Yeah, he is a gatekeeper, and he enforces corporate information security.
Do you give the same speech to the guy that keeps the actual gate (at the corporate parking lot entrance or front door)?
The guy at the gate is enforcing corporate physical security, under the direction of the facilities/security manager, who is working under direction of the company (in whatever form that company ownership and command is exercised in that particular company- board, proprietor, etc.).
OK, I'll admit that when somebody says "my" X, there's an element of ownership being implied.
But most people understand that that just means "the company's X, which I'm responsible for".
Hence, stuff like "no pointing guns other that at the target on my range". "no defacing of books in my library" "if you want something from my maintenance dept., you'll have to check it out"
Most people understand the "my" just means "there's somebody actually responsible for this X, and it's not going to be a tragedy of the commons situation".
Perhaps he should have stripped all qualifying adjectives from the phrase: <del>my corporate </del> network. Then you get into a "network, which network situation":
I knew from the moment I read the words "my corporate network", there'd be a reply like yours.
Yet within his phrasing is the response to your post.
He didn't say "my" network. He said "my corporate network". Therein lies all the difference: it's the corporation's network. It's corporate (i.e., for the purpose of achieving corporate objectives). Also, he's responsible for it, hence the "my".
The network is not a happy commune, from each from his ability, to each according to his need, lol. Refer to the excellent post above which spells it out in black and white. The purpose of the network is to achieve corporate objectives (laid down by the corporation), not do watcha wanna do.
IT is not only information technology, a Toys R Us of gizmos for people who think they're still in high school or a college fraternity. It's also information security. As laid out in the post I linked, IT/infosec is responsible for enforcing corporation information policies.
As for CEOs: CIOs should man up. I could be mistaken but I think most CxOs are chosen with the consent of the board, so the CIO shouldn't be solely beholden to the CEO. The CIO should tell the CEO that allowing random devices violates corporate information objectives, and exposes the company and the CEO to liability, especially since the CEO has such far-ranging access.
Leaving aside the fact that AGW is a fairy tale (called "the cause" by its priests):
Yes, assuming AGW, it's the gross numbers that matter.
But I don't understand why it is that people in, say, Brazil or China, who are living relatively environmentally-friendly lifestyles, should be asked to give up even more of the very few luxuries they currently enjoy.
By what moral principle should Brazilians, Chinese, or Indians be forced to live even more frugal lives?
I thought the standard book industry line was that the cost of printing is only a few dollars, most of the cost is for authors, editors, copywriters, etc., and that's why e-books are priced very near print books.
That should be doubly so for textbooks because you're not just making up stories and writing them down plus you have to have special content like illustrations, photographs, and quizzes.
There aren't special discounts because the e-book is being sold for the iPad, are there?
"iPad books cost so much less...It's a legal alternative for students who are using BitTorent [to pirate books]."
... is what a lot of Slashdotters have been saying over the past few years/months regarding the weird new direction of Ubuntu/Gnome: It's not that they've made it simpler to do what you were doing before (as in Program Manager to Start Menu), but rather you can't get there from here. It's actively and actually harder to do stuff you used to take for granted before.
It always amuses me how "commando"-type programmers are always complaining about the lack of closures or some such in pedestrian language X.
Thing is, language X and its cousins are supposed to be dead simple linear-logic languages for the purpose of stuff like "if total_purchase < $50, shipping_surcharge = $10", and so on.
You're not going to be generating fractals in one-liners in PHP, so stop whining. PHP and the like are for "lite" programmers, i.e., web programmers. That's not disparagement; it's actually praise. PHP is How Stuff Gets Done (like Facebook growing into a 1/2 trillion dollar corporation).
Meanwhile, if you want a language beauty contest, why not go with LISP and Scheme? These languages allow you to easily extend the language, hence no whining allowed. I seriously doubt anybody's going to come up with a more elegant and extensible language than them.
So, come on language gourmets, what's the problem?
A. Assume you have a 100% chance of taking a few percent of the days off off your life.
B. You have a.001% chance of losing your life, or of your loved ones, and of devastating your entire community.
Which one would you pick?
