They probably missed the early bird discount, though.
My favorite quote: "The cost of software failures is high -- and in today's increasingly litigious and regulated business environment, they're higher than ever. Security flaws, usability problems, functional defects, performance issues, all carry a tremendous price tag."
This is a match made in heaven.
P.S.
Non-
Function: prefix
2 : of little or no consequence : unimportant : worthless <nonissues> <nonsystem>
"non-critical" is an interesting usage in this context. It's probably just an understatement oversight. I bet what they really meant is "non-critical-system" or non-critical system, or maybe "non-critical System". In any case, it seems.... off. No pun intended.
1. My point was well on topic with the comment to which I replied.
2. In the second place, I find it impossible to believe that, on the scale this is being prosecuted across the country, in all of the courts, with all of the "victims", and all of the judges, and all of the suits, and all of the press, that the "law says quite the opposite". If it's so clear that the law says the opposite, I find it utterly impossible to believe that the *AA could pursue these cases as they have been - SOMEone SOMEwhere would have shut this down by now. It's not like we're talking about a few isolated incidents in a rural area of Nowhere, Montana last week - this has been going on all across the nation in small towns and big cities, with defendents both rich and poor, for several years. No sir, I don't believe what you say about the law being opposite - generally speaking. Perhaps you're correct about some of the tacticts, but the general premise can't be illegal. If it is, we're worse off than I ever gave us credit for.
Don't get me wrong - I despise the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone. I can't wait until they wither and fold. But, it seems the law doesn't say they can't do what they're doing. There is a lot of legislation, or lack thereof, in our great country that have this same ill effect.
You're absolutely right. He was accused - innocent until proven guilty.
On the other hand, "violent criminal" fits since he *shot her in the face with the intent to kill her*, which isn't altogether a "sane" or "rational" reaction for an innocent person.
On the other hand, rhetorically speaking of course, of all the innocent people, who should be held in an over-crowded detention center vs. sent home - innocent "accused rapist" or innocent "accused pot head"?
I agree with your assertion that accusations of rape are sometimes unfounded and unfair - Duke comes to mind - but when it comes down to brass tacks, I'd rather see the non-violent, and/or non-personal crime perpetrators go free when a decision like that has to be made. Of course, if petty crimes like marijuana possession weren't pursued as vigorously as rape and attempted murder one could argue that the detention center wouldn't have been full in the first place.
I'm not now, nor have I ever been a drug user... well, alcohol.... lots of alcohol.... caffeine too...., but I think the war on drugs, among other things, is a terrible tragic disaster for our country and economy.
How long will it be, before Judges and courtrooms are sick of these petty charges, and start only allowing the larger criminals who actually sell and distribute?
It doesn't matter how sick the judges and courtrooms get. As long as the law says what it says, they can do what they do.
In my opinion, which doesn't count except on ballot day, the whole criminal justice system is screwed up - largely due to fatuous and incongruous drug laws. There are a number of states that don't agree with the federal government on Marijuana laws or penalties to the point of contention over federal funds.
Take for example the case in Cleveland a few weeks ago: A girl accused her ex-boyfriend of rape. He's arrested, but the juvenile detention center was full, so he was placed under house arrest with a monitor. Instead of being in the detention center where he should have been, he was at home. He took a shotgun, left home, found his accuser, and shot her in the face. http://www.newsnet5.com/news/11183624/detail.html
Undoubtedly, there were kids in that detention center on drug related, and non-violent offences. But, the violent criminal gets sent home to attempt murder.
I'm not an actuary but I'd bet that this type of thing happens all across the country on a regular basis. The system is broken when this type of thing can happen.
Interestingly, two nights ago on the History channel there was a show about the history of recreational pharmaceuticals. (In fact, there are two volumes in the series: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id= 70805 that said something to the effect of (paraphrasing from memory here) "if the politicians who passed the Harris act had any idea what the world looks like today, it would never have been passed." The history of Cocaine is fascinating, and how it came to be illegal. I recommend the History Channel videos if you haven't seen them.
In any case, Newton once contended that a change in the gravitional field in one region of the Universe would be felt instantaneously in every other part of the Universe. It's similar to how the "war on drugs" has that type of effect on every other part of society.
So, how does this relate to the *AA? It doesn't directly. It's more of an analogy to how absurd laws and differing opinions, even by high-level government officials, still results in the same apathy and ineffectual legislation, and inaction on the part of our elected representatives.
You're exactly the type of person I was referring to with the subject line.
Let's try to put it in perspective. It's politics - literally and metaphorically. They're not Enron. No one died. No one was bilked out of their pensions or retirements. They didn't pilfer the company dry. The company isn't on the verge of bankruptcy. No one lost their job - except O'Dell who deserved to. The only damage done was to their reputation.
You're just a miserable conspiracy theorist who can't possibly conceive that the company didn't do anything illegal - they MUST be evil in your eyes. Nevermind that, with regard to the elections systems, the company hasn't been found guilty of anything illegal. In fact, the only thing they have been guilty of is buying and marketing a crappy product.
But you're too busy taking personal swipes at/.'ers to take off your tinfoil hat and see the reality for what it is. Bungling CEO makes bad PR/marketing decisions. Personal politics aside, that's the crux of it. Accusations may fly but no one has yet to drag them into court and try the company for "stealing the election." Unfortunately for the zealots, it just didn't happen.
