Could it be that the way the government contracts are structured and micromanaged by government agencies is the problem and not the contractor or their programmers? I work for a company that provides government services under contract to the State of California and the government agency that oversees us micromanages us so much that it is often impossible to to develop systems properly. The 4 biggest problems I see are 1)constantly changing requirements that are written by government employees with little or no IT/web knowledge 2) contracts secured by being the lowest bidder which do not allow us to have the resources to properly design or test the system we are building 3) forcing us to work with other contractors including non-profit ones that are "donating" their services (very strange to me really) and that provide inferior IT systems we must use or integrate. 4) Requirements, features and design being dictated by government agencies or advocacy groups with little knoweldge of system design & development.
For example, we are currently forced to support an application written by one of these "non-profits" that uses ASP classic and violates every current IT standard. My company has the IT staff & talent to completely rewrite the application but we are not allowed to and must instead support and integrate the badly written one that was donated to the state. It is unclear why this non-profit is allowed to force the agency & us to use their product, but it seems they have political connections that make it so.
I believe also that government contracts almost always go to the lowest bidder and not the company with the most expertise. Often a contractor is the lowest bidder because they plan to cut corners and not follow good IT practices, or have not estimated costs correctly.
Also as a web developer for a company that works under government contracts, I cannot count the number of times we have received requirements for a website from people that have little or no computer skills, let alone web skills or experience. You would think in this day and age that the government employees providing requirements for government IT systems would have at least basic IT knowledge, but this is often not the case. I am not exaggerating that I have received requirements from people that have no Excel, Word or even email skills and have obviously barely even used the Internet. Many people in the top levels of government management are older (baby boomers) or were promoted for reasons other than great IT skills. They often have no professional experience with developing IT Systems, ADA or other required standards and yet they are the one writing the criteria for the contracts and the system requirements. State agencies also often demand that large amounts of money be spent on "usability studies" or other commitees where a lot of people discuss and dictate what the IT contractor should do in building the new system. The people running these studies often have very poor IT skills themselves and have little experience designing IT systems, but they often have an enormous say in how the system is designed. By the time the IT contractor's development staff is involved in the project, everything is already specified by non-IT government people and between that and the contractor management trying to save every dime (therefore not providing resource for testing), it is not really possible to build a quality system.
I say all of this inspite of the fact that the State of California actually has a good Department of Technology Services that provides great ADA compliant web templates. The California State government is so large that even with a good DTS department, the management and staff at specific agencies providing the requirements for a new system may have no knoweldge or interaction with that department and never involve them in creating the contract or project requirements.
I think the solution to this is the state should be involving its DTS department in creating all contracts and requirements for new systems projects and ind
It happens everyday to many other people. I know many people forced to take plea bargains for DUIs or traffic accidents to avoid excessive jail time. Why is no one making a big deal about them? The US Justice system is not perfect. It has flaws and people should challenge those flaws to improve it. However, hacking and breaching computer system security is still wrong. The US Government has a real obligation to ensure the security of the nation's computer systems. Swartz could have easily promoted his political opinions another way. Breaking the law was his choice.
That's hard for me to believe since most criminals usually only do part of their sentence. In California, I think it is typical for only 2/3 of the sentence to be actually served. Why would it be different with this case?
If you went back to the restaurant repeatedly and refused to leave, you would be arrested. If you broke in later or stole something, you would go to jail. Swartz was offered only 6 mos jail time in a plea bargain. That is not much different than what you would get if you broke into a restarant and stole from them.
Here's the thing...people cannot be allowed to just do whatever they want simply because they want to do it or think the law or TOS is unfair. We have laws and rules that govern society for a reason and if they are broken eggregiously enough the person should go to jail. It is often a tough call in these situations and that is why we have due process of law and jury trials. If a company or government entity is going to all the expense of providing a public website, they should absolutely be able to set their own TOS as long as it does not conflict with existing laws. Repeated or planned effort to purposely break the TOS should be a crimnal offense. It does not matter how you justify what you did it. To think that it is OK to break a law just because you disagree with it is absurd. There are people who truly believe some other person does not deserve to live - does that give them the right to commit murder without prosecution? The US is a Democracy and there are channels for changing laws one disagrees with and ways of rebelling that are more effective than violating a website's TOS or breaching a computer system's security. There is no excuse for purposely by violating a computer system's security or stealing its data for any reason. I am not sure why there is so much fuss over enforcing website TOS. I seriously doubt minor, accidental violations are being prosecuted at all. From what I read, Adam Swartz purposely violated the TOS for JSTOR to make a political point and when one chooses to do that, one must accept the consequences of ones actions. It does not matter that his cause was valid - he had other means to promote that cause legally and even make meaningful change. If he was a Stanford grad who had joined the Harvard Center for Ethics, he had the access to promote change legally. He was by no means a disenfranchised individual and could have made his point another way. Instead, he arrogantly felt that he was entitled to do as he pleased and then apparently was shocked when the US Government said laws applied to him too. If the evidence showed he was innocent, he would have been acquitted at the jury trial or he could have taken the 6 mos plea bargain and got on with his life. Jail is no fun, but if you choose to promote your political opinion through criminal actions, that's where you land. There are many, many activist for causes much more valid than the right to free academic papers (a dubious right actually) that have received lengthy prison sentences. Legalizing marijuana activists immediately come to mind. If you are going to take on the government with unlawful actions, you need to expect to have problems and do jail time. If you don't want that to happen, find a legal and less confrontational approach. A Democracy does not mean that any one person gets their way all the time, instead it means that decisions are made by the majority with all view points considered. Without laws, anarchy would reign and since the only way for laws to be fair is to apply them uniformly, the US Government must prosecute individuals that violate laws regardless of their reasons. Certainly, there should be a difference between accidentally violating a TOS and purposely doing it and the TOS should not conflict with State & US Law, but there is really no excuse in my mind to ever purposely violate a TOS. It's not your website or your data. If you can't follow the TOS, don't use the site! You can always create an altenative site or write a grilling op ed article and promote your opinion, but if you choose to take matters into your own hands and break the law, you should accept the consequences without blaming others.