From a risk management approach, the answer is A. That's why people pay for insurance: A few percent off the top, and you're dealing with a known risk vs. a small chance of a huge catastrophe.
No corporation would take choice B, which is the reason why no corporation is willing to insure nuke plants nor does any bank want to underwrite them without government help.
With nuclear you have to have trust in humans, and especially politicians and corporate executives, for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. You've never doubted their absolute integrity, right?
I can verify that SkyGrabber really works. In fact, I'm looking at a video feed right now in my other monitor. Hey, that's strange, that looks just like the next street over... #! NO CARRIER
Yeah, I usually post a disclaimer ("for Debian/Ubuntu/Mint" -- now "Debian/Mint/Ubuntu").
Second, yes,/. does allow that, and I hope they continue to do so, because deb:// and click to install is neat and handy (even a lot of old Linux hands don't even know about it).
Finally, (as you mentioned) it's not a link to download software, but rather install software from the repositories, so there's that level of security.
It's not about arrests. They're basically talking about using moral suasion.
It's just another element of the game.
I know it seems ludicrous on first thought, but it's actually quite reasonable. Reason: People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.
Well, if you're going to have realism, I guess you'd need all the other stuff that comes in a war: not just America's Army and the Taliban, but also the Red Cross. In fact, for a multiplayer game, some people could be Red Cross personnel. And it makes perfect sense to deduct points for illegal kills (i.e., after someone has already surrendered to you).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, he is a gatekeeper, and he enforces corporate information security.
Do you give the same speech to the guy that keeps the actual gate (at the corporate parking lot entrance or front door)?
The guy at the gate is enforcing corporate physical security, under the direction of the facilities/security manager, who is working under direction of the company (in whatever form that company ownership and command is exercised in that particular company- board, proprietor, etc.).
OK, I'll admit that when somebody says "my" X, there's an element of ownership being implied.
But most people understand that that just means "the company's X, which I'm responsible for".
Hence, stuff like "no pointing guns other that at the target on my range".
"no defacing of books in my library"
"if you want something from my maintenance dept., you'll have to check it out"
Most people understand the "my" just means "there's somebody actually responsible for this X, and it's not going to be a tragedy of the commons situation".
Perhaps he should have stripped all qualifying adjectives from the phrase: <del>my corporate </del> network. Then you get into a "network, which network situation":
Bush Rice China Hu Who Koffi Annan - YouTube
I knew from the moment I read the words "my corporate network", there'd be a reply like yours.
Yet within his phrasing is the response to your post.
He didn't say "my" network. He said "my corporate network". Therein lies all the difference: it's the corporation's network. It's corporate (i.e., for the purpose of achieving corporate objectives). Also, he's responsible for it, hence the "my".
The network is not a happy commune, from each from his ability, to each according to his need, lol. Refer to the excellent post above which spells it out in black and white. The purpose of the network is to achieve corporate objectives (laid down by the corporation), not do watcha wanna do.
IT is not only information technology, a Toys R Us of gizmos for people who think they're still in high school or a college fraternity. It's also information security. As laid out in the post I linked, IT/infosec is responsible for enforcing corporation information policies.
As for CEOs: CIOs should man up. I could be mistaken but I think most CxOs are chosen with the consent of the board, so the CIO shouldn't be solely beholden to the CEO. The CIO should tell the CEO that allowing random devices violates corporate information objectives, and exposes the company and the CEO to liability, especially since the CEO has such far-ranging access.
Well, didn't the patents apply on the west coast? Never understood that one.
to go on the "i"-Bahn?
Leaving aside the fact that AGW is a fairy tale (called "the cause" by its priests):
Yes, assuming AGW, it's the gross numbers that matter.
But I don't understand why it is that people in, say, Brazil or China, who are living relatively environmentally-friendly lifestyles, should be asked to give up even more of the very few luxuries they currently enjoy.
By what moral principle should Brazilians, Chinese, or Indians be forced to live even more frugal lives?
Yes, I do. But the former is good enough for a heading. I added the "anthropogenic" in the body for clarification.
There's probably no anthropogenic global warming.
Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
I thought the standard book industry line was that the cost of printing is only a few dollars, most of the cost is for authors, editors, copywriters, etc., and that's why e-books are priced very near print books.
That should be doubly so for textbooks because you're not just making up stories and writing them down plus you have to have special content like illustrations, photographs, and quizzes.
There aren't special discounts because the e-book is being sold for the iPad, are there?
... is what a lot of Slashdotters have been saying over the past few years/months regarding the weird new direction of Ubuntu/Gnome: It's not that they've made it simpler to do what you were doing before (as in Program Manager to Start Menu), but rather you can't get there from here. It's actively and actually harder to do stuff you used to take for granted before.
But your company doesn't send out correspondence to clients saying "should of", does it?
What does trimURLs do?
Still on FF3.
"MPEG has received" or MPEG-LA?
I thought I read here on Slashdot that -LA is different from just plain old MPEG.
So who is actually doing the receiving? Good guys/bad guys?
Good that you brought up Lisp.
It always amuses me how "commando"-type programmers are always complaining about the lack of closures or some such in pedestrian language X.
Thing is, language X and its cousins are supposed to be dead simple linear-logic languages for the purpose of stuff like "if total_purchase < $50, shipping_surcharge = $10", and so on.
You're not going to be generating fractals in one-liners in PHP, so stop whining. PHP and the like are for "lite" programmers, i.e., web programmers. That's not disparagement; it's actually praise. PHP is How Stuff Gets Done (like Facebook growing into a 1/2 trillion dollar corporation).
Meanwhile, if you want a language beauty contest, why not go with LISP and Scheme? These languages allow you to easily extend the language, hence no whining allowed. I seriously doubt anybody's going to come up with a more elegant and extensible language than them.
So, come on language gourmets, what's the problem?
Learn Scheme now, and leave PHP as it is.
I forgot to link to this (government subsidies for the nuclear industry):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
A. Assume you have a 100% chance of taking a few percent of the days off off your life.
B. You have a .001% chance of losing your life, or of your loved ones, and of devastating your entire community.
Which one would you pick?
From a risk management approach, the answer is A. That's why people pay for insurance: A few percent off the top, and you're dealing with a known risk vs. a small chance of a huge catastrophe.
No corporation would take choice B, which is the reason why no corporation is willing to insure nuke plants nor does any bank want to underwrite them without government help.
Hundreds of thousands killed is bad, but: with hydro, people die, and that's that.
Not so with nuclear: It keeps going and going.
With nuclear you have to have trust in humans, and especially politicians and corporate executives, for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. You've never doubted their absolute integrity, right?
Can DC kill you?
I can verify that SkyGrabber really works. In fact, I'm looking at a video feed right now in my other monitor. Hey, that's strange, that looks just like the next street over ... #! NO CARRIER
Yeah, I usually post a disclaimer ("for Debian/Ubuntu/Mint" -- now "Debian/Mint/Ubuntu").
Second, yes, /. does allow that, and I hope they continue to do so, because deb:// and click to install is neat and handy (even a lot of old Linux hands don't even know about it).
Finally, (as you mentioned) it's not a link to download software, but rather install software from the repositories, so there's that level of security.
A nice GUI diff for Linux. (Has 3-way).
Click here to install
OK, I don't know exactly how old ODesk is, but, basically, it's been doing this forever.
The client gets a view to into the desktop of the sweatoffice worker.
I thought most Slashdotter knew about the top 2-3 outsourcing marketplaces (Elance, ODesk, Rentacoder) just as a matter of general knowledge.
Yeah, this. The whole dump-WebOS thing was Apothekar's idea, colossally dumb. Might as well stick with it.
It's not about arrests. They're basically talking about using moral suasion.
It's just another element of the game.
I know it seems ludicrous on first thought, but it's actually quite reasonable. Reason: People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.
Well, if you're going to have realism, I guess you'd need all the other stuff that comes in a war: not just America's Army and the Taliban, but also the Red Cross. In fact, for a multiplayer game, some people could be Red Cross personnel. And it makes perfect sense to deduct points for illegal kills (i.e., after someone has already surrendered to you).
Sentient bacteria have constructed a 0.000000708 meter tall model of the model of the earth.