able to put whatever on it I want. And in order to do that while still having the system to ensure that no one else can put stuff on there without my permission, I need to be able to sign what I put on and have that signature accepted. Since Microsoft does not provide for that, I must conclude there is more reason than you seem to be aware of.
I presume you did the marketing within the USA and your 5-6 USA distributors therefore did none of that other than the marketing to focus buyers towards them. What you should have done for Europe is, instead of sign an exclusive distribution agreement, sign an agreement of importation. The importer then would do the broad product marketing in the local language, and sign up distributors.
Slashdot Mirror
... how much water you can get into one of them.
Maybe they ran out of numbers.
This still requires using an authenticated tunnel to maintain the user login state, rather than the traditional IP-over-media routing. That means a lot of servers the school has to deploy to hash all the bandwidth the students are using. This is a high cost for that last one percent of bandwidth. The school's basic concern is stolen bandwidth (at the cost of their infrastructure and upstream pipe). Once that cost is below the cost of security to decrease the loss, they are at the sweet point. The {RI,MP}AA want schools to expend much greater costs which do not benefit the school, but without paying the school for it. Maybe in the future these shysters might get something like that into law. But today, schools generally do not have 100% authentication of bandwidth used simply because it is not economical to do so. And as soon as schools are forced to pay this cost, we will see higher tuition, higher taxes, and some schools completely shutting off internet access.
Someone broke into my house and stole property. Maybe the local police should be required to keep track of every vehicle and person who has traveled on the road in front of my house, and retain these records for at least 10 days.
So someone gets assigned a static IPv6 address. That doesn't mean someone else can't use it. It will take more than just using IPv6 to prevent that. It will probably take a securely authenticated tunnel session (with corresponding overhead, which can be huge for the school's tunnel servers) to prevent someone from using someone else's IPv{4,6} address (because it's still way too easy to hijack MAC addresses).
Maybe I just listen to songs online. Maybe I listen just long enough to figure out which album, band, or song I like or dislike, and go buy the CD of the ones I like. BTI (before the internet), people had to choose albums based on slick marketing and faux cover art. Now days, people can hear just what is on the album by sampling what's online. This really does result in fewer album sales, and the RIAA members hate that. Their business model was based on people buying way more than they really wanted to keep. Just look at the efforts they have made to stop people from selling the CDs they bought (through used CD stores).
They can tie an IP address to a MAC address, although with less than total certainty. But, depending on how the network is wired, there is also no total certainty in tying a MAC address to a specific ethernet controller (and hence to a student). If their network is ethernet technology based, a MAC address can "float" from one port to another, even if there is a time delay in that from a switch flushing its cache.
All someone has to do is know the MAC addresses of other computers in the LAN. This can be known by sending IP packets to each of the addresses in the subnet, and checking what MAC addresses respond (and seen in the local ARP table). By scanning this network periodically, they can discover which computers get turned off or unplugged. As soon as that happens, the MAC address of the computer no longer responding is fed over to another computer which has an ethernet controller which allows substituting the MAC address by software. That other computer then assumes the MAC address and its associated IP address. Most ethernet switches will eventually associate that MAC address with a new port. Usually I see that happening within 3 to 10 seconds (the computer on the new port has to be sending ethernet frames with that MAC address as the source, plus some other computer trying to send ethernet frames to that MAC address). In the worst case I've seen it took 2 minutes for the switch to figure out where the MAC address "moved" to.
Once the switch associates the MAC address with a new port, the computer there can do whatever they want and there and it will be known under the original MAC and IP addresses.
There are means to prevent this. But would these means be implemented and deployed? One is for the switch to be configured to disallow a MAC address to move to another port. But that can make life difficult for students in dorms, where students with laptops, and even students with towers, are known to gather in one room, or a commons area, to work on things together with multiple computers (whether it is class work or otherwise). Another possibility is for the switch itself to log any port changes. That would at least reveal which dorm room a given MAC was "stolen" from. A more secure network would force all communications through an encrypted tunnel within the ethernet infrastructure, but this would be costly, impact performance, and require special drivers and/or proxies.
Imagine a plot of degree of security vs. cost. As you get close to 100% security, the cost begins to rise dramatically. At some point the cost of more security exceeds the potential loss due to that security not being 100%. Of course the **AA's would like to see their own losses figured into that, and without them having to pay for the extra security. The reality is, most schools will not achieve 100% security on their networks, and aside from the issue of piracy, will not be concerned with it. It's the same as the issue of how well do you secure your home from burglars. For most people it's just not worth tens of thousands of dollars in security equipment to protect tens of thousands of dollars of property. People like Bill Gates would certainly have a lot more security at home. But he's the exception. I'd expect the restricted areas of government intelligence agencies to have far more network security than any college or university.
So what it comes down to is, even the one and only student named as the user of a given MAC/IP combination, and even if their own computer was kept perfectly secure, may be just as much a victim of someone else doing the piracy, as the content owners are. And we know from history, the **AA's don't really care about making sure they have the true pirate.
If they would like to see the schools achieve 100% total security, maybe they should pay for it. Of course they don't want to. They want someone else to pay for maintaining their profit margins, even if that means raising taxes and/or tuition.
