I ask because that is the one technology that nobody ever seemed to have predicte,...
No, not directly. But there were many predictions of things like "shopping from home using your videophone" or groceries delivered automatically after your refrigerator ordered them from the supermarket -- things that implicitly or indirectly predicted the internet.
On the other hand nobody (here in the US) would have stuck his or her neck out and predicted power companies shutting off your appliances during the day to prevent brown-outs. It would have been unthinkable to predict that we'd never have enough cheap power to do everything we'd want to do, when we wanted to do it.
I scored a google+ invite, wanted to check it out. There's no there there. Yet. Will there ever be? Some estimates of 10M already signed up. Now what. Everyone else is still over on FB. I'm thinking it could be the next Google Lively.
Wait, you run Linux and you don't know how an ISP can block ports?
Anyway, there is some anecdotal evidence that Verizon is no longer blocking port 80. And a co-worker confirmed that port 80 is not blocked on his residential FIOS service. That's three.
But I suppose Comcast is, for all practical purposes, a telco too.
I buy broadband only from Comcast, and at a discount too from a reseller.
One month my bill doubled -- they started charging me for CableTV. Call them up, ask them why CableTV is on the bill. Wait for them to look up my records, then the lie that "someone at your address authorized the add on." I tell them "nope, I'm the only one at this address with the authority to do that, and I did not, so take it off, I'm not using it, I'm not paying for it." Next lie was "oh, we'll send someone out, you'll have to be at home for the service call." My response: "How did it get added without an installer coming out? You didn't need someone here to add it, you don't need anyone here to delete it."
My wife and kids are finally trained too. Verizon sales droid walking the neighborhood rings the doorbell when I'm not home, tries to sell my wife or kids, I forget who, on FIOS. Nope, they told the rep, you block port 80. The sales droid had no idea what that meant.
Now 1,000,000 is a number. 10,000 is a number. We call that being specific. Many? How many is many? 900,000? Or three? There's no validity to a report as vague as this was.
Douche? Way to go with the ad hominem attack. That always lends cred to an argument. Not. Well, at least you posted with your real/. account. That puts you about one step above the other basement dwelling anonymous cowards that posted their ad hominem attacks. Have a nice day.
Right. I don't blame it on MBA though per se, but PHB. My undergrad was Bus. Admin, emphasis on MIS (then, now I suppose it would be IT) basically the undergrad equivalent of an MBA. One of the things I remember from a Management Theory class I took is that one part of a manager's job is to be able to do their employees' jobs when the employee can't, e.g. because they're on vacation.
The anecdotes in this thread about managers who couldn't do their employees jobs, e.g. reboot a server, have no business being a manager.
And every 2U server I've ever seen has a clearly labeled power button. What kind of cheesy-ass hardware are they using that even a 6 or 7 figure CEO can't find the power button?
Oh, and seqway is a scooter, seque is a transition from one thread to another.
The same sort of management short-sightedness happens in engineering and software development all the time.
Case in point, at a Fortune 200 companythe senior technical staff all left the project I was on left over the last three years, leaving me as the last senior person. Management saw it as an opportunity to save money and rarely backfilled, and never with senior people. I saw the writing on the wall and started looking over two years ago. Last summer I took a three week vacation and absolutely nothing got done while I was gone. You'd think that would have been management's wake up call, but for some reason it wasn't.
Not too surprisingly, management were blind-sided when I resigned earlier this year.
That might be an interesting read sometime, but you still haven't explained why you think it's okay for the TSA, i.e. the government, to violate our Fourth Amendment rights, all in the name of security theater.
As I indicated previously, no other country puts on this show. Many countries don't even have the constitutional protections we do.
Whether or not the safety checks are needed, or even accomplish anything is not the point of the debate. The point of the debate is whether the government should be involved in it.
If the airlines want to do it, that's fine. That's their right. It's their planes, their employees, and their customers they are protecting.
I'll even concede that the government, be it under the auspices of the FAA, or TSA, or DHS, could require airlines to screen all passengers. No screening, no permits to fly. It seems like this must basically be what they are doing now with flights originating in other countries -- there are no TSA agents groping passengers at Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle before they board a flight bound for the US.
In the mean time, it's unacceptable to have a government police agency performing millions of warrantless searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I don't think that's correct. To me, the law of the land has always meant the law of _this_land, in contrast to the laws of _other_lands.
