I found that quote quite amusing back in 1993 when most of you were still being bullied by the guy who (these days) is ringing up your purchases at WalMart.
The quote is: One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How enthusiastic
is our support for UNIX?
Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many years ago.
Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines. Ten percent of our
VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple language, easy to understand,
easy to get started with. It's great for students, great for somewhat casual
users, and it's great for interchanging programs between different machines.
And so, because of its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have
good UNIX on VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s.
It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run
out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end
up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly
check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no matter
what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of documentation -- if
you look long enough it's there. That's the difference -- the beauty of UNIX
is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all there.
-- Ken Olsen, president of DEC, DECWORLD Vol. 8 No. 5, 1984
No, I don't. I know that someone will do it, but most people would be in way better shape if they had to insert a key to install an update.
And you think those self-same users won't just leave the hardware key inserted because they don't want to have to go look for it when they need it? Puh-lease!
Why do you keep re-posting the same information you've posted at least three times on this thread? And then have the poor taste to put a link to your previous posting of the same information?
What possible value could that add to this discussion?
It would depend upon whether they resisted arrest or not, yes/no?
That's circular reasoning. "I'm arresting you because you resisted arrest."
If there's no underlying reason for an arrest, there's no reason for the police to arrest the person and, hence, any force used on the arrestee is just assault and not justified by the claim of "resisting arrest." If someone attacks the police, it's assault and they should be charged accordingly. If someone is being arrested or detained for a valid reason, then that person should be charged with whatever crime they are alleged to have committed. However, if the *only* charge is resisting arrest, there (apparently) is no reason for the police to arrest this person in the first place. And that's either assault or false arrest/unlawful imprisonment. In that circumstance it's a trumped up charge. Often [Citation needed] this happens when someone mouths off to a police officer -- which, while it is in poor taste and often deleterious to your health, is not a crime as long as you're not threatening harm in some way. For example, if I tell a police officer "you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny," whether or not it's true, it's not a crime. A handsome and well dressed police officer might have a case for libel if others heard me, or if my statements were published in the media. However, that's a *civil* matter and should not result in the officer over-stepping his or her authority by detaining or arresting me for "resisting arrest."
Please provide a circumstance where this reasoning does not hold.
I am just being a devil's advocate here, I can argue the flip side of this really easily, in fact its like fishing in a barrel. Someone has to offer up a counterpoint or there is no debate.
Actually, your "counterpoint" is quite specious. You say:
First you have to consider this: American Cops dealing with the American Public. The American public can be horrible. Have you been out after dark here? It depends on where you go, you could be taking your very life in your hands. I can imagine that some things a cop sees and deals with, nobody would want to see or know about. There are some very bad people out there.
By your logic, since Americans can be horrible and the police see that horribleness in all its glory and (perish the thought) there are very bad people out there, the police are now justified in acting the same way. Fish in a barrel indeed.
Secondly, media can be taken out of context and with a volatile position as a police officer, its natural for cops to be concerned about image. Too much concern for image might impede a cop from doing their job as they are trained. Face it, what human being on planet Earth right now wants to end up on youtube being ridiculed?
Sigh. Yes, media can be taken out of context. However, these are public servants in public places performing public duties. The courts have ruled again and again that there is no expectation of privacy *for anyone* in public places. Being in the public eye (and not always in a positive way) is part of being a police officer. Deal with it or get another job. It's not as if cops didn't know this *before* they became cops.
Thirdly, our municipalities don't have magic money trees and when someone sues a cop for a billion dollars, they don't sigh and go out back and pick some more. Sensationalizing these events by magnifying them through mass media that is controlled by the whim of the public leads to crazy legal battles in strained courts.
Okay, so no recordings of corrupt and/or brutal police officers so we can save money on lawsuits? Those same municipalities could save lots of money on lawswuits by monitoring their police and firing/disciplining/prosecuting the bad apples harshly.
And fourth, people are becoming increasingly disgruntled due to stress levels of the economy. Exciting them with videos of a bad cop will cause hatred for cops, making their jobs more dangerous and even deadly.
That's so true. We should get rid of police blotters and negative press about government and corporations and anything else that might "excite" the rabble. In fact, a 6PM curfew would reduce crime significantly. Also, we should implement an internal passport system to make sure that folks who have no business in the drug dealing and hooking areas can be easily turned away. In fact, there's really no reason why anyone *needs* to go any more than a few miles from their home. As such, we should set up police checkpoints at major intersections, highway entrances & exits, etc. I don't know why we didn't think of this before. Thanks!