I agree. Aaron Swartz's death is a loss, but it was his choice and no one elses. Plus he was highly educated and should have been aware his actions were illegal and would have serious consequences. He was a member of the Harvard University Center for Ethics after all! If he knew his actions were illegal, but still chose to do them, that is also no ones fault but his own and he should have accepted the consequences. It doesn't matter how great a person you are, if you choose to jeapordize the security of a MIT computer system, you should be prosecuted. Hacking to me is not a joke and can have serious consequences for the entire nation and world. If you do not agree with an existing US law, you do not just do what you want and then claim persecution when you are prosecuted for violating the law. Instead, like everyone else even the US President, you must go through the proper political channels to make the change happen in a legal way. Yes it may take a lifetime, but that's life. A member of the Harvard University Center for Ethics should have known that.
I read about this earlier today and after all the sensational accusations against the prosecutors, I looked deeper into the facts. As sad as this death is, it is completely unreasonable to blame the prosecutors for Aaron Swartz’s suicide. I suspect he suffered deeper mental health issues that were the actual cause of his suicide, not the prosecutor’s actions. I do not deny that there is unfairness in the US Justice System and that sometimes innocent people are prosecuted and even wrongly convicted, and there is good reason to try to correct that in general. However, that is not what happened here as the charges had not even been brought to trial. It is impossible for me to say whether the charges against Swartz were valid or not, but regardless, the US Government has an absolute obligation to prevent and prosecute all forms of computer hacking and IT security breaches and his choice to commit suicide was his alone.
Aaron Swartz was a Stanford graduate and a member of the Harvard Center for Ethics, and reportedly one of the top computer minds of his age. He was well educated and by no means an innocent, naive youth. He absolutely had to have known that his actions at MIT were a violation of the law. In fact, it is pretty obvious he downloaded the JSTOR to purposely provoke the US Government and make a political point. It was entirely Aaron Swartz’s choice to choose the rebellious path he took. He could have just as easily applied his talents in another direction. To me there is nothing wrong with picking the more rebellious path (I have done it myself at times), but one has to accept the consequences of doing so. You cannot take on the US Government in the area of computer hacking and expect them to look the other way. Computer security is a major problem and a very valid one for the US Government to be concerned about. The entire country could become non-functional with a bad enough computer virus or security breach. In addition, if Swartz chose to be a hacker rebel, then he should have had the courage to fight it out and convince the jury he was innocent or accept that he was not innocent and gone with the plea deal. If you are really an anti-establishment rebel, 6 month of jail time should not be that big a deal and you should be proud to serve it. There are people imprisoned in the US for 30+ years for simply selling or possessing marijuana (which IMHO is a lot less of an actual problem to US security than computer hackers). You don’t take on the US Government and think they won’t make your life hell. Suicide is always the coward’s way out and is no one else’s fault. The prosecutors in this case were only doing their job and as they are also required by law. They are not responsible for Swartz’s actions in anyway. I am sure he has loved ones that are grieving him deeply and his death is a loss to society, but the only one who caused his life to end on January 11, 2013 is himself.
I don't know where you live, but where I live downloading\streaming is quite a viable solution. I imagine DVDs will remain available, but it is hard to see their advantage. Broadband is excellent in many areas and will expand over time. I am not sure if I agree with your comment that NetFlix does not have a fiancial incentive to provide service to many areas and the expansion of streaming hardly requires eliminating DVDs - unless there are a lot of customers like me who don't want them anymore.
I stopped my NetFlix subscription many months ago because why bother with DVDs when there are so many movies already available on OnDemand? Plus DVDs are a pain and easily damaged. They are completely impractical for kids. I doubt DVDs will go completely, but I am more likely to sign up for NetFlix streaming than the DVD service again. I feel like there are way more media choices than I have time to watch and Comcast\OnDemand and the Internet provide that just fine for me. Actually a lot of movies including indie films are released to OnDemand before they are released on DVD or sometimes even the movie theater.
I think is is odd that this poster things Facebook will be going away some time soon. Forever is a long time and I am sure it will change over time, but Facebook is a great service that a lot of people love, including myself. Facebook seems to be getting more and more popular. I really doubt the core Facebook service will be discontinued. If anything there will be competing services, but FB definitely has an advantage because so many people use it and a lot of people only have time for one FB type site.
Sometimes FB is overly hyped. I do think it is a little overkill the way every commercial website also has a FB page. However, I enjoy FB every day. I love the way I can easily keep up with my relatives and my friends from different parts of my life. My Facebook news feed is a much more satisfying read than the national news sites.
Also I think most of the criticism of Zuckerburg is sour grapes. He is a 26 year old who invented and successfully brought to market a very successful product that a lot of people really use and enjoy. Not too many people can claim that. FB also generated many jobs and changed the way people communicate and connect. Pretty impressive stuff for kid under 30, and so what if it wasnt' 100% his invention or business savy that made FB successful. Business is a team effort. No one succeeds 100% solo. If FB is imperfect, oh well. Don't use it or work with it. FB is not the end all be all, but it is an great service that many people like and expect will continue to use.
As for the photo issue, most people who upload photos to FB will have the photos on their local computer. 15 year olds are usually clueless about a lot of things, so it hardly shocking that this girl would not know that. I think is more shocking that her parents are so certain that FB will not last. Exactly what facts support that?
She's 15. Giver her a break. Just because you grow up in the digital era, doesn't mean you understand how the technology you use works. Plus a 15 year old is a freshmen or sophmore is highschool, not exactly the age of all knowing and understanding. Maybe if she was a CS major in college, we could expect her to know that she probably has copies on her local computer and to be up on the latest Facebook updates, but not a 15 year old.
Every new child born is a blank slate and they only know what they experience, read or are taught. Younger people are more open to new technologies than older people, but there is no reason to expect a 15 year old youth to understand technology better that a 60 year old woman. In fact I find that young people today take technology for granted and although they are familiar with using it, usually have little understanding of the details of how it works. Computer education in the USA still is very mediocre before the college level.
Also I am shocked by these rude comments towards a 15 year old. Arrogant IT people give IT a bad name. IT people are well paid because understanding technology is not easy for most people. A true IT professional knows this.