1 - Any programmer using any language could in less than 4 hours could write a program to first save then alter the files containing the employee's payrate. And then later restore the rate to its previous value.
It's not a pay rate change. It's a minimum pay issuance. People will get the rest of the money they are due later (if they can figure out how to do it correctly). It's better than not being paid at all as other states do, or never being paid if temporarily laid off.
2 - This does not require a COBOL program change, which by the way given the file layout I could write the program in 30 minutes or less and do it in COBOL, FORTRAN, PASCAL, ORACLE procedure or BASIC (maybe).
Your program will need to calculate the pay due on the original pay rate, and calculate the pay to be issued on the minimum rate. It then needs to record the difference in the database for later issuance as pay. Then the tax programs need to do similar for the tax reports to the IRS. The tax is first calculated on the minimum pay issued. When the back pay is done, the tax calculations now have to be done on the combination of pay due for new earnings, as well as the back pay issued.
This all has to be integrated into the existing payroll system. Otherwise you're designing a new system. This is not anywhere near as trivial as you make it out to be.
3 - the state has employed programmers in the last 2 years, none of which were for their COBOL skills.
Either upgrade the existing COBOL system to handle split payments like this, or migrate the entire payroll system to modern methods and modern systems (something they are starting to work on, but will take at least a couple years to complete even if a maximum budget for the conversion is authorized).
Slashdot readers deserve that you check out the facts before publishing such crap.
Slashdot readers deserve analysis by someone experienced in these complex systems running on legacy computers, and/or someone experienced in conversion of large scale complex systems from one platform to another, and the testing procedures involved in both.
Lots of people probably can't survive on $6.55/hr for even this short period of time. Some may make it simply knowing the back pay will be there later. But this is better than furloughing people (a time period they don't work and thus never get paid for) or expecting them to work and be paid nothing at all for the duration.
And spend the next 2 years while some data entry clerk types in all the people's information? And then after that, how do you get either system to issue the difference backpay correctly?
This is NOT a salary/wage change. It is about issuing paychecks at the minimum wage for now, and paying back the difference later. So the calculation still has to be done for the true base salary/wage, so they can get the gross pay due (the original amount), and the gross pay issued (the minimum amount). The difference needs to be recorded on the gross amounts for each pay period so it can be re-issued later. Then taxes need to be calculated on this new amount (the existing tax phase programs are coded to use the actual salary/wage, so they need to be recoded to pick up the new issued amounts). Then all this needs to be done again in a different way to issue all the back pay correctly (with the correct taxes calculated on that).
The problem is more likely that the legacy system has not been upgraded much, and people haven't been retained that understand it well, simply because those upgrade resources would be better spent on converting the system to modern methods and systems (for example Java running on Solaris). The change the Governor wants really will involve a programmed logic change, and such changes need to be thoroughly tested. Getting the changes all done right and verifying they are right is what takes time. And that needs to be done twice, once to issue paychecks based on minimum wage, then again later to include the back pay not previously issued.
Give me a break, people switch job codes regularly via something called a "promotion". So you could change the job code and pay grade without issue.
Those are "permanent" changes that affect the actual pay due. What the governor is asking for is a change of pay issued.
As for the differnce as long as you have the orginal templates and the timeframe for the minimum wage payrate you could calculate differnces with a Perl script.
What templates? This is a legacy system. Good luck trying to get your Perl script to get all the correct information from the database and update it later to get it to issue pay correctly classified as backpay.
I am amazed how people like to over complicate things.
I am amazed how people like to make generalized assumptions over things they have no experience in.
He's not really a Republican. He was just built by Democrats to look like a Republican. The chip inside is really a Democrat.
This is not a case of changing pay rates. It is a case of paying minimum wage rates for now, recording the difference in gross pay, and paying that difference back later after the budget becomes law. This is different than what other states and even the Federal government has done, which is to furlough people (they don't get paid at all, ever, for time not working), or expect them to work without getting any pay until later.
This is a logic change in the programming. It needs to be changed not only in the programs that cut the checks, but also in the programs that calculate and report taxes. There could be dozens of places in various separate programs that need to have a logic change. And the database needs to keep the existing pay rates and record the differences for time actually worked so the correct pay difference can be done later.
COBOL is required because this is a change to an existing legacy system that is written in COBOL. Time is required because system analysis is needed to ensure all the correct places in the system are changed, the database has the right schema and record types to record these differences between issued and due wages, and because all this has to be tested thoroughly. It might be nice if this were a system in a modern language like Java or Python on a modern system like a farm of machines running Linux or Solaris. But the state apparently doesn't want to budget an upgrade of the state IT infrastructure (or at least the payroll system).
The Governor is stuck because he apparently has to actually keep people working AND paid (at least something) due to whatever law the California Supreme Court decided on. The State Controller is stuck because he has a legacy system and has not been given a budget to modernize it. It sure sounds like politics, and no doubt a lot of it really is. But both the Governor and the State Controller are working from positions they really don't have much control over. The net effect may well be that the state as a whole does not have the means to comply with the law (at least as the Governor interprets a court decision).