Let me clarify where I stand: the employed family isn't by blood, it's by marriage. It's my wife's cousin - the one we see at weddings and funerals, and occasionally at the grocery store. We don't "hang out" and I could care less if the company went bankrupt and she lost her job. We're not that close.
My point really is that EVERY time SOMEone does ANYthing wrong, no matter how big or small, there is a lynch mob on slashdot waiting to hang the "guilty" parties, whether they have their facts straight or not.
"Oh, Diebold's ATM's must sux0r because their voting machines have Trojans and we l337 hax0rs rigged the elections! Oh, look out! Diebold is Satan incarnate and is going to nuke the childrens in Botswana!" Regardless of the fact that Diebold didn't even make the machines, hasn't been tried (except by the court of public opinion) of stealing the elections, and does a gazillion other good things.
You people must not have any friends. What happens if one of your friends does something you don't like? Do you shun him, blog about how evil and satanic he is, then take the high moral ground, no matter what it was? The world is completely black and white to you. Unfortunately that's not reality, there are colors and shades of gray and we all have to live with it no matter how you choose to perceive it.
For the record, I despise the elections systems. I think they're an abomination. I had to use them in the last two elections and I went on a verbal tirade to my entire extended family for months about how insecure they are. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000; I did in 2004; there are a hundred things that irritate the bajeezuz out of me every day; but I accept that not everything that bothers me is pure unadulterated evil that must be eradicated. It's just not that simple.
Let's hang all Germans because of the Nazis. Let's imprison all American's because of a bad President. Let's imprison all Russians because of Stalin. And while we're at it let's get the Cambodians for Pol Pot.
Why stop there, let's imprison anyone who worked for Enron because Kenneth Lay was a bad guy! He couldn't have made the mistakes he made if his underlings didn't work hard to support him! If Ken Lay was bad, they must all be bad!
"Diebold Election Systems is currently run by Bob Urosevich [1] who has worked in the election systems industry since 1976. In 1979, Mr. Urosevich founded American Information Systems. He served as the President of AIS now known as Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) from 1979 through 1992. Bob's brother, Todd Urosevich, is Vice President, Aftermarket Sales with ES&S, DES's chief competitor. In 1995, Bob Urosevich started I-Mark Systems, whose product was a touch screen voting system utilizing a smart card and biometric encryption authorization technology. Global Election Systems, Inc. (GES) acquired I-Mark in 1997, and on July 31, 2000 Mr. Urosevich was promoted from Vice President of Sales and Marketing and New Business Development to President and Chief Operating Officer. On January 22, 2002, Diebold announced the acquisition of GES, then a manufacturer and supplier of electronic voting terminals and solutions. The total purchase price, in stock and cash, was $24.7 million. Global Election Systems subsequently changed its name to Diebold Election Systems, Inc."
Diebold is actually well-respected and admired in this area. Diebold election systems are based in Texas whereas the financial systems are here in NE Ohio. I interviewed there for an SE position a couple of years ago, toured their ATM lab, and spent some quality time with some of their software engineers. They seemed to have a very competent operation and I enjoyed the interview. (I ended up taking a different job with another large international corp for other $elfi$h reason$ (I have a family to feed)) I heard the same moaning from the employees I met that I hear from family members who work there - something similar to "those stupid voting machines make us look bad." I have yet to meet an employee, management or otherwise, who has anything good to say about the elections systems division.
Wally O'Dell is largely (if not solely) responsible for the elections systems debacle. It's no secret that he lead the company right into this political mess at the expense of the company's and his own reputations.
Don't torpedo the whole company just because the former CEO bungled a bad deal with a flawed political agenda. It'll eventually work out in the wash, then you can cast aspersions on a new company TBA.
I'm a software engineer. I recently made my own stand up desk for work in my woodshop at home (then expensed the desk of course). I don't think it's healthy to stand for 8-10 hours straight every day either - at least that's what I've read - so I also have a drafting stool in case I want/need to sit.
I'm definitely more alert and not so sluggish during the day, especially after lunch. The first couple of weeks after I transitioned from sitting to standing I realized how many muscles there are in my back and legs. Actually, the first few days were brutal since I didn't get my stool until about 3 weeks after transitioning. I'm not grossly out of shape or anything and I work out as often as I can, but I had no idea how many muscles it takes to actually stand up for long periods like that. Of course I'm acclimated now so it's no big deal. If you can get over those first few days without giving up then it's great.
The biggest beneift that I've noticed is that my neck and back don't hurt anymore. I've been sitting in front of a desk for 7+ years and the main reason I started thinking about a stand-up desk (aside from the other 6 people here that have them now) was the aches and pains I had from poor posture. I had a comfy oversize leather office chair and I got lazy and had terrible posture. I would slouch during the day, rest my head on the back of the chair and work, etc. To make matters worse, I had to keep the chair rather low to get the arms to fit under my desk that was already elevated on blocks. I'm tall, about 6-4 so all of that added up to bad posture and pain.
After moving to the stand-up desk, I haven't had any shoulder, neck, or back pain - none. The key to that I think is that I took custom measurements of myself. Since I made my own desk I was able to custom make it to fit me. I took measurements so that I would be in a natural, comfortable position when I was typing and working. The downside to that is that the drafting stool is ever so slightly short when I do try to sit and work, but it's not for long periods so it doesn't bother me. People ask me if I find it hard to code or type for long periods while standing. I haven't had any trouble, but again I custom fit my desk to me.