Fifth, with the discovery of flash crimes, they fear that these events will rise as criminals become more adept at exploiting technology. Imagine these tactics being used by terrorists, or a revolting illegal immigrant movement?
What? You've been listening to too much Rush. As for that "revolting illegal immigrant movement," I humbly offer this.
No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.
Is there a justification for subduing someone and then charging them with "resisting arrest" only? In that circumstance, IMHO, the police are just looking for a reason -- and that's wrong."
I'd like a little privacy in my day. If the public sees fit to take that away... well... then I guess I should do what I've contemplated sooner--quit my dayjob, and start selling myself as a contractor at $80 to $200 per hour depending on the skills utilized for a given task and how much I dislike it.
One way or the other you're still going to pay for that labor from somebody
You hit the nail on the head. If you don't want to give up an expectation of privacy, don't leave your house. It has nothing to do with who you are. It doesn't really matter. If you're in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. If you're in someone else's home (or office for that matter) you have no expectation of privacy (think Nanny cams).
That's doubly true for police officers, as they are tasked with difficult and potentially (both legally and morally) ambiguous tasks. In order to do so, they are given extraordinary powers as well as significant barriers to prosecution for the use of force, whether justified or unjustified.That gives us (all of us) the right (and duty) to closely monitor police *while they are on duty*
As for your coding activities, unless you are in *your* house or *your* (meaning you or the company you have a controlling interest in pay the rent and have the lease) office, no you don't have an expectation of privacy.
If I was your employer, I would make it a point to give you (as a coder, not a police officer) as much privacy as was reasonable and practicable. I'd do this for the simple reason that if I want to keep you and keep you productive, I want to create an environment where you feel comfortable. However, the roles, responsibility and authority of police raise very different issues.
Posting Anonymously as I moderated on this thread:
with a cloud service the manager gets, at least in the best case:
- An SLA
I am internal IT and we have strong, mutually agreed upon SLAs with our customers.
- feature or service is quickly in production
That depends on the feature or service -- and the ability of IT to make it happen. If you worked where I do and had a need for a new server to run software 'X' and a valid business reason to do so, I can have a server up and ready to configure with software 'X' in less than an hour. It'd take longer to modify your contract with the cloud provider. Oops.
- cost can easily be lower than in house IT, at least for small companies
Agreed. There are tradeoffs. But then there always are.
- no grumpy IT employee to deal with
Just grumpy Indian or Malay customer service reps.
- can redirect grumpy users to the cloud support center
I'm sure that will have a salutory effect when critical LOB applications are down and your users hear. "Your call is very important to us. We are currently experiencing higher than normal call volumes. Please remain on the line and your call will be answered by the next available representative. Your estimated hold time is now 167 minutes."
- when the service fails, the manager can say "not my fault" and "I already called hotline in the cloud"
I'm sure that would be a great comfort to th principals, knowing that even though they're losing money every minute, it's not the manager's fault.
[snip] People make typos. You do too. I'll bet you a 100 dollars, euro's or whatever currency you use on that. And with spelling correction these days valid words in a wrong context are even easier to miss...
[snip][SPOILER]Not everyone on the internet is a native English speaker. The 'INTER-' part might be a subtle hint for that.[/SPOILER]
According to the website on which TFA was posted:
Paul Roberts
Editor, Threatpost
Security Evangelist, Kaspersky Lab
Paul Roberts is an industry-known editor with close to a decade of experience as a technology reporter and analyst. Before joining Threatpost, Paul was a Senior Analyst covering enterprise security for The 451 Group. As a reporter and editor, he has written for leading technology publications including InfoWorld, eWeek, The IDG News Service, and TechTarget where he has focused on breaking security and enterprise-focused technology news and analysis. He has written for The Boston Globe, Salon.com and Fortune Small Business.
Mr. Roberts (taking the website at its word) is an editor of an English language website and a journalist with almost a decade of experience writing for English language publications. If he is unable to successfully proofread (or have it done for him) his work or, worse yet, doesn't know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect' then, (as I said) IMNSHO, I don't feel that his prose should be assigned much value.