I am glad the DOJ and CA Attorney General are launching this anti-trust investigation, and I hope MPEG LA is prevented from any further action against the VP8 codec. Without open competition, capitalism does not work. No group should have the right to block alternative technology formats whether they are free & open source or not. We must be vigilant about this as citizens because otherwise monopolies will destroy our democracy and the ability of new companies to compete and innovate. After reading this article, I am going to look into the VP8 codec and see about using it.
Your warning is good advice to those that wish to live their lives in peace without persecution, but sometimes it takes courageous people that do speak out, despite the consequences, to bring freedom and liberty to their people. US citizens are many generations removed from our revolutionary days, but without the courage of our founding fathers and the many other people that have fought racism and oppression throughout US history, the US would be no better off than China. Freedom is not free. It takes courageous people willing to sacrifice their personal lives and fight for freedom and their rights. Certainly political activists should be strategic in their opposition, but to criticize them for speaking freely, which should be an unalienable right, is shortsighted.
This would be funny if this woman wasn't really sentence to a year of 're-education' in a labour camp.
Considering it actually happened, it is quite horrific. All I can say is I am so glad I live in the US where we do have real freedom, even if it is not perfect. Certainly, the US does not need any really hostility with China, still we need to do everything we can to stop the Human Rights Abuses in China. The Chinese people have every right to have freedom of speech and real democracy.
I agree with you and I think this is a bad law. We do not need the government regulating every little thing that might be dangerous or harrassing citizens for potential crimes that have not been commited yet. People that actually DO cause accidents while using a cell phone should be held fully accountable and those that use a cell phone while driving and do NOT cause accidents should be left alone. There is plenty of precedence for this in US law, consider the justification against gun laws. The argument goes, guns don't kill people, criminals using guns kill people. Well a cell phone is a lot less dangerous than a gun. A lot more people have died accidentally from guns than accidentally from cell phone. I have no problem agreeing with the statement "cell phones in cars don't cause accidents, bad drivers not paying attention while using a cell phone cause accidents". Cell phones are a great invention. There is no need to demonize them or to make criminals out of people that use them. The US has a lot bigger security issues to solve than this one.
A couple of things to consider about these statistics and the comments that the British live longer. While I support US healthcare reform, in a fair comparison of the US and UK's health system, I think it is important to understand some key differences between the countries.
First of all the US population is 6x England and 5x of Britain with the US having many diverse geographic and cultural regions. While the UK does have immigrants, the US has many different immigrant populations some large with a wide variety of health and nutritional backgrounds. Different groups may have had poor nutrition and health care as children or may eat unhealthy diets because of cultural habits or because high calorie food is inexpensive and plentiful. In addition the US is a nation of independent states and people and what might be the best for California, might not work in Kentucky and vice versa. All of this means that health care delivery in the US and the resulting outcomes of live expectancy and illness recovery rates is complicated and not well understood by simple numbers. It may be just as complicated in the UK, but in different ways because the demographics of the countries are so different. Plus the thing to remember about US healthcare is that it is often excellent if you have it. The problem is not the quality of health care in the US, its having affordable access to it. However, by law in the US, if you are acutely ill or injured you can go to any emergency room and you will be helped and if you never pay the bill not much happens. Most rental agencies don't count medical debt. This means that many poor and working class adults get no preventative health care, but if they become ill they are saved from death. The statistics that show that the US pays more for health care but gets less quality of care don't mean that all of US healthcare is expensive and second rate. It is usually first rate and expensive because the US spends a lot on expensive emergency procedures and life saving care for the unisured which are absorped into higher medical costs across the board. Most Americans, even Democrats are fiercely capitalistic and do not like a one-size fits all approach to medical care, so I don't think single payer health care is realistic for the US. What the US needs to do is find a solution to health care that allows all citizens to receive comprehensive preventative and diagnostic medical care at low costs and also funds regional emergency services, and then allow all citizens to purchase additional benefits through insurance companies. The government also needs to step in and take an active role in reducing the cost of health care and medical services across the board. Some obvious first steps would be increasing the number of doctors and nurses and helping local governments and regional health care facilities provide free & low cost preventative health care services to the uninsured and effective, cost efficient emergency services. I think that is why a lot of American are mad about the recent health care legistlation. Health insurance and health care are available but they are expensive. We don't need the government to provide health care or even health insurance, we want it to lower the cost of health care and health insurance and make it more affordable. Unfortunately, the recent healthcare legistlation increased almost everyones premiums who already had insurance and the insurance provided by the new legistlation is expensive and available to only a few. I do support insuring all citizens as part of the solution, but the health care problem in the US won't be solved until the cost is reduced for everyone while maintaining quality. I believe it is possible, but it will mean lost profits for some groups (although gains for others) and innovative thinking so real reform is probably some time coming.
Removing these videos is definitely a violation of the first amendment and the material would still be available to those seeking it. I do not support the terrorists in any way, but the US or UK government forcing YouTube to remove these videos is the wrong approach. The first amendment has to be a sacred right or we will lose it. It is a slippery slope from banning terrorist videos to banning anti-government videos and then any video the government find inconvenient. There are other ways to address terrorism and murders have happened for 100s of years, with or without these videos. Shame on the Brits for even suggesting it! Governments should not concern themselves with the contents of YouTube or any other site unless a chargeable crime has already been committed.
This supports my opinion about Facebook privacy fears are greatly exaggerated and maybe the people that care the most are the ones trying to sell you something to protect yourself from it. First of all, I don’t care if anyone sees my Facebook information because I don’t post anything that I wouldn’t want the public to see. Even the photos of my daughter are not especially dangerous in a stranger’s hands. With the other accounts, as long as no one sees my credit card or bank info –what does it really matter? Consider that most of your personal information is already available on the Internet through a Google search and in the local phonebook. Also Identity Theft occurs all the time from activities that have nothing to do with computers or the Internet. Last time my credit card was used fraudulently it was because my purse was stolen out of a locked car in a mall parking lot. Guess I better not drive or shop a mall anymore! If you are worried about your children, people that might harm your child are just as likely to be seeing your child in Starbucks as breaking into your photo gallery on Facebook at Starbucks, and it would be a lot easier to steal your child at a Starbucks than to figure out how to find your child after breaking into your Facebook account. Also just because there could be a child predator at your local Starbucks or shopping mall, does that mean that you will never let your children leave the house? I sure hope not. Believe me, I am in IT and I fully support appropriate IT security and due diligence, but I think the concerns about Facebook and Amazon privacy are over done and are almost a created problem where none existed. If you don’t like Facebook or Amazon, don’t use them. I, myself, will keep using them because I enjoy them and I don’t really think other people at Starbucks care about my Facebook activity. I sure don’t care about theirs.