Overall, I feel much better physically and I'm not as tired and sluggish as I used to be throughout the day and even at home. For me it works - I definitely notice healthful benefits. I don't think I'd ever go back to a sit-down desk for work.
The best advice I can give to someone moving to a stand-up desk is this: Wear comfy shoes, get an anti-fatigue mat, and have the desk custom fit if at all possible. If you can make your own then do it.
What are you talking about. A DUI law prevents behaviour. So too does prohibiting posting information to a web site. It doesn't prevent them from using computers, the internet, downloading, uploading, email, etc. It's the equivalent of banning bicycles from using freeways - it's a physical prohibition that doesn't prevent someone from riding the bicycle altogether, but it does prohibit them from using one specific medium.
You can throw up these obtuse arguments all you want but it doesn't change the fact that these students are STILL under contract to the university. In Ohio, employment is "at will" which means my employer can tell me to go home and never come back with absolutely no reason or forewarning. The same applies to student athletes. If they don't want to abide by the rules and guidelines then they lose the scholarship.
Colleges don't exist so students can party and act out. Colleges are for obtaining an education. Education is for the most part job training. There are rules at school; there are rules at work. Whether you want to argue some obscure, irrelevant, and idealistic semantics is moot. Rules are rules.
Speed limits are "astonishingly ineffective" too but does that mean we should just get rid of them?
For that matter most laws are broken. People still drink and drive, murder, rape, speed, run red lights, etc. Does that mean that the laws are ineffective and we should just get rid of them?
You're saying that because they can't stop it they should just give up - Throw their hands in the air and stop trying altogether. Maybe Kent should just shred the student handbook. Heck, take the locks off of the dorms and fire campus security - they're ineffective because they don't stop every crime every time!
Yeah, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to tell their student athletes not to post incriminating information than to simply ban them from using a communication forum?
Yes, it would. There's probably a better way. On the other hand, the alternative is to police the site on a regular basis to ensure compliance, which in this case may be an unreasonable expectation of the university.
I'm NOT saying that Duke's lacrosse team incident happened (personally, I think they're innocent) because of lack of oversight. I used it to illustrate my point that bad things do occasionally happen. My point, which I didn't articulate very well, is a scenario such as a student athlete posting photos of themself wearing a Kent State athletics uniform and holding a Nazi flag then it's totally out of line. I think that since they're under scholarship that they've got an obligation to the university that goes beyond just playing their sport.
I think everyone is responsible and wholly accountable for his or her actions whether on or off campus. It doesn't change after college on the job - it only gets more restrictive. I'm a huge supporter of free speech but I don't think it gives people the right to be irresponsible and immature simply because they're students, athletes, or both.
That's totally irrelevant. By your logic government employees should be allowed to do anything they please just because their salaries are paid by taxpayers. That's absurd.
I went to Kent read, Kent write, Kent State - lived in a dorm and all that. Not many rules, really.
I think it's important to note that this applies to _student athletes_. This isn't a first amendment issue. I don't see anything at all wrong with SA's having to abide by a different set of rules for situations like this. They're getting _scholarships_ from the school AND they're representing the school and its image to the NCAA, other institutions, etc. As far as their being ambassadors for the school, I don't see the distinction between student athletes, coaches, professors, etc. They're all receiving some sort of compensation from the school in return for some tangible service. The school has its reputation and image to uphold and it would be irresponsible for them to anything other than what they've done. If something bad _did_ happen or some student athlete on scholarship caused an incident that could have otherwise been prevented, then you would all be quick to blame the school.
Good for them for making the rule in the first place.
This isn't news. It would be news if Kent forbade _all_ students from using facebook.
We're sorry, FbiAgent@yahoo.com is already taken. May we suggest the following: FbiAgent007@yahoo.com MyFbiAgent@yahoo.com MyFbiAgent27@yahoo.com eFbiAgent27@yahoo.com
I live just minutes from Diebold's world headquarters in North Canton, OH. They have offices all over this area and employ about 2000 people in the Canton/North Canton area - not bad for a smallish area.
Diebold has been in existence for nearly 150 years. They started out making safes, vaults, etc. Then back in the 1960's Diebold began making Automated Teller Machines. For almost 150 years Diebold has been a solid company with a decent repuation. They've always been well respected in this area.
Then they decide to acquire a company that makes voting machines.
At the time, Wally O'Dell, then CEO, was a loud-mouth, speak-before-you-think Republican who dabbled way too much in politics. He contributed $2000 to George W. Bush's reelection campaign (Diebold has since forbade any executives from making political contributions thanks to Wally). He pretty much made Diebold a target that everyone likes to shoot at.
Now here's the fascinating part: According to the FY 2004 Annual report, Diebold Election Systems, a division of Diebold North America, contributed less than 4% to the company's annual earnings.
3.7% of their total business is causing them immeasurable grief.
Now, that's fascinating.
There was an article in our local newspaper last Sunday about Tom Swidarski, the new CEO, and Diebold in general. Of course, the paper asked him about the election systems fiasco and O'Dell's political contributions. Swidarski said "The issue of politics... is very different than the other businesses we're in, and so I have to determine if we can handle that aspect of it."
Diebold makes some fine ATM and security equipment. They do an impressive business with their services. A former CEO with strong political ties made the decision to acquire an Election Systems manufacturer. What a bad move.