Does that mean he's stupid? Maybe not. I admit that statement was rather hyperbolic. However, if you'd bothered to check (no need now, I did it for you -- you're welcome!) Mr. Roberts' Bona Fides, you'd know that your suggestion that there was an ESL component was spurious. What is more, since he's a "journalist" he should be able to use the primary language in which he is communicating correctly.
Yes. I make typos. But I'm not (not that you would know it, so I'm telling you) paid to write articles for public consumption. I can say that if I were, I'd make damn sure that what I wrote was grammatically correct, concise and cohesive.
I hope I've clarified my comments. You are, of course, free to disagree. Perhaps I am an inconsiderate prick for pointing out that I don't think much of the author of TFA. Then again, what's it to you? Is Mr. Roberts a personal friend? A family member? Please tell me why I should pay one whit of attention to someone who purports to be an expert in using the English language but is either too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly?
In case you're wondering, that's "Author too stupid;didn't read"
When I saw that the author apparently didn't know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect' I gave up.
IMNSHO, If you can't get that right, you don't deserve to be read.
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.
--Albert Einstein, when asked to describe radio.
Are you seriously trying to say that Open Source innovates anything? Like what? I can't think of a single technology that Open Source has done first and been copied by commercial versions, but I can think of tons of cases of the reverse.
Can you think of any?
Hmmm, let's see:
Kerberos, LDAP, TCP/IP, Wiki and many, many others.
Note that the first two are, in fact, pretty much the apex of MS' accomplishments in security and management environments.
Nobody pays any attention to history, even though some of the decisions made over the pas five thousand years ago still have a marked impact on our lives, yet people ignore what happened ten or fifteen years ago....sigh
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our new electronic overlords!
I found that quote quite amusing back in 1993 when most of you were still being bullied by the guy who (these days) is ringing up your purchases at WalMart.
The quote is:
One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How enthusiastic is our support for UNIX? Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many years ago. Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines. Ten percent of our VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple language, easy to understand, easy to get started with. It's great for students, great for somewhat casual users, and it's great for interchanging programs between different machines. And so, because of its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have good UNIX on VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s. It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming. With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the difference -- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all there. -- Ken Olsen, president of DEC, DECWORLD Vol. 8 No. 5, 1984
I [snip] Give someone REAL power and they WILL abuse it [snip]
c.f. The Stanford Prison Experiment
have a nice day
I get it now. You're an undeservedly supercilious, self-aggrandizing gasbag. Why didn't you just say so? Carry on.
"???"
* Uhm, lol... Could we get a translation of that
My sincere apologies. I didn't realize that English wasn't your first language. I know that sometimes English vocabulary can be challenging.
I get it now. You're an undeservedly supercilious, self-aggrandizing gasbag. Why didn't you just say so? Carry on.
No, I don't. I know that someone will do it, but most people would be in way better shape if they had to insert a key to install an update.
And you think those self-same users won't just leave the hardware key inserted because they don't want to have to go look for it when they need it? Puh-lease!
Why do you keep re-posting the same information you've posted at least three times on this thread? And then have the poor taste to put a link to your previous posting of the same information?
What possible value could that add to this discussion?
And you don't seem to know that punctuation goes inside quotations. Sentence capitalization not withstanding.
Actually, that rule is for "double quotes," not 'single quotes', friend.
It would depend upon whether they resisted arrest or not, yes/no?
That's circular reasoning. "I'm arresting you because you resisted arrest."
If there's no underlying reason for an arrest, there's no reason for the police to arrest the person and, hence, any force used on the arrestee is just assault and not justified by the claim of "resisting arrest." If someone attacks the police, it's assault and they should be charged accordingly. If someone is being arrested or detained for a valid reason, then that person should be charged with whatever crime they are alleged to have committed. However, if the *only* charge is resisting arrest, there (apparently) is no reason for the police to arrest this person in the first place. And that's either assault or false arrest/unlawful imprisonment. In that circumstance it's a trumped up charge.
Often [Citation needed] this happens when someone mouths off to a police officer -- which, while it is in poor taste and often deleterious to your health, is not a crime as long as you're not threatening harm in some way. For example, if I tell a police officer "you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny," whether or not it's true, it's not a crime. A handsome and well dressed police officer might have a case for libel if others heard me, or if my statements were published in the media. However, that's a *civil* matter and should not result in the officer over-stepping his or her authority by detaining or arresting me for "resisting arrest."
Please provide a circumstance where this reasoning does not hold.