The laws of the seas? Not sure I know what those would be. I do know that if you want to get on _my_ boat and sail to the Orient, you're going to follow _my_ rules. Or it's over the side with ye.
"You want to fly on my plane?", asks Captain United Airlines Pilot, "you're going to follow my rules." If United Airlines wants to pat me down before boarding, that's completely and utterly different than the TSA standing between me and the gate to give me a good grope first.
No other country in the world requires this to travel by air, and thats even with a Bill of Rights to make sure our government doesn't do this sort of thing.
And if I don't like United patting me down, I can always fly Delta instead.
I've managed to fly halfway around the world and back, with little or no fear of the plane being flowing into a building, despite not being groped and x-rayed in violation of whatever rights I may have been entitled to under the constitutions of the countries I was traveling between.
Perhaps our government might like to consider why some of its policies make it a target of extremist terrorists. Perhaps if we weren't assassinating people and supporting corrupt and repressive regimes then the terrorists might find someone else deserving of their attention.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Here's the bs reply I got when I complained about the TSA security theater to my US Senator, Scott P. Brown (R, Massachusetts):
Dear Mr xxxx,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent changes in Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) security procedures. I always value your input on all issues and appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, on June 24, 2010, Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) introduced the SAFER AIR Act, which would implement new forms of airport screening technology. S. 3536 would authorize the use of full-body scan machinery to search for weapons, explosives, or other hazardous materials that are otherwise undetectable. While this bill is currently under consideration by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Administration is testing this type of program and has implemented it in select airports nationwide. Many of the concerns recently voiced about these procedures have surrounded the health implications of millimeter wave technology utilized by these full-body scan machines. The TSA has assured travelers that the non-ionizing radio frequency energy emitted by the machines is safe, and gives off about 100,000 times less energy than that of talking on a cell phone.
For those concerned about their privacy as a result of images taken by the full-body scanning machines, please know that the TSA worked closely with the manufacturers of these machines to make sure that the capabilities to store and send the images were removed prior to installation. Additionally, S. 3536 would go even further by specifically prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security from retaining images used in airport scanning, and also would require that faces of individuals be blurred. You may be interested to know the imaging technology is of lesser quality than that of basic photography and does not present sufficient detail to be used for personal identification.
In addition to the full-body imaging machines, the TSA has also implemented new pat-down procedures for those air travelers who opt out of using the full-body imaging machines. According to the TSA, these new pat-down procedures are designed to prevent another "Christmas Day" style attack, where Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate a bomb concealed in his underwear.
The TSA has stated that these new pat-down procedures are part of a multi-layered security protocol that, along with explosive trace detection, the full-body imaging technology, and canine teams, has been implemented to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Most recently, on November 19, 2010, the TSA agreed to let airline pilots skip the security scanning and pat-downs in response to pilot groups voicing concern about the bolstered security. As the TSA continues to receive feedback from the public, there could be other revisions to parts of the new security procedures.
Our nation's number one goal when it comes to airport security must be the deterrence of terrorist attacks. I certainly understand the concerns of some regarding the new screening procedures, and I agree these procedures must be as non-intrusive as possible and respectful of Americans’ privacy concerns. But when it comes to our families’ safety, I come down on the side of caution. Protecting American lives is the most important thing to me during these times of potential terrorist threats. As a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I will continue to be actively engaged in these issues and related policies, and I will monitor the implementation of these new security procedures.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.
I mean, after all, isn't Microsoft pretty much the only company in existence that could afford to hire him at this point? They should just try to do that.
. There are plenty of companies with more cash and/or a bigger market cap than MSFT who could, in theory, afford to hire him.
Can you imagine what would happen at and to, e.g. Apple, if they were to hire him?
Slashdot Mirror
I ask because that is the one technology that nobody ever seemed to have predicte,...
No, not directly. But there were many predictions of things like "shopping from home using your videophone" or groceries delivered automatically after your refrigerator ordered them from the supermarket -- things that implicitly or indirectly predicted the internet.
On the other hand nobody (here in the US) would have stuck his or her neck out and predicted power companies shutting off your appliances during the day to prevent brown-outs. It would have been unthinkable to predict that we'd never have enough cheap power to do everything we'd want to do, when we wanted to do it.
At this rate I bet that $1B valuation and IPO will be all smoke.
Now we just need flying broomsticks.
Clearly a lot of drivers I see on the road are over-medicated.