I wouldn't be too suprised if Diebold divests and/or sells off the ES company altogether. It'd be a smart move.
Sure, why not? But, it depends on what you want to accomplish.
If you want to write a windows app, a script, do some office automation, connect to a database and shuffle data around, create a Web site, or do other practical business-oriented tasks, then absolutely.
If you want to write an operating system, then you'll want to look elsewhere.
First, I would ask "What do you expect to accomplish and what do you ultimately want to achieve?"
What I've learned over the years - especially from reading/. - is that people are fanatical about their language of choice. Many times to a fault.
When I was in the military, the old timers were so proud of the way things were when they went through basic training/airborne/ranger/sniper school and how difficult it was "back then". They used to wax poetic and tell tribal stories of when they were at NTC, the drill sergeant that used to dump bunks, or the 100-mile road marches. "Things are so easy nowadays" they'd say.
As a rule, people are very proud of their accomplishments (rightly so, I would think). Generally, people are both proud and nostalgic about their conquests, overcoming adversity, and place high value on extraordinary achievments.
You'll read many posts here admonishing VB while extolling languages like C or C++ for what they "teach" that VB doesn't. The real trick is interpreting the value of those statements. Are they saying it's better because it's harder? Or are they saying it's better for pragmatic reasons?
The world changes. Technology changes. Most things evolve and grow and change. Programming languages change, and it's a good thing too I should think. Could you imagine what the Web or economy would look like today if all we had was BCPL or x86 assembler? The fact that a language hides or automates certain implementaion details such as GUI layout should not necessarily be viewed as a detriment or deterrent. On the contrary, any language that can save time while still accomplishing the task or solving the problem is quite effective. Visual Basic, is relatively easy to learn, can solve many problems and many different types of problems, and dramatically reduces the time it takes to implement a solution. Due to that fact it has, directly or indirectly, facilitated a lot of economic growth by enabling companies to effectively solve problems, create software solutions, implement change, and reduce time-to-market. The fact that it's not a "difficult" language is what makes it so attractive to businesses. Difficult != Good (Difficult Good).
Personally, I don't particularly *like* to code Visual Basic. While I've solved many problems with it, I wouldn't choose it over C# or Java. That's just me. I'm used to curly brace languages, so that's my general preference. Having said that, I would evaluate the problem I'm trying to solve before I choose. I might very well choose VB over C++ if the solution warrants it. However, I don't think my personal preferences or opinions mean much to the next person choosing a language.
My advice is, choose Visual Basic if you really want to. Ignore the posts that tell you it's a "toy" language and remember the millions of VB programmers and tens of thousands of companies that have chosen it. I've seen some rather amazing things done in VB by my friends and colleagues - I would say it's far from being a toy. VB didn't become so popular because it's hard to use and doesn't do much. VB.NET is a fully object-oriented language. That puts it in the same terms as C#, C++, Java, Smalltalk, Ruby, Python, et al. It's not cross-platform, so you can't develop for Linux or OS X, but there may be enough challenges just learning an object-oriented language without learning the nuances of each platform at the same time.
existence of some type of policy -- regardless of what that policy actually is -- is now enough for companies to eschew any liability for leaking consumers' data.
That's a ridiculous statement. I'm an applications manager and the company(ies) I work for are in the HR/accounting/BPO industries. I manage a team of software developers, designers, graphic artists, etc. to create BPO software. Our software processes, and we are custodians of, a lot of sensitive personal information. Nearly everything we make, implement, buy, or use affects the security of the data and applications. I spend a substantial amount of time discussing security and IP issues with our inhouse counsel. The one question he *always* asks with regard to security is "What would be reasonable for us to do to protect the data? In other words, what would a company be required to do, within reason, to protect the data that we are housing?" There is no "correct" answer to that as it's highly subjective. What he always stresses to us is "Would I be able to convince a judge or a jury that the precautions we took were inline with accepted practices, and were they reasonable enough to protect the data?". In most cases, he relies on our (my) judgement to determine whether it's enough or too little. Security is such a subjective topic - there is such thing as too much when people who need to can't access information, and of course there is such thing as not enough.
The real issues arises when determining what is reasonable. What's reasonable to a person whose HIPAA information is being stored might be absurd. Likewise, "reasonable" to a company might equate to "whatever we can afford" which may be far too little. It becomes a balancing act to reconcile the concerns of both sides to take what measures would be considered "reasonable" to protect the information in question. What's reasonble to protect a list of credit card numbers is far different than what's reasonable to protect a list of song titles. It's highly subjective and open to interpretation. The minute someone tries to legislate it and define "reasonable" is the minute someone else will find loopholes and ways around it. But to say "regardless of what that policy actually is" is just plain absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
It begs the question why Kusinich is picking on Dick only?
He said in a press conference the other day that he chose Cheney first because if congress impeached Bush first then Cheney would become President.
Wow, just in time for STP Con!
http://www.stpcon.com/
They probably missed the early bird discount, though.
My favorite quote: "The cost of software failures is high -- and in today's increasingly litigious and regulated business environment, they're higher than ever. Security flaws, usability problems, functional defects, performance issues, all carry a tremendous price tag."
This is a match made in heaven.
P.S.