I am not advocating people being poisoned, but I do think it is unfair to judge China, a developing industrial nation, by US safety standards today. The US has had many decades to develop its manufacturing base before these types of concerns even existed. If you think about it, one of the reasons why these types of devices are built in China and not the US is because the US has so many regulations that it is too expensive to manufacture almost anything in the US. While I do think US companies should be pressured to some degree to require their source companies to follow decent safety and labor practices, if we insist that China match the US level of safety, manufacturing will become too expensive there too. Then manufacturing will simply move somewhere else where people are poorer and the Chinese people will be without jobs. Long-term the world should work towards having standard safety regulations world-wide, but there are too many poor people in the world for that to happen anytime soon. In the meanwhile, careful thought needs to put into what type of safety regulations should be expected of China and other developing nations. While China is mostly a dictatorship, the government is not immune to pressure from the US or its own citizens. I do believe that the best way to help China ultimately become a democracy is by increasing its middle class, which mainly happens by having good manufacturing jobs widely available. While it is easy for upper class Americans to complain about the horrors of industrial poisoning, the workers in China probably only appreciate the outcry if the solution also involves them keeping their jobs. It is also worth considering that the companies involved may be trying to protect their workers from these solvents, but individual workers may not be following safety practices and becoming poisoned.
Is Facebook even looking for a buyer? It hasnt even gone IPO yet because they want keep control of their vision. If that is the case, it doesnt make sense to sell it to Apple whatever they are offering.
I think Apple buying Facebook would be a mistake for the users and would ruin the Facebook experience. I like that they are a privately held company and not IPO, and you got to be impresssed by a kid that figured out the entepreneurial game before 20.
I think all these complaints about Facebook's privacy are greatly exaggerated. I mean to begin with, you don't have to post anything at all, and you can restrict your page to your friends. Also the complaints about the targeted ads are over the top. Aren't most users today already great at ignoring ads anyways? I can't remember a single ad on Facebook ever because I never even look at them even though I use the site daily. I think most of the "privacy" concerns are either from people overly concerned about their already non-existent privacy, or news and media agencies worried that Facebook style sites will eclipse their current media & news offering, or people, especially politicians, creating scare stories to frighten other people into thinking there is a problem that must be solved.
Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in developers understanding and implementing proper IT security in general, but seriously how many people have lost "private" information on Facebook that was not already public information on the Internet or in phone books. Perhaps a public "Don't be Stupid on the Internet" campaign is in order these days, but I don't think it is neccessary to attack Facebook with exaggerated accusations. The main reason that is happening is everyone is jealous of its success.
This regulation is very needed. It is extremely easy for this to happen to anyone. This is what happened to me. I bought a wireless Internet card from Verizon and loved it. I used it for 2 years, then I went into the Verizon store to renew my contract and they talked me into buying a new Internet Card. What they didn’t tell me was that the OLD card allowed unlimited data transfers and the NEW card charged a high rate for data transfers over a very low limit. After the first month of using my card, I got a $900 phone bill, all in extra data charges. I talked to Verizon, they gave me a break on that bill, but then it turned out that it was basically impossible to use the new Internet card without racking up hundreds of dollars of extra charges. It was too late to cancel my contract, so I had to pay the $75 monthly fee and NOT use the card for 18 months until I could cancel the card. I have had other problems with overcharges, but that one was the worse. Just last month I found $40 in “premium texting” charges on my bill that were imposed on me for services I never requested and never used, and even though Verizon credited that month and said they had blocked all future “premium texting” charges, I just noticed they are on my bill again. I can’t just drop Verizon because I have 5 other phones with them and all the cell phone companies do this. This is a very clear example of where government regulation to protect consumers is very, very needed. They should also set some clear standards for the cell phone companies for truth in advertising, easy to understand billing, and accurate cost information at the time of purchase.
This is a silly comment. First of all many families have several phones and may have normal phone bills of $300 or more. Second of all, these problems can happen to people with good credit. Finally, many people need their phones for their livelihood and do not have a landline alternative. These people, like myself, are in no position to shut off a phone if the bill is $1000 - they just pay it and that is what the phone company is counting on.
If they include Adobe products in an MSDN subscription it might be a big win for consumers. Also I would be amazed if Acrobat, Photoshop and other products are discontinued. Those are very popular products, many of them the industry standard. I think the MS bashing is too much. MS products are a lot more accessible to the average consumer AND developer than Apple's products and Ubuntu. Plus MS has excellent product documentation and offers express versions of many products for free. They also have great partnering programs for developers with cheap access to full MSDN subscriptions. There are reasons why MS and Adobe are industry leaders. The complaints about bugs and security are exaggerated and unreasonable. This might be bad for Adobe employees and Apple, but for consumers and shareholders it makes sense.
Seems to me IT is the best career option available out there. It certainly has been for me. Maybe it's rough if you are newly graduated or if you don't keep your skills up, but I get recruiting calls every week and my employer has trouble finding people to hire with the right skill set. Personally, I am doing better than ever, but I do spend at least 5-10 hours per week of my own time keeping my IT skills strong. I definitely think it is my responsibility to make sure that happens - not my employers.
I do think employers are using the economy as an excuse to keep wages low, but I really can't blame them. The US is a capitalistic country. Making a profit is actually a primary responsibility of any company and if they don't do that there are no jobs, let alone raises! My company did give out small cost of living raises, but they keep me dedicated to them with family friendly flex hours and telecommuting. At this point, I would need a very large raise to pull me away from my flexible schedule, although I will say that without it I would change employers within 3 months.