Let's not ignore the rest of the circumstances here -- the Governor is acting on a 2003 California Supreme Court decision (though it is an interpretation of that decision). Another fact is that this is not a pay cut. It is just the amount to be paid for now. Other states that have faced this situation have had to simply not pay anyone at all (effectively furloughing all state workers). Even the Federal government has had this issue. So I'm guessing that the California Supreme Court decision is saying that not paying at all, or furloughing as a means to not pay, is not an option, and that a minimum wage still has to be paid for now, for anyone still on the job.
Then there is the complication that the difference between what people should have been paid, and what they do get paid (minimum wage), be paid back later once the budget is approved and passes. That kind of logic is apparently not yet coded into the payroll system. The problem is more a case that the state has not budgeted to the state IT department the resources to implement, test, and deploy, a system the California Supreme Court decision may require under existing laws (or better yet, upgrade it to an all new system in a modern language on modern computers ... such as Java or Python running on Linux or Solaris).
This is NOT lowering salaries/wages ... it is just paying them a minimum amount now for staying on the job, and the difference later once the budget becomes law.
This is NOT "vindictively striking out at rank and file workers" ... it is trying to make sure they are paid something for now, rather than nothing at all, or the possibility of them not even working (time for which they then would never be paid).
There's more to it than that. A lot more. They also need to calculate the gross pay based on the original amount, subtract the minimum wage gross pay, and record these difference amounts in the database. So they cannot just substitute the pay rate in the database with the minimum pay rate. The reason for this is because all that difference has to be paid back later when the budget is finally passed. And that back pay calculation also has to be coded into the system. And this change of logic has to be done not just in one place. Different programs do their runs in separate batches. There are probably dozens of programs that would be affected by the logic change. The database may also need a schema change. It will at least need new fields and/or new record types. And all this change will need testing which probably means dozens of runs of a system that they probably have no more machine capacity to run twice as often, if that. Payroll systems are huge and ugly. These estimates seems about right to me assuming they had COBOL programmers on staff that know this system.
... to get the system to issue payroll checks at a $6.55/hr amount, including doing the correct calculation based on reported hours, including the 1.5x factor for overtime, do all the correct tax calculations, generate all the reports like what goes to the IRS, print the checks ... while keeping (but ignoring, for now) the original pay rates in the database. This change in logic would require probably several hundreds, if not thousands, of lines of computer code in hundreds of modules, just to be sure everything got processed in exactly the correct way uniformly everywhere. And then there is testing. A lot of testing is needed to make sure there no parts of the system were overlooked, and each changed part was done correctly.
You might think it is as simple as changing "MULTIPLY HOURS-WORKED BY PAY-RATE GIVING GROSS-PAY." with "MULTIPLY HOURS-WORKED BY 655 GIVING GROSS-PAY." but I can assure you it is far, far, more complex than that.
Alternatives that are also unworkable for a quick change include literally changing all the pay rates in the database, then changing them back again later. Substituting a temporary database is also unlikely because this is likely a massive database that contains far more than just names, SSNs, and pay rates.
And are they even sure they have all the source code to all the modules in the system? Do they even have the machine capacity to do several dozen payroll runs in just a couple weeks time just to complete the testing?
Then I guess Verizon is unavailable here.
But "swapping in a malicious bootloader" requires that the OS be rootkitted/bypassed. Ergo, you essentially said that you would be pissed if compromising the system can be trivially accomplished by merely compromising the system. Well, then I guess you're pissed.
Or you briefly lost physical access to your laptop while you were (insert some manly entertainment activity here).
If the attacker can install a bootloader, that means you were rooted and your precious data can be grabbed from the memory of the program that happens to be using it.
If the bootloader is installed while the OS is not running, that means you do not have adequate physical security.
I think someone had the idea this might protect data on stolen laptops. So somehow this might be intended to provide data protection even when there is inadequate physical protection.
One problem is they could install a boot loader that, in theory, modifies the OS image it loads to include a program that overrides the check on the bootloader, which briefly places the original bootloader back in place during the check, and puts its own nasty bootloader back immediately afterwards, every time the check is invoked.
Now, I have no problem with them preventing me from using unlicensed music. That's perfectly legitimate. However, in the 6-7 years I've dealt with DRM encrypted music, in every instance in which I have had to find some workaround to play encrypted music, I (or someone in my family) had legitimately purchased the music for use on our computer.
That just means Microsoft still has bugs in the DRM logic. Nothing new here. Move along.
If it's my computer, I should be able to put whatever on it I want. And in order to do that while still having the system to ensure that no one else can put stuff on there without my permission, I need to be able to sign what I put on and have that signature accepted. Since Microsoft does not provide for that, I must conclude there is more reason than you seem to be aware of.
How would I be able to do the same with Midori?
I presume you did the marketing within the USA and your 5-6 USA distributors therefore did none of that other than the marketing to focus buyers towards them. What you should have done for Europe is, instead of sign an exclusive distribution agreement, sign an agreement of importation. The importer then would do the broad product marketing in the local language, and sign up distributors.
Which statements do you believe were technically false?
All Comcast needs to do to get this overturned is find a judge that isn't a Comcast customer.