Non-
Function: prefix
2 : of little or no consequence : unimportant : worthless <nonissues> <nonsystem>
"non-critical" is an interesting usage in this context. It's probably just an understatement oversight. I bet what they really meant is "non-critical-system" or non-critical system, or maybe "non-critical System". In any case, it seems.... off. No pun intended.
the <nonsystem> seems appropriate. *shrug*
And the comic irony here is that you have posted not one, not two, but three off-topic posts yourself to tell the rest of us that we're off-topic.
Amusing.
I respectfully disagree with both points.
1. My point was well on topic with the comment to which I replied.
2. In the second place, I find it impossible to believe that, on the scale this is being prosecuted across the country, in all of the courts, with all of the "victims", and all of the judges, and all of the suits, and all of the press, that the "law says quite the opposite". If it's so clear that the law says the opposite, I find it utterly impossible to believe that the *AA could pursue these cases as they have been - SOMEone SOMEwhere would have shut this down by now. It's not like we're talking about a few isolated incidents in a rural area of Nowhere, Montana last week - this has been going on all across the nation in small towns and big cities, with defendents both rich and poor, for several years. No sir, I don't believe what you say about the law being opposite - generally speaking. Perhaps you're correct about some of the tacticts, but the general premise can't be illegal. If it is, we're worse off than I ever gave us credit for.
Don't get me wrong - I despise the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone. I can't wait until they wither and fold. But, it seems the law doesn't say they can't do what they're doing. There is a lot of legislation, or lack thereof, in our great country that have this same ill effect.
You're absolutely right. He was accused - innocent until proven guilty.
On the other hand, "violent criminal" fits since he *shot her in the face with the intent to kill her*, which isn't altogether a "sane" or "rational" reaction for an innocent person.
On the other hand, rhetorically speaking of course, of all the innocent people, who should be held in an over-crowded detention center vs. sent home - innocent "accused rapist" or innocent "accused pot head"?
I agree with your assertion that accusations of rape are sometimes unfounded and unfair - Duke comes to mind - but when it comes down to brass tacks, I'd rather see the non-violent, and/or non-personal crime perpetrators go free when a decision like that has to be made. Of course, if petty crimes like marijuana possession weren't pursued as vigorously as rape and attempted murder one could argue that the detention center wouldn't have been full in the first place.
I'm not now, nor have I ever been a drug user... well, alcohol.... lots of alcohol.... caffeine too...., but I think the war on drugs, among other things, is a terrible tragic disaster for our country and economy.
How long will it be, before Judges and courtrooms are sick of these petty charges, and start only allowing the larger criminals who actually sell and distribute?
= 70805 that said something to the effect of (paraphrasing from memory here) "if the politicians who passed the Harris act had any idea what the world looks like today, it would never have been passed." The history of Cocaine is fascinating, and how it came to be illegal. I recommend the History Channel videos if you haven't seen them.
It doesn't matter how sick the judges and courtrooms get. As long as the law says what it says, they can do what they do.
In my opinion, which doesn't count except on ballot day, the whole criminal justice system is screwed up - largely due to fatuous and incongruous drug laws. There are a number of states that don't agree with the federal government on Marijuana laws or penalties to the point of contention over federal funds.
Take for example the case in Cleveland a few weeks ago: A girl accused her ex-boyfriend of rape. He's arrested, but the juvenile detention center was full, so he was placed under house arrest with a monitor. Instead of being in the detention center where he should have been, he was at home. He took a shotgun, left home, found his accuser, and shot her in the face.
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/11183624/detail.html
Full story line here: http://www.newsnet5.com/news/12188918/detail.html
Undoubtedly, there were kids in that detention center on drug related, and non-violent offences. But, the violent criminal gets sent home to attempt murder.
I'm not an actuary but I'd bet that this type of thing happens all across the country on a regular basis. The system is broken when this type of thing can happen.
Interestingly, two nights ago on the History channel there was a show about the history of recreational pharmaceuticals. (In fact, there are two volumes in the series: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id
In any case, Newton once contended that a change in the gravitional field in one region of the Universe would be felt instantaneously in every other part of the Universe. It's similar to how the "war on drugs" has that type of effect on every other part of society.
So, how does this relate to the *AA? It doesn't directly. It's more of an analogy to how absurd laws and differing opinions, even by high-level government officials, still results in the same apathy and ineffectual legislation, and inaction on the part of our elected representatives.
No wonder it didn't win an oscar. It was nominated in the wrong category. It may have won for Best Documentary.
...violating, the rules, of grammar;
That wasn't the point.
/.'ers to take off your tinfoil hat and see the reality for what it is. Bungling CEO makes bad PR/marketing decisions. Personal politics aside, that's the crux of it. Accusations may fly but no one has yet to drag them into court and try the company for "stealing the election." Unfortunately for the zealots, it just didn't happen.
You're exactly the type of person I was referring to with the subject line.
Let's try to put it in perspective. It's politics - literally and metaphorically. They're not Enron. No one died. No one was bilked out of their pensions or retirements. They didn't pilfer the company dry. The company isn't on the verge of bankruptcy. No one lost their job - except O'Dell who deserved to. The only damage done was to their reputation.
You're just a miserable conspiracy theorist who can't possibly conceive that the company didn't do anything illegal - they MUST be evil in your eyes. Nevermind that, with regard to the elections systems, the company hasn't been found guilty of anything illegal. In fact, the only thing they have been guilty of is buying and marketing a crappy product.