To everyone that says their company isnt paying for training, I got mine to let me watch Microsoft Webcasts at the office and they provide all the training I need. MS has a ton of free training material free online so there is really no excuse for not training yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be that the way the government contracts are structured and micromanaged by government agencies is the problem and not the contractor or their programmers? I work for a company that provides government services under contract to the State of California and the government agency that oversees us micromanages us so much that it is often impossible to to develop systems properly. The 4 biggest problems I see are 1)constantly changing requirements that are written by government employees with little or no IT/web knowledge 2) contracts secured by being the lowest bidder which do not allow us to have the resources to properly design or test the system we are building 3) forcing us to work with other contractors including non-profit ones that are "donating" their services (very strange to me really) and that provide inferior IT systems we must use or integrate. 4) Requirements, features and design being dictated by government agencies or advocacy groups with little knoweldge of system design & development. For example, we are currently forced to support an application written by one of these "non-profits" that uses ASP classic and violates every current IT standard. My company has the IT staff & talent to completely rewrite the application but we are not allowed to and must instead support and integrate the badly written one that was donated to the state. It is unclear why this non-profit is allowed to force the agency & us to use their product, but it seems they have political connections that make it so. I believe also that government contracts almost always go to the lowest bidder and not the company with the most expertise. Often a contractor is the lowest bidder because they plan to cut corners and not follow good IT practices, or have not estimated costs correctly. Also as a web developer for a company that works under government contracts, I cannot count the number of times we have received requirements for a website from people that have little or no computer skills, let alone web skills or experience. You would think in this day and age that the government employees providing requirements for government IT systems would have at least basic IT knowledge, but this is often not the case. I am not exaggerating that I have received requirements from people that have no Excel, Word or even email skills and have obviously barely even used the Internet. Many people in the top levels of government management are older (baby boomers) or were promoted for reasons other than great IT skills. They often have no professional experience with developing IT Systems, ADA or other required standards and yet they are the one writing the criteria for the contracts and the system requirements. State agencies also often demand that large amounts of money be spent on "usability studies" or other commitees where a lot of people discuss and dictate what the IT contractor should do in building the new system. The people running these studies often have very poor IT skills themselves and have little experience designing IT systems, but they often have an enormous say in how the system is designed. By the time the IT contractor's development staff is involved in the project, everything is already specified by non-IT government people and between that and the contractor management trying to save every dime (therefore not providing resource for testing), it is not really possible to build a quality system. I say all of this inspite of the fact that the State of California actually has a good Department of Technology Services that provides great ADA compliant web templates. The California State government is so large that even with a good DTS department, the management and staff at specific agencies providing the requirements for a new system may have no knoweldge or interaction with that department and never involve them in creating the contract or project requirements. I think the solution to this is the state should be involving its DTS department in creating all contracts and requirements for new systems projects and ind
It happens everyday to many other people. I know many people forced to take plea bargains for DUIs or traffic accidents to avoid excessive jail time. Why is no one making a big deal about them? The US Justice system is not perfect. It has flaws and people should challenge those flaws to improve it. However, hacking and breaching computer system security is still wrong. The US Government has a real obligation to ensure the security of the nation's computer systems. Swartz could have easily promoted his political opinions another way. Breaking the law was his choice.
That's hard for me to believe since most criminals usually only do part of their sentence. In California, I think it is typical for only 2/3 of the sentence to be actually served. Why would it be different with this case?
If you went back to the restaurant repeatedly and refused to leave, you would be arrested. If you broke in later or stole something, you would go to jail. Swartz was offered only 6 mos jail time in a plea bargain. That is not much different than what you would get if you broke into a restarant and stole from them.
Here's the thing...people cannot be allowed to just do whatever they want simply because they want to do it or think the law or TOS is unfair. We have laws and rules that govern society for a reason and if they are broken eggregiously enough the person should go to jail. It is often a tough call in these situations and that is why we have due process of law and jury trials. If a company or government entity is going to all the expense of providing a public website, they should absolutely be able to set their own TOS as long as it does not conflict with existing laws. Repeated or planned effort to purposely break the TOS should be a crimnal offense. It does not matter how you justify what you did it. To think that it is OK to break a law just because you disagree with it is absurd. There are people who truly believe some other person does not deserve to live - does that give them the right to commit murder without prosecution? The US is a Democracy and there are channels for changing laws one disagrees with and ways of rebelling that are more effective than violating a website's TOS or breaching a computer system's security. There is no excuse for purposely by violating a computer system's security or stealing its data for any reason. I am not sure why there is so much fuss over enforcing website TOS. I seriously doubt minor, accidental violations are being prosecuted at all. From what I read, Adam Swartz purposely violated the TOS for JSTOR to make a political point and when one chooses to do that, one must accept the consequences of ones actions. It does not matter that his cause was valid - he had other means to promote that cause legally and even make meaningful change. If he was a Stanford grad who had joined the Harvard Center for Ethics, he had the access to promote change legally. He was by no means a disenfranchised individual and could have made his point another way. Instead, he arrogantly felt that he was entitled to do as he pleased and then apparently was shocked when the US Government said laws applied to him too. If the evidence showed he was innocent, he would have been acquitted at the jury trial or he could have taken the 6 mos plea bargain and got on with his life. Jail is no fun, but if you choose to promote your political opinion through criminal actions, that's where you land. There are many, many activist for causes much more valid than the right to free academic papers (a dubious right actually) that have received lengthy prison sentences. Legalizing marijuana activists immediately come to mind. If you are going to take on the government with unlawful actions, you need to expect to have problems and do jail time. If you don't want that to happen, find a legal and less confrontational approach. A Democracy does not mean that any one person gets their way all the time, instead it means that decisions are made by the majority with all view points considered. Without laws, anarchy would reign and since the only way for laws to be fair is to apply them uniformly, the US Government must prosecute individuals that violate laws regardless of their reasons. Certainly, there should be a difference between accidentally violating a TOS and purposely doing it and the TOS should not conflict with State & US Law, but there is really no excuse in my mind to ever purposely violate a TOS. It's not your website or your data. If you can't follow the TOS, don't use the site! You can always create an altenative site or write a grilling op ed article and promote your opinion, but if you choose to take matters into your own hands and break the law, you should accept the consequences without blaming others.