I can haz apocolyse
It's not facebook and it's not tulalip.
I scored a google+ invite, wanted to check it out. There's no there there. Yet. Will there ever be? Some estimates of 10M already signed up. Now what. Everyone else is still over on FB. I'm thinking it could be the next Google Lively.
Will anyone got to Tulalip?
The Bears won in 1986 against the Patriots.
You're probably thinking of the Cubs winning the World Series, or even just the NL championship.
Wait, you run Linux and you don't know how an ISP can block ports?
Anyway, there is some anecdotal evidence that Verizon is no longer blocking port 80. And a co-worker confirmed that port 80 is not blocked on his residential FIOS service. That's three.
But I suppose Comcast is, for all practical purposes, a telco too.
I buy broadband only from Comcast, and at a discount too from a reseller.
One month my bill doubled -- they started charging me for CableTV. Call them up, ask them why CableTV is on the bill. Wait for them to look up my records, then the lie that "someone at your address authorized the add on." I tell them "nope, I'm the only one at this address with the authority to do that, and I did not, so take it off, I'm not using it, I'm not paying for it." Next lie was "oh, we'll send someone out, you'll have to be at home for the service call." My response: "How did it get added without an installer coming out? You didn't need someone here to add it, you don't need anyone here to delete it."
My wife and kids are finally trained too. Verizon sales droid walking the neighborhood rings the doorbell when I'm not home, tries to sell my wife or kids, I forget who, on FIOS. Nope, they told the rep, you block port 80. The sales droid had no idea what that meant.
The ones I know of are sitting in dealerships waiting for suckers, er, customers to walk into the showroom.
Now 1,000,000 is a number. 10,000 is a number. We call that being specific. Many? How many is many? 900,000? Or three? There's no validity to a report as vague as this was.
Douche? Way to go with the ad hominem attack. That always lends cred to an argument. Not. Well, at least you posted with your real /. account. That puts you about one step above the other basement dwelling anonymous cowards that posted their ad hominem attacks. Have a nice day.
Right. I don't blame it on MBA though per se, but PHB. My undergrad was Bus. Admin, emphasis on MIS (then, now I suppose it would be IT) basically the undergrad equivalent of an MBA. One of the things I remember from a Management Theory class I took is that one part of a manager's job is to be able to do their employees' jobs when the employee can't, e.g. because they're on vacation.
The anecdotes in this thread about managers who couldn't do their employees jobs, e.g. reboot a server, have no business being a manager.
And every 2U server I've ever seen has a clearly labeled power button. What kind of cheesy-ass hardware are they using that even a 6 or 7 figure CEO can't find the power button?
Oh, and seqway is a scooter, seque is a transition from one thread to another.
sounds to me like you have a good case for a wrongful termination suit.
The same sort of management short-sightedness happens in engineering and software development all the time.
Case in point, at a Fortune 200 companythe senior technical staff all left the project I was on left over the last three years, leaving me as the last senior person. Management saw it as an opportunity to save money and rarely backfilled, and never with senior people. I saw the writing on the wall and started looking over two years ago. Last summer I took a three week vacation and absolutely nothing got done while I was gone. You'd think that would have been management's wake up call, but for some reason it wasn't.
Not too surprisingly, management were blind-sided when I resigned earlier this year.
that is all
"Yesterday, many users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox..."
Yesterday some users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox.
There, fixed that for you.
I, e.g., did not get spammed, (And yes, I have a g+ account.)
The idiots behind Bitcoin.org don't even seem to have bothered to declare common law trademark, i.e. , on the term.
Stupid /. still doesn't do Unicode or even ordinary Latin-1. C'mon /., this is the 21st century. Get with the program. Honestly---
There was supposed to be a little superscript TM between i.e. and ,. That's what I get for not looking at the Preview before Submitting.
A McDonalds Big Mac is a thing too, and I'd wager McDonalds has a registered trademark for it.
The idiots behind Bitcoin.org don't even seem to have bothered to declare common law trademark, i.e. , on the term.
If they lose it they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.
I had mod points yesterday, but they're gone today, or I'd mod you up. Too bad too that you posted as AC.
That might be an interesting read sometime, but you still haven't explained why you think it's okay for the TSA, i.e. the government, to violate our Fourth Amendment rights, all in the name of security theater.
As I indicated previously, no other country puts on this show. Many countries don't even have the constitutional protections we do.