But you're too busy taking personal swipes at
Let me clarify where I stand: the employed family isn't by blood, it's by marriage. It's my wife's cousin - the one we see at weddings and funerals, and occasionally at the grocery store. We don't "hang out" and I could care less if the company went bankrupt and she lost her job. We're not that close.
My point really is that EVERY time SOMEone does ANYthing wrong, no matter how big or small, there is a lynch mob on slashdot waiting to hang the "guilty" parties, whether they have their facts straight or not.
"Oh, Diebold's ATM's must sux0r because their voting machines have Trojans and we l337 hax0rs rigged the elections! Oh, look out! Diebold is Satan incarnate and is going to nuke the childrens in Botswana!" Regardless of the fact that Diebold didn't even make the machines, hasn't been tried (except by the court of public opinion) of stealing the elections, and does a gazillion other good things.
You people must not have any friends. What happens if one of your friends does something you don't like? Do you shun him, blog about how evil and satanic he is, then take the high moral ground, no matter what it was? The world is completely black and white to you. Unfortunately that's not reality, there are colors and shades of gray and we all have to live with it no matter how you choose to perceive it.
For the record, I despise the elections systems. I think they're an abomination. I had to use them in the last two elections and I went on a verbal tirade to my entire extended family for months about how insecure they are. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000; I did in 2004; there are a hundred things that irritate the bajeezuz out of me every day; but I accept that not everything that bothers me is pure unadulterated evil that must be eradicated. It's just not that simple.
Good point.
Let's hang all Germans because of the Nazis.
Let's imprison all American's because of a bad President.
Let's imprison all Russians because of Stalin.
And while we're at it let's get the Cambodians for Pol Pot.
Why stop there, let's imprison anyone who worked for Enron because Kenneth Lay was a bad guy! He couldn't have made the mistakes he made if his underlings didn't work hard to support him! If Ken Lay was bad, they must all be bad!
Your logic is flawed.
[Disclaimer, I live and work down the road from the Diebold corp offices and have family that work there.]
/. crowd, but try getting the facts straight before throttling the company and writing it off as a total incompetent.
t ems
I know it's asking a lot from the
Diebold didn't make the voting machines, it purchased the company that did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold_Election_Sys
For those too lazy to click the link:
"Diebold Election Systems is currently run by Bob Urosevich [1] who has worked in the election systems industry since 1976. In 1979, Mr. Urosevich founded American Information Systems. He served as the President of AIS now known as Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) from 1979 through 1992. Bob's brother, Todd Urosevich, is Vice President, Aftermarket Sales with ES&S, DES's chief competitor. In 1995, Bob Urosevich started I-Mark Systems, whose product was a touch screen voting system utilizing a smart card and biometric encryption authorization technology. Global Election Systems, Inc. (GES) acquired I-Mark in 1997, and on July 31, 2000 Mr. Urosevich was promoted from Vice President of Sales and Marketing and New Business Development to President and Chief Operating Officer. On January 22, 2002, Diebold announced the acquisition of GES, then a manufacturer and supplier of electronic voting terminals and solutions. The total purchase price, in stock and cash, was $24.7 million. Global Election Systems subsequently changed its name to Diebold Election Systems, Inc."
Diebold is actually well-respected and admired in this area. Diebold election systems are based in Texas whereas the financial systems are here in NE Ohio. I interviewed there for an SE position a couple of years ago, toured their ATM lab, and spent some quality time with some of their software engineers. They seemed to have a very competent operation and I enjoyed the interview. (I ended up taking a different job with another large international corp for other $elfi$h reason$ (I have a family to feed)) I heard the same moaning from the employees I met that I hear from family members who work there - something similar to "those stupid voting machines make us look bad." I have yet to meet an employee, management or otherwise, who has anything good to say about the elections systems division.
Wally O'Dell is largely (if not solely) responsible for the elections systems debacle. It's no secret that he lead the company right into this political mess at the expense of the company's and his own reputations.
Don't torpedo the whole company just because the former CEO bungled a bad deal with a flawed political agenda. It'll eventually work out in the wash, then you can cast aspersions on a new company TBA.
fondling a Fraggle.
comes every 100 years. Our (great^n) grandparents survived it. Time to move on.
I had to do a double take on that one. At first glance I thought it said "onion"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33838
I'm a software engineer. I recently made my own stand up desk for work in my woodshop at home (then expensed the desk of course). I don't think it's healthy to stand for 8-10 hours straight every day either - at least that's what I've read - so I also have a drafting stool in case I want/need to sit.
I'm definitely more alert and not so sluggish during the day, especially after lunch. The first couple of weeks after I transitioned from sitting to standing I realized how many muscles there are in my back and legs. Actually, the first few days were brutal since I didn't get my stool until about 3 weeks after transitioning. I'm not grossly out of shape or anything and I work out as often as I can, but I had no idea how many muscles it takes to actually stand up for long periods like that. Of course I'm acclimated now so it's no big deal. If you can get over those first few days without giving up then it's great.
The biggest beneift that I've noticed is that my neck and back don't hurt anymore. I've been sitting in front of a desk for 7+ years and the main reason I started thinking about a stand-up desk (aside from the other 6 people here that have them now) was the aches and pains I had from poor posture. I had a comfy oversize leather office chair and I got lazy and had terrible posture. I would slouch during the day, rest my head on the back of the chair and work, etc. To make matters worse, I had to keep the chair rather low to get the arms to fit under my desk that was already elevated on blocks. I'm tall, about 6-4 so all of that added up to bad posture and pain.