I agree. Aaron Swartz's death is a loss, but it was his choice and no one elses. Plus he was highly educated and should have been aware his actions were illegal and would have serious consequences. He was a member of the Harvard University Center for Ethics after all! If he knew his actions were illegal, but still chose to do them, that is also no ones fault but his own and he should have accepted the consequences. It doesn't matter how great a person you are, if you choose to jeapordize the security of a MIT computer system, you should be prosecuted. Hacking to me is not a joke and can have serious consequences for the entire nation and world. If you do not agree with an existing US law, you do not just do what you want and then claim persecution when you are prosecuted for violating the law. Instead, like everyone else even the US President, you must go through the proper political channels to make the change happen in a legal way. Yes it may take a lifetime, but that's life. A member of the Harvard University Center for Ethics should have known that.
I read about this earlier today and after all the sensational accusations against the prosecutors, I looked deeper into the facts. As sad as this death is, it is completely unreasonable to blame the prosecutors for Aaron Swartz’s suicide. I suspect he suffered deeper mental health issues that were the actual cause of his suicide, not the prosecutor’s actions. I do not deny that there is unfairness in the US Justice System and that sometimes innocent people are prosecuted and even wrongly convicted, and there is good reason to try to correct that in general. However, that is not what happened here as the charges had not even been brought to trial. It is impossible for me to say whether the charges against Swartz were valid or not, but regardless, the US Government has an absolute obligation to prevent and prosecute all forms of computer hacking and IT security breaches and his choice to commit suicide was his alone. Aaron Swartz was a Stanford graduate and a member of the Harvard Center for Ethics, and reportedly one of the top computer minds of his age. He was well educated and by no means an innocent, naive youth. He absolutely had to have known that his actions at MIT were a violation of the law. In fact, it is pretty obvious he downloaded the JSTOR to purposely provoke the US Government and make a political point. It was entirely Aaron Swartz’s choice to choose the rebellious path he took. He could have just as easily applied his talents in another direction. To me there is nothing wrong with picking the more rebellious path (I have done it myself at times), but one has to accept the consequences of doing so. You cannot take on the US Government in the area of computer hacking and expect them to look the other way. Computer security is a major problem and a very valid one for the US Government to be concerned about. The entire country could become non-functional with a bad enough computer virus or security breach. In addition, if Swartz chose to be a hacker rebel, then he should have had the courage to fight it out and convince the jury he was innocent or accept that he was not innocent and gone with the plea deal. If you are really an anti-establishment rebel, 6 month of jail time should not be that big a deal and you should be proud to serve it. There are people imprisoned in the US for 30+ years for simply selling or possessing marijuana (which IMHO is a lot less of an actual problem to US security than computer hackers). You don’t take on the US Government and think they won’t make your life hell. Suicide is always the coward’s way out and is no one else’s fault. The prosecutors in this case were only doing their job and as they are also required by law. They are not responsible for Swartz’s actions in anyway. I am sure he has loved ones that are grieving him deeply and his death is a loss to society, but the only one who caused his life to end on January 11, 2013 is himself.
I don't know where you live, but where I live downloading\streaming is quite a viable solution. I imagine DVDs will remain available, but it is hard to see their advantage. Broadband is excellent in many areas and will expand over time. I am not sure if I agree with your comment that NetFlix does not have a fiancial incentive to provide service to many areas and the expansion of streaming hardly requires eliminating DVDs - unless there are a lot of customers like me who don't want them anymore.
I stopped my NetFlix subscription many months ago because why bother with DVDs when there are so many movies already available on OnDemand? Plus DVDs are a pain and easily damaged. They are completely impractical for kids. I doubt DVDs will go completely, but I am more likely to sign up for NetFlix streaming than the DVD service again. I feel like there are way more media choices than I have time to watch and Comcast\OnDemand and the Internet provide that just fine for me. Actually a lot of movies including indie films are released to OnDemand before they are released on DVD or sometimes even the movie theater.
I think is is odd that this poster things Facebook will be going away some time soon. Forever is a long time and I am sure it will change over time, but Facebook is a great service that a lot of people love, including myself. Facebook seems to be getting more and more popular. I really doubt the core Facebook service will be discontinued. If anything there will be competing services, but FB definitely has an advantage because so many people use it and a lot of people only have time for one FB type site. Sometimes FB is overly hyped. I do think it is a little overkill the way every commercial website also has a FB page. However, I enjoy FB every day. I love the way I can easily keep up with my relatives and my friends from different parts of my life. My Facebook news feed is a much more satisfying read than the national news sites. Also I think most of the criticism of Zuckerburg is sour grapes. He is a 26 year old who invented and successfully brought to market a very successful product that a lot of people really use and enjoy. Not too many people can claim that. FB also generated many jobs and changed the way people communicate and connect. Pretty impressive stuff for kid under 30, and so what if it wasnt' 100% his invention or business savy that made FB successful. Business is a team effort. No one succeeds 100% solo. If FB is imperfect, oh well. Don't use it or work with it. FB is not the end all be all, but it is an great service that many people like and expect will continue to use. As for the photo issue, most people who upload photos to FB will have the photos on their local computer. 15 year olds are usually clueless about a lot of things, so it hardly shocking that this girl would not know that. I think is more shocking that her parents are so certain that FB will not last. Exactly what facts support that?
She's 15. Giver her a break. Just because you grow up in the digital era, doesn't mean you understand how the technology you use works. Plus a 15 year old is a freshmen or sophmore is highschool, not exactly the age of all knowing and understanding. Maybe if she was a CS major in college, we could expect her to know that she probably has copies on her local computer and to be up on the latest Facebook updates, but not a 15 year old. Every new child born is a blank slate and they only know what they experience, read or are taught. Younger people are more open to new technologies than older people, but there is no reason to expect a 15 year old youth to understand technology better that a 60 year old woman. In fact I find that young people today take technology for granted and although they are familiar with using it, usually have little understanding of the details of how it works. Computer education in the USA still is very mediocre before the college level. Also I am shocked by these rude comments towards a 15 year old. Arrogant IT people give IT a bad name. IT people are well paid because understanding technology is not easy for most people. A true IT professional knows this.