>
I am just being a devil's advocate here, I can argue the flip side of this really easily, in fact its like fishing in a barrel. Someone has to offer up a counterpoint or there is no debate.
Actually, your "counterpoint" is quite specious. You say:
First you have to consider this: American Cops dealing with the American Public. The American public can be horrible. Have you been out after dark here? It depends on where you go, you could be taking your very life in your hands. I can imagine that some things a cop sees and deals with, nobody would want to see or know about. There are some very bad people out there.
By your logic, since Americans can be horrible and the police see that horribleness in all its glory and (perish the thought) there are very bad people out there, the police are now justified in acting the same way. Fish in a barrel indeed.
Secondly, media can be taken out of context and with a volatile position as a police officer, its natural for cops to be concerned about image. Too much concern for image might impede a cop from doing their job as they are trained. Face it, what human being on planet Earth right now wants to end up on youtube being ridiculed?
Sigh. Yes, media can be taken out of context. However, these are public servants in public places performing public duties. The courts have ruled again and again that there is no expectation of privacy *for anyone* in public places. Being in the public eye (and not always in a positive way) is part of being a police officer. Deal with it or get another job. It's not as if cops didn't know this *before* they became cops.
Thirdly, our municipalities don't have magic money trees and when someone sues a cop for a billion dollars, they don't sigh and go out back and pick some more. Sensationalizing these events by magnifying them through mass media that is controlled by the whim of the public leads to crazy legal battles in strained courts.
Okay, so no recordings of corrupt and/or brutal police officers so we can save money on lawsuits? Those same municipalities could save lots of money on lawswuits by monitoring their police and firing/disciplining/prosecuting the bad apples harshly.
And fourth, people are becoming increasingly disgruntled due to stress levels of the economy. Exciting them with videos of a bad cop will cause hatred for cops, making their jobs more dangerous and even deadly.
That's so true. We should get rid of police blotters and negative press about government and corporations and anything else that might "excite" the rabble. In fact, a 6PM curfew would reduce crime significantly. Also, we should implement an internal passport system to make sure that folks who have no business in the drug dealing and hooking areas can be easily turned away. In fact, there's really no reason why anyone *needs* to go any more than a few miles from their home. As such, we should set up police checkpoints at major intersections, highway entrances & exits, etc. I don't know why we didn't think of this before. Thanks!
Fifth, with the discovery of flash crimes, they fear that these events will rise as criminals become more adept at exploiting technology. Imagine these tactics being used by terrorists, or a revolting illegal immigrant movement?
What? You've been listening to too much Rush. As for that "revolting illegal immigrant movement," I humbly offer this.
No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.
Is there a justification for subduing someone and then charging them with "resisting arrest" only? In that circumstance, IMHO, the police are just looking for a reason -- and that's wrong."
I'd like a little privacy in my day. If the public sees fit to take that away... well... then I guess I should do what I've contemplated sooner--quit my dayjob, and start selling myself as a contractor at $80 to $200 per hour depending on the skills utilized for a given task and how much I dislike it.
One way or the other you're still going to pay for that labor from somebody
You hit the nail on the head. If you don't want to give up an expectation of privacy, don't leave your house. It has nothing to do with who you are. It doesn't really matter. If you're in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. If you're in someone else's home (or office for that matter) you have no expectation of privacy (think Nanny cams).
That's doubly true for police officers, as they are tasked with difficult and potentially (both legally and morally) ambiguous tasks. In order to do so, they are given extraordinary powers as well as significant barriers to prosecution for the use of force, whether justified or unjustified.That gives us (all of us) the right (and duty) to closely monitor police *while they are on duty*
As for your coding activities, unless you are in *your* house or *your* (meaning you or the company you have a controlling interest in pay the rent and have the lease) office, no you don't have an expectation of privacy.
If I was your employer, I would make it a point to give you (as a coder, not a police officer) as much privacy as was reasonable and practicable. I'd do this for the simple reason that if I want to keep you and keep you productive, I want to create an environment where you feel comfortable. However, the roles, responsibility and authority of police raise very different issues.
The devices didn't blow up because the UL stamp was fake. They blew up because they were cheaply built pieces of crap.
The fake testing agency stamps were just the icing on the cake.
Are you sure it wasn't UL exacting revenge for stamping a fake logo onto the product?
Ding! Ding! Ding! It's an olfactory daily double!