Whether or not the safety checks are needed, or even accomplish anything is not the point of the debate. The point of the debate is whether the government should be involved in it.
If the airlines want to do it, that's fine. That's their right. It's their planes, their employees, and their customers they are protecting.
I'll even concede that the government, be it under the auspices of the FAA, or TSA, or DHS, could require airlines to screen all passengers. No screening, no permits to fly. It seems like this must basically be what they are doing now with flights originating in other countries -- there are no TSA agents groping passengers at Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle before they board a flight bound for the US.
In the mean time, it's unacceptable to have a government police agency performing millions of warrantless searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I don't think that's correct. To me, the law of the land has always meant the law of _this_land, in contrast to the laws of _other_lands.
The laws of the seas? Not sure I know what those would be. I do know that if you want to get on _my_ boat and sail to the Orient, you're going to follow _my_ rules. Or it's over the side with ye.
"You want to fly on my plane?", asks Captain United Airlines Pilot, "you're going to follow my rules." If United Airlines wants to pat me down before boarding, that's completely and utterly different than the TSA standing between me and the gate to give me a good grope first.
No other country in the world requires this to travel by air, and thats even with a Bill of Rights to make sure our government doesn't do this sort of thing.
And if I don't like United patting me down, I can always fly Delta instead.
I invite you to prove that claim.
I've managed to fly halfway around the world and back, with little or no fear of the plane being flowing into a building, despite not being groped and x-rayed in violation of whatever rights I may have been entitled to under the constitutions of the countries I was traveling between.
Perhaps our government might like to consider why some of its policies make it a target of extremist terrorists. Perhaps if we weren't assassinating people and supporting corrupt and repressive regimes then the terrorists might find someone else deserving of their attention.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Here's the bs reply I got when I complained about the TSA security theater to my US Senator, Scott P. Brown (R, Massachusetts):
Dear Mr xxxx,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent changes in Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) security procedures. I always value your input on all issues and appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, on June 24, 2010, Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) introduced the SAFER AIR Act, which would implement new forms of airport screening technology. S. 3536 would authorize the use of full-body scan machinery to search for weapons, explosives, or other hazardous materials that are otherwise undetectable. While this bill is currently under consideration by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Administration is testing this type of program and has implemented it in select airports nationwide. Many of the concerns recently voiced about these procedures have surrounded the health implications of millimeter wave technology utilized by these full-body scan machines. The TSA has assured travelers that the non-ionizing radio frequency energy emitted by the machines is safe, and gives off about 100,000 times less energy than that of talking on a cell phone.
For those concerned about their privacy as a result of images taken by the full-body scanning machines, please know that the TSA worked closely with the manufacturers of these machines to make sure that the capabilities to store and send the images were removed prior to installation. Additionally, S. 3536 would go even further by specifically prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security from retaining images used in airport scanning, and also would require that faces of individuals be blurred. You may be interested to know the imaging technology is of lesser quality than that of basic photography and does not present sufficient detail to be used for personal identification.
In addition to the full-body imaging machines, the TSA has also implemented new pat-down procedures for those air travelers who opt out of using the full-body imaging machines. According to the TSA, these new pat-down procedures are designed to prevent another "Christmas Day" style attack, where Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate a bomb concealed in his underwear.
The TSA has stated that these new pat-down procedures are part of a multi-layered security protocol that, along with explosive trace detection, the full-body imaging technology, and canine teams, has been implemented to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Most recently, on November 19, 2010, the TSA agreed to let airline pilots skip the security scanning and pat-downs in response to pilot groups voicing concern about the bolstered security. As the TSA continues to receive feedback from the public, there could be other revisions to parts of the new security procedures.
Our nation's number one goal when it comes to airport security must be the deterrence of terrorist attacks. I certainly understand the concerns of some regarding the new screening procedures, and I agree these procedures must be as non-intrusive as possible and respectful of Americans’ privacy concerns. But when it comes to our families’ safety, I come down on the side of caution. Protecting American lives is the most important thing to me during these times of potential terrorist threats. As a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I will continue to be actively engaged in these issues and related policies, and I will monitor the implementation of these new security procedures.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator
I mean, after all, isn't Microsoft pretty much the only company in existence that could afford to hire him at this point? They should just try to do that.
. There are plenty of companies with more cash and/or a bigger market cap than MSFT who could, in theory, afford to hire him.
Can you imagine what would happen at and to, e.g. Apple, if they were to hire him?