After moving to the stand-up desk, I haven't had any shoulder, neck, or back pain - none. The key to that I think is that I took custom measurements of myself. Since I made my own desk I was able to custom make it to fit me. I took measurements so that I would be in a natural, comfortable position when I was typing and working. The downside to that is that the drafting stool is ever so slightly short when I do try to sit and work, but it's not for long periods so it doesn't bother me. People ask me if I find it hard to code or type for long periods while standing. I haven't had any trouble, but again I custom fit my desk to me.
Overall, I feel much better physically and I'm not as tired and sluggish as I used to be throughout the day and even at home. For me it works - I definitely notice healthful benefits. I don't think I'd ever go back to a sit-down desk for work.
The best advice I can give to someone moving to a stand-up desk is this: Wear comfy shoes, get an anti-fatigue mat, and have the desk custom fit if at all possible. If you can make your own then do it.
hyperbolic strawmen?
What are you talking about. A DUI law prevents behaviour. So too does prohibiting posting information to a web site. It doesn't prevent them from using computers, the internet, downloading, uploading, email, etc. It's the equivalent of banning bicycles from using freeways - it's a physical prohibition that doesn't prevent someone from riding the bicycle altogether, but it does prohibit them from using one specific medium.
You can throw up these obtuse arguments all you want but it doesn't change the fact that these students are STILL under contract to the university. In Ohio, employment is "at will" which means my employer can tell me to go home and never come back with absolutely no reason or forewarning. The same applies to student athletes. If they don't want to abide by the rules and guidelines then they lose the scholarship.
Colleges don't exist so students can party and act out. Colleges are for obtaining an education. Education is for the most part job training. There are rules at school; there are rules at work. Whether you want to argue some obscure, irrelevant, and idealistic semantics is moot. Rules are rules.
Athletic Scholarships aren't federally funded. So that's not analagous.
Speed limits are "astonishingly ineffective" too but does that mean we should just get rid of them?
For that matter most laws are broken. People still drink and drive, murder, rape, speed, run red lights, etc. Does that mean that the laws are ineffective and we should just get rid of them?
You're saying that because they can't stop it they should just give up - Throw their hands in the air and stop trying altogether. Maybe Kent should just shred the student handbook. Heck, take the locks off of the dorms and fire campus security - they're ineffective because they don't stop every crime every time!
Naive.
Yeah, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to tell their student athletes not to post incriminating information than to simply ban them from using a communication forum?
Yes, it would. There's probably a better way. On the other hand, the alternative is to police the site on a regular basis to ensure compliance, which in this case may be an unreasonable expectation of the university.
I'm NOT saying that Duke's lacrosse team incident happened (personally, I think they're innocent) because of lack of oversight. I used it to illustrate my point that bad things do occasionally happen. My point, which I didn't articulate very well, is a scenario such as a student athlete posting photos of themself wearing a Kent State athletics uniform and holding a Nazi flag then it's totally out of line. I think that since they're under scholarship that they've got an obligation to the university that goes beyond just playing their sport.
I think everyone is responsible and wholly accountable for his or her actions whether on or off campus. It doesn't change after college on the job - it only gets more restrictive. I'm a huge supporter of free speech but I don't think it gives people the right to be irresponsible and immature simply because they're students, athletes, or both.
That's totally irrelevant. By your logic government employees should be allowed to do anything they please just because their salaries are paid by taxpayers. That's absurd.
I went to Kent read, Kent write, Kent State - lived in a dorm and all that. Not many rules, really.
I think it's important to note that this applies to _student athletes_. This isn't a first amendment issue. I don't see anything at all wrong with SA's having to abide by a different set of rules for situations like this. They're getting _scholarships_ from the school AND they're representing the school and its image to the NCAA, other institutions, etc. As far as their being ambassadors for the school, I don't see the distinction between student athletes, coaches, professors, etc. They're all receiving some sort of compensation from the school in return for some tangible service. The school has its reputation and image to uphold and it would be irresponsible for them to anything other than what they've done. If something bad _did_ happen or some student athlete on scholarship caused an incident that could have otherwise been prevented, then you would all be quick to blame the school.
Good for them for making the rule in the first place.
This isn't news. It would be news if Kent forbade _all_ students from using facebook.
They have more than enough email addresses.
We're sorry, FbiAgent@yahoo.com is already taken.
May we suggest the following:
FbiAgent007@yahoo.com
MyFbiAgent@yahoo.com
MyFbiAgent27@yahoo.com
eFbiAgent27@yahoo.com
Next >
I live just minutes from Diebold's world headquarters in North Canton, OH. They have offices all over this area and employ about 2000 people in the Canton/North Canton area - not bad for a smallish area.
Diebold has been in existence for nearly 150 years. They started out making safes, vaults, etc. Then back in the 1960's Diebold began making Automated Teller Machines. For almost 150 years Diebold has been a solid company with a decent repuation. They've always been well respected in this area.
Then they decide to acquire a company that makes voting machines.
At the time, Wally O'Dell, then CEO, was a loud-mouth, speak-before-you-think Republican who dabbled way too much in politics. He contributed $2000 to George W. Bush's reelection campaign (Diebold has since forbade any executives from making political contributions thanks to Wally). He pretty much made Diebold a target that everyone likes to shoot at.