So instead of "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" it should be "Lots of people got fried when the Nazis bought IBM?"
I guess that posting anonymously thing didn't work...Where's IT? It's their fault!!!
with a cloud service the manager gets, at least in the best case: - An SLA
I am internal IT and we have strong, mutually agreed upon SLAs with our customers.
- feature or service is quickly in production
That depends on the feature or service -- and the ability of IT to make it happen. If you worked where I do and had a need for a new server to run software 'X' and a valid business reason to do so, I can have a server up and ready to configure with software 'X' in less than an hour. It'd take longer to modify your contract with the cloud provider. Oops.
- cost can easily be lower than in house IT, at least for small companies
Agreed. There are tradeoffs. But then there always are.
- no grumpy IT employee to deal with
Just grumpy Indian or Malay customer service reps.
- can redirect grumpy users to the cloud support center
I'm sure that will have a salutory effect when critical LOB applications are down and your users hear. "Your call is very important to us. We are currently experiencing higher than normal call volumes. Please remain on the line and your call will be answered by the next available representative. Your estimated hold time is now 167 minutes."
- when the service fails, the manager can say "not my fault" and "I already called hotline in the cloud"
I'm sure that would be a great comfort to th principals, knowing that even though they're losing money every minute, it's not the manager's fault.
[snip] People make typos. You do too. I'll bet you a 100 dollars, euro's or whatever currency you use on that. And with spelling correction these days valid words in a wrong context are even easier to miss...
[snip][SPOILER]Not everyone on the internet is a native English speaker. The 'INTER-' part might be a subtle hint for that.[/SPOILER]
According to the website on which TFA was posted:
Paul Roberts
Editor, Threatpost
Security Evangelist, Kaspersky Lab
Paul Roberts is an industry-known editor with close to a decade of experience as a technology reporter and analyst. Before joining Threatpost, Paul was a Senior Analyst covering enterprise security for The 451 Group. As a reporter and editor, he has written for leading technology publications including InfoWorld, eWeek, The IDG News Service, and TechTarget where he has focused on breaking security and enterprise-focused technology news and analysis. He has written for The Boston Globe, Salon.com and Fortune Small Business.
Mr. Roberts (taking the website at its word) is an editor of an English language website and a journalist with almost a decade of experience writing for English language publications. If he is unable to successfully proofread (or have it done for him) his work or, worse yet, doesn't know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect' then, (as I said) IMNSHO, I don't feel that his prose should be assigned much value.
Does that mean he's stupid? Maybe not. I admit that statement was rather hyperbolic. However, if you'd bothered to check (no need now, I did it for you -- you're welcome!) Mr. Roberts' Bona Fides, you'd know that your suggestion that there was an ESL component was spurious. What is more, since he's a "journalist" he should be able to use the primary language in which he is communicating correctly.
Yes. I make typos. But I'm not (not that you would know it, so I'm telling you) paid to write articles for public consumption. I can say that if I were, I'd make damn sure that what I wrote was grammatically correct, concise and cohesive.
I hope I've clarified my comments. You are, of course, free to disagree. Perhaps I am an inconsiderate prick for pointing out that I don't think much of the author of TFA. Then again, what's it to you? Is Mr. Roberts a personal friend? A family member? Please tell me why I should pay one whit of attention to someone who purports to be an expert in using the English language but is either too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly?
In case you're wondering, that's "Author too stupid;didn't read"
When I saw that the author apparently didn't know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect' I gave up.
IMNSHO, If you can't get that right, you don't deserve to be read.
...He can go about his business.
Move along
Nothing to see here folks, just the inane rantings of a moron (Mike James, that is).
Welcome our new nano-overlords!
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.
--Albert Einstein, when asked to describe radio.
Are you seriously trying to say that Open Source innovates anything? Like what? I can't think of a single technology that Open Source has done first and been copied by commercial versions, but I can think of tons of cases of the reverse.
Can you think of any?
Hmmm, let's see:
Kerberos, LDAP, TCP/IP, Wiki and many, many others.
Note that the first two are, in fact, pretty much the apex of MS' accomplishments in security and management environments.
Nobody pays any attention to history, even though some of the decisions made over the pas five thousand years ago still have a marked impact on our lives, yet people ignore what happened ten or fifteen years ago....sigh
Maybe the Apple store has a copy of "Reason in Common Sense" :) :) :)
It seems that no one reads Santayana anymore. :(