I am glad the DOJ and CA Attorney General are launching this anti-trust investigation, and I hope MPEG LA is prevented from any further action against the VP8 codec. Without open competition, capitalism does not work. No group should have the right to block alternative technology formats whether they are free & open source or not. We must be vigilant about this as citizens because otherwise monopolies will destroy our democracy and the ability of new companies to compete and innovate. After reading this article, I am going to look into the VP8 codec and see about using it.
Your warning is good advice to those that wish to live their lives in peace without persecution, but sometimes it takes courageous people that do speak out, despite the consequences, to bring freedom and liberty to their people. US citizens are many generations removed from our revolutionary days, but without the courage of our founding fathers and the many other people that have fought racism and oppression throughout US history, the US would be no better off than China. Freedom is not free. It takes courageous people willing to sacrifice their personal lives and fight for freedom and their rights. Certainly political activists should be strategic in their opposition, but to criticize them for speaking freely, which should be an unalienable right, is shortsighted.
This would be funny if this woman wasn't really sentence to a year of 're-education' in a labour camp. Considering it actually happened, it is quite horrific. All I can say is I am so glad I live in the US where we do have real freedom, even if it is not perfect. Certainly, the US does not need any really hostility with China, still we need to do everything we can to stop the Human Rights Abuses in China. The Chinese people have every right to have freedom of speech and real democracy.
I agree with you and I think this is a bad law. We do not need the government regulating every little thing that might be dangerous or harrassing citizens for potential crimes that have not been commited yet. People that actually DO cause accidents while using a cell phone should be held fully accountable and those that use a cell phone while driving and do NOT cause accidents should be left alone. There is plenty of precedence for this in US law, consider the justification against gun laws. The argument goes, guns don't kill people, criminals using guns kill people. Well a cell phone is a lot less dangerous than a gun. A lot more people have died accidentally from guns than accidentally from cell phone. I have no problem agreeing with the statement "cell phones in cars don't cause accidents, bad drivers not paying attention while using a cell phone cause accidents". Cell phones are a great invention. There is no need to demonize them or to make criminals out of people that use them. The US has a lot bigger security issues to solve than this one.
A couple of things to consider about these statistics and the comments that the British live longer. While I support US healthcare reform, in a fair comparison of the US and UK's health system, I think it is important to understand some key differences between the countries. First of all the US population is 6x England and 5x of Britain with the US having many diverse geographic and cultural regions. While the UK does have immigrants, the US has many different immigrant populations some large with a wide variety of health and nutritional backgrounds. Different groups may have had poor nutrition and health care as children or may eat unhealthy diets because of cultural habits or because high calorie food is inexpensive and plentiful. In addition the US is a nation of independent states and people and what might be the best for California, might not work in Kentucky and vice versa. All of this means that health care delivery in the US and the resulting outcomes of live expectancy and illness recovery rates is complicated and not well understood by simple numbers. It may be just as complicated in the UK, but in different ways because the demographics of the countries are so different. Plus the thing to remember about US healthcare is that it is often excellent if you have it. The problem is not the quality of health care in the US, its having affordable access to it. However, by law in the US, if you are acutely ill or injured you can go to any emergency room and you will be helped and if you never pay the bill not much happens. Most rental agencies don't count medical debt. This means that many poor and working class adults get no preventative health care, but if they become ill they are saved from death. The statistics that show that the US pays more for health care but gets less quality of care don't mean that all of US healthcare is expensive and second rate. It is usually first rate and expensive because the US spends a lot on expensive emergency procedures and life saving care for the unisured which are absorped into higher medical costs across the board. Most Americans, even Democrats are fiercely capitalistic and do not like a one-size fits all approach to medical care, so I don't think single payer health care is realistic for the US. What the US needs to do is find a solution to health care that allows all citizens to receive comprehensive preventative and diagnostic medical care at low costs and also funds regional emergency services, and then allow all citizens to purchase additional benefits through insurance companies. The government also needs to step in and take an active role in reducing the cost of health care and medical services across the board. Some obvious first steps would be increasing the number of doctors and nurses and helping local governments and regional health care facilities provide free & low cost preventative health care services to the uninsured and effective, cost efficient emergency services. I think that is why a lot of American are mad about the recent health care legistlation. Health insurance and health care are available but they are expensive. We don't need the government to provide health care or even health insurance, we want it to lower the cost of health care and health insurance and make it more affordable. Unfortunately, the recent healthcare legistlation increased almost everyones premiums who already had insurance and the insurance provided by the new legistlation is expensive and available to only a few. I do support insuring all citizens as part of the solution, but the health care problem in the US won't be solved until the cost is reduced for everyone while maintaining quality. I believe it is possible, but it will mean lost profits for some groups (although gains for others) and innovative thinking so real reform is probably some time coming.
Removing these videos is definitely a violation of the first amendment and the material would still be available to those seeking it. I do not support the terrorists in any way, but the US or UK government forcing YouTube to remove these videos is the wrong approach. The first amendment has to be a sacred right or we will lose it. It is a slippery slope from banning terrorist videos to banning anti-government videos and then any video the government find inconvenient. There are other ways to address terrorism and murders have happened for 100s of years, with or without these videos. Shame on the Brits for even suggesting it! Governments should not concern themselves with the contents of YouTube or any other site unless a chargeable crime has already been committed.
This supports my opinion about Facebook privacy fears are greatly exaggerated and maybe the people that care the most are the ones trying to sell you something to protect yourself from it. First of all, I don’t care if anyone sees my Facebook information because I don’t post anything that I wouldn’t want the public to see. Even the photos of my daughter are not especially dangerous in a stranger’s hands. With the other accounts, as long as no one sees my credit card or bank info –what does it really matter? Consider that most of your personal information is already available on the Internet through a Google search and in the local phonebook. Also Identity Theft occurs all the time from activities that have nothing to do with computers or the Internet. Last time my credit card was used fraudulently it was because my purse was stolen out of a locked car in a mall parking lot. Guess I better not drive or shop a mall anymore! If you are worried about your children, people that might harm your child are just as likely to be seeing your child in Starbucks as breaking into your photo gallery on Facebook at Starbucks, and it would be a lot easier to steal your child at a Starbucks than to figure out how to find your child after breaking into your Facebook account. Also just because there could be a child predator at your local Starbucks or shopping mall, does that mean that you will never let your children leave the house? I sure hope not. Believe me, I am in IT and I fully support appropriate IT security and due diligence, but I think the concerns about Facebook and Amazon privacy are over done and are almost a created problem where none existed. If you don’t like Facebook or Amazon, don’t use them. I, myself, will keep using them because I enjoy them and I don’t really think other people at Starbucks care about my Facebook activity. I sure don’t care about theirs.