Now here's the fascinating part: According to the FY 2004 Annual report, Diebold Election Systems, a division of Diebold North America, contributed less than 4% to the company's annual earnings.
3.7% of their total business is causing them immeasurable grief.
Now, that's fascinating.
There was an article in our local newspaper last Sunday about Tom Swidarski, the new CEO, and Diebold in general. Of course, the paper asked him about the election systems fiasco and O'Dell's political contributions. Swidarski said "The issue of politics... is very different than the other businesses we're in, and so I have to determine if we can handle that aspect of it."
Diebold makes some fine ATM and security equipment. They do an impressive business with their services. A former CEO with strong political ties made the decision to acquire an Election Systems manufacturer. What a bad move.
I wouldn't be too suprised if Diebold divests and/or sells off the ES company altogether. It'd be a smart move.
Is VB a good beginner's language?
/. - is that people are fanatical about their language of choice. Many times to a fault.
Sure, why not? But, it depends on what you want to accomplish.
If you want to write a windows app, a script, do some office automation, connect to a database and shuffle data around, create a Web site, or do other practical business-oriented tasks, then absolutely.
If you want to write an operating system, then you'll want to look elsewhere.
First, I would ask "What do you expect to accomplish and what do you ultimately want to achieve?"
What I've learned over the years - especially from reading
When I was in the military, the old timers were so proud of the way things were when they went through basic training/airborne/ranger/sniper school and how difficult it was "back then". They used to wax poetic and tell tribal stories of when they were at NTC, the drill sergeant that used to dump bunks, or the 100-mile road marches. "Things are so easy nowadays" they'd say.
As a rule, people are very proud of their accomplishments (rightly so, I would think). Generally, people are both proud and nostalgic about their conquests, overcoming adversity, and place high value on extraordinary achievments.
You'll read many posts here admonishing VB while extolling languages like C or C++ for what they "teach" that VB doesn't. The real trick is interpreting the value of those statements. Are they saying it's better because it's harder? Or are they saying it's better for pragmatic reasons?
The world changes. Technology changes. Most things evolve and grow and change. Programming languages change, and it's a good thing too I should think. Could you imagine what the Web or economy would look like today if all we had was BCPL or x86 assembler? The fact that a language hides or automates certain implementaion details such as GUI layout should not necessarily be viewed as a detriment or deterrent. On the contrary, any language that can save time while still accomplishing the task or solving the problem is quite effective. Visual Basic, is relatively easy to learn, can solve many problems and many different types of problems, and dramatically reduces the time it takes to implement a solution. Due to that fact it has, directly or indirectly, facilitated a lot of economic growth by enabling companies to effectively solve problems, create software solutions, implement change, and reduce time-to-market. The fact that it's not a "difficult" language is what makes it so attractive to businesses. Difficult != Good (Difficult Good).
Personally, I don't particularly *like* to code Visual Basic. While I've solved many problems with it, I wouldn't choose it over C# or Java. That's just me. I'm used to curly brace languages, so that's my general preference. Having said that, I would evaluate the problem I'm trying to solve before I choose. I might very well choose VB over C++ if the solution warrants it. However, I don't think my personal preferences or opinions mean much to the next person choosing a language.
My advice is, choose Visual Basic if you really want to. Ignore the posts that tell you it's a "toy" language and remember the millions of VB programmers and tens of thousands of companies that have chosen it. I've seen some rather amazing things done in VB by my friends and colleagues - I would say it's far from being a toy. VB didn't become so popular because it's hard to use and doesn't do much. VB.NET is a fully object-oriented language. That puts it in the same terms as C#, C++, Java, Smalltalk, Ruby, Python, et al. It's not cross-platform, so you can't develop for Linux or OS X, but there may be enough challenges just learning an object-oriented language without learning the nuances of each platform at the same time.
existence of some type of policy -- regardless of what that policy actually is -- is now enough for companies to eschew any liability for leaking consumers' data.
That's a ridiculous statement. I'm an applications manager and the company(ies) I work for are in the HR/accounting/BPO industries. I manage a team of software developers, designers, graphic artists, etc. to create BPO software. Our software processes, and we are custodians of, a lot of sensitive personal information. Nearly everything we make, implement, buy, or use affects the security of the data and applications. I spend a substantial amount of time discussing security and IP issues with our inhouse counsel. The one question he *always* asks with regard to security is "What would be reasonable for us to do to protect the data? In other words, what would a company be required to do, within reason, to protect the data that we are housing?" There is no "correct" answer to that as it's highly subjective. What he always stresses to us is "Would I be able to convince a judge or a jury that the precautions we took were inline with accepted practices, and were they reasonable enough to protect the data?". In most cases, he relies on our (my) judgement to determine whether it's enough or too little. Security is such a subjective topic - there is such thing as too much when people who need to can't access information, and of course there is such thing as not enough.
The real issues arises when determining what is reasonable. What's reasonable to a person whose HIPAA information is being stored might be absurd. Likewise, "reasonable" to a company might equate to "whatever we can afford" which may be far too little. It becomes a balancing act to reconcile the concerns of both sides to take what measures would be considered "reasonable" to protect the information in question. What's reasonble to protect a list of credit card numbers is far different than what's reasonable to protect a list of song titles. It's highly subjective and open to interpretation. The minute someone tries to legislate it and define "reasonable" is the minute someone else will find loopholes and ways around it. But to say "regardless of what that policy actually is" is just plain absurd.