I am not advocating people being poisoned, but I do think it is unfair to judge China, a developing industrial nation, by US safety standards today. The US has had many decades to develop its manufacturing base before these types of concerns even existed. If you think about it, one of the reasons why these types of devices are built in China and not the US is because the US has so many regulations that it is too expensive to manufacture almost anything in the US. While I do think US companies should be pressured to some degree to require their source companies to follow decent safety and labor practices, if we insist that China match the US level of safety, manufacturing will become too expensive there too. Then manufacturing will simply move somewhere else where people are poorer and the Chinese people will be without jobs. Long-term the world should work towards having standard safety regulations world-wide, but there are too many poor people in the world for that to happen anytime soon. In the meanwhile, careful thought needs to put into what type of safety regulations should be expected of China and other developing nations. While China is mostly a dictatorship, the government is not immune to pressure from the US or its own citizens. I do believe that the best way to help China ultimately become a democracy is by increasing its middle class, which mainly happens by having good manufacturing jobs widely available. While it is easy for upper class Americans to complain about the horrors of industrial poisoning, the workers in China probably only appreciate the outcry if the solution also involves them keeping their jobs. It is also worth considering that the companies involved may be trying to protect their workers from these solvents, but individual workers may not be following safety practices and becoming poisoned.
Is Facebook even looking for a buyer? It hasnt even gone IPO yet because they want keep control of their vision. If that is the case, it doesnt make sense to sell it to Apple whatever they are offering. I think Apple buying Facebook would be a mistake for the users and would ruin the Facebook experience. I like that they are a privately held company and not IPO, and you got to be impresssed by a kid that figured out the entepreneurial game before 20. I think all these complaints about Facebook's privacy are greatly exaggerated. I mean to begin with, you don't have to post anything at all, and you can restrict your page to your friends. Also the complaints about the targeted ads are over the top. Aren't most users today already great at ignoring ads anyways? I can't remember a single ad on Facebook ever because I never even look at them even though I use the site daily. I think most of the "privacy" concerns are either from people overly concerned about their already non-existent privacy, or news and media agencies worried that Facebook style sites will eclipse their current media & news offering, or people, especially politicians, creating scare stories to frighten other people into thinking there is a problem that must be solved. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in developers understanding and implementing proper IT security in general, but seriously how many people have lost "private" information on Facebook that was not already public information on the Internet or in phone books. Perhaps a public "Don't be Stupid on the Internet" campaign is in order these days, but I don't think it is neccessary to attack Facebook with exaggerated accusations. The main reason that is happening is everyone is jealous of its success.
Seems to be making money for someone...
This regulation is very needed. It is extremely easy for this to happen to anyone. This is what happened to me. I bought a wireless Internet card from Verizon and loved it. I used it for 2 years, then I went into the Verizon store to renew my contract and they talked me into buying a new Internet Card. What they didn’t tell me was that the OLD card allowed unlimited data transfers and the NEW card charged a high rate for data transfers over a very low limit. After the first month of using my card, I got a $900 phone bill, all in extra data charges. I talked to Verizon, they gave me a break on that bill, but then it turned out that it was basically impossible to use the new Internet card without racking up hundreds of dollars of extra charges. It was too late to cancel my contract, so I had to pay the $75 monthly fee and NOT use the card for 18 months until I could cancel the card. I have had other problems with overcharges, but that one was the worse. Just last month I found $40 in “premium texting” charges on my bill that were imposed on me for services I never requested and never used, and even though Verizon credited that month and said they had blocked all future “premium texting” charges, I just noticed they are on my bill again. I can’t just drop Verizon because I have 5 other phones with them and all the cell phone companies do this. This is a very clear example of where government regulation to protect consumers is very, very needed. They should also set some clear standards for the cell phone companies for truth in advertising, easy to understand billing, and accurate cost information at the time of purchase.
This is a silly comment. First of all many families have several phones and may have normal phone bills of $300 or more. Second of all, these problems can happen to people with good credit. Finally, many people need their phones for their livelihood and do not have a landline alternative. These people, like myself, are in no position to shut off a phone if the bill is $1000 - they just pay it and that is what the phone company is counting on.
If they include Adobe products in an MSDN subscription it might be a big win for consumers. Also I would be amazed if Acrobat, Photoshop and other products are discontinued. Those are very popular products, many of them the industry standard. I think the MS bashing is too much. MS products are a lot more accessible to the average consumer AND developer than Apple's products and Ubuntu. Plus MS has excellent product documentation and offers express versions of many products for free. They also have great partnering programs for developers with cheap access to full MSDN subscriptions. There are reasons why MS and Adobe are industry leaders. The complaints about bugs and security are exaggerated and unreasonable. This might be bad for Adobe employees and Apple, but for consumers and shareholders it makes sense.
Seems to me IT is the best career option available out there. It certainly has been for me. Maybe it's rough if you are newly graduated or if you don't keep your skills up, but I get recruiting calls every week and my employer has trouble finding people to hire with the right skill set. Personally, I am doing better than ever, but I do spend at least 5-10 hours per week of my own time keeping my IT skills strong. I definitely think it is my responsibility to make sure that happens - not my employers. I do think employers are using the economy as an excuse to keep wages low, but I really can't blame them. The US is a capitalistic country. Making a profit is actually a primary responsibility of any company and if they don't do that there are no jobs, let alone raises! My company did give out small cost of living raises, but they keep me dedicated to them with family friendly flex hours and telecommuting. At this point, I would need a very large raise to pull me away from my flexible schedule, although I will say that without it I would change employers within 3 months. To everyone that says their company isnt paying for training, I got mine to let me watch Microsoft Webcasts at the office and they provide all the training I need. MS has a ton of free training material free online so there is really no excuse for not training yourself.