The fact that it looks like a modern piece of electronics that will fit unobtrusively in tight places, rather than looking like a big clunky piece of office machinery in your home, does help.
This is good. A couple years back there was a DoD-wide directive forbidding "Freeware, Shareware, and stuff without a license" that many in IT incorrectly assumed meant no Open Source. Lots of confusion about that one ("what about Java? It's free" was often brought up). There already was a lot of FOSS in my non-Navy shop. Long after several of us had this clarified to confirm that Open Source *was* allowed, some IT staffer would persist with the wrong interpretation. But still, there was a "compelling need" aspect to non-commercial (but licensed, GPL, MIT, BSD, what have you) software, like Apache. MS was and is favored by most that I encounter. It's heartening to see this Navy directive come out. You may not think it will make a difference, but it serves to legitimize FOSS to those managers and techs who assume it has to be MS, Oracle, or Sun (usually MS). There are quite a few of us pushing FOSS in DoD, now we can point to this.
Now we can look forward to years of the dreaded shirt analogy. Henceforth, even computer security threads will not feature houses and locks analogies, but instead, shirts and buttons vs. zippers analogies.
But they aren't just announcing intent to protect their patent rights, they are declaring that the competition is violating hundreds of their patents. I see this as interfering in trade - it is designed to have a chilling effect.
<analogy type="car"> Suppose Toyota began airing commercials stating that Mazda was violating hundreds of Toyota patents, and if Toyota cared to sue, Mazda could be aversely affected, including a loss of parts supplies. People shopping for a car might stop to think, if I buy a Mazda, who knows if a year or so from now, Toyota may enforce their patents, and I can't get my car serviced? Maybe I'd better not buy the Mazda after all. </analogy>
Seems like this type of behavior should either be subject to a fine, or a requirement to either prove or retract your claims. I don't mean a retraction like "we won't sue... for now" but rather, a retraction of your claims of patent violations.
I have never had a drug screening, nor a physical as a part of employment or prospective employment. Almost all my jobs have been white-collar, office-type of work, with the last 4 being programming and IT. I'm in the USA, maybe it's different in other countries.
When I took a position that required a military security clearance, I was fingerprinted AFTER I'd already accepted the position. It wasn't done as a screening process during the interview/consideration stage. I wonder how far along in the process this sister is? If she knows she gets the job once she passes the screening, it seems reasonable to me that a financial firm knows whether its employees have a criminal record, beyond expecting the applicant to be truthful on the application.
I really don't see why the story submitter is conjuring up fears of frame-ups and scandals. Should it raise a flag? A flag signifying what? That the sister will be employed and soon after will have to use the one-armed man excuse as she runs for her life?
I'm mostly ignorant of the subject, but I believe cell phones are used as detonators by calling the phone, which then detonates the explosion. How would an AM radio be used for detonation purposes? If it's switched on, it's constantly getting signals. How would it know which signal was the instruction to spark the explosive?
You mean the wealthy who controlled the South's means of production rebelled against the federal government trying to restrict slavery. Funny thing that many of the non-wealthy Southerners weren't so keen on fighting the plantation masters' war. West Virginia, East Tennessee, for example. Of course, the aristocrats sold the war as a noble cause (states' rights), just as today those in power sell a war as "spreading democracy".
"If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing - that we were being driven out of the country."
Not true in the slightest. Each major outlet had their "Road to Bagdhad" or "March to War" or whatever stupid catch-phrase for their war reporting, and the reports were congratulatory and all about "gee, ain't our armed forces great!" Events such as the death of Saddam's sons, and his capture, were heralded as great successes. It wasn't until the Abu Graib scandal that media reports on Iraq were less than cheerleading. Never was it implied we were being driven out of the country.
Funny how those who accuse media of bias typically have so much bias themselves, they mis-remember coverage so that it fits with their viewpoint.
No, he's right. Most SUV's are macho-looking, inefficient station wagons that do less than real station wagons do. Their cargo area, when you have passengers in the rear seats, is no better than most cars. My dad's 66 Chevy Bel Air station wagon, and most wagons of that period, could fit more stuff, and longer stuff, in the rear. Where is the utility in the SUV? For hauling many people in comfort, minivans are better-suited, but consumers were taught to think of them as dorky. For hauling big heavy stuff or towing, pickup trucks make sense. The utilitarian vehicle for urban life would be the station (estate) wagon. SUVs are the worst of compromises, not the best of all worlds. Why people choose them for their main everyday vehicle in urban areas is beyond me.
That was at least the second post here referring to it as a goat or goat-like thing. I don't get it. If Linux were called PENGUIN, would people be calling Tux "that tern-albatross-birdlike thing"?
I have nothing but distaste for the Microsoft monoculture and the blinders that result in people who know nothing except the Microsoft way. This was driven home to me recently when I had to take a.Net class from Learning Tree, and the teacher, who seemed very knowledgeable about the topic and had years of professional programming experience, asked "what's LDAP?" with a genuinely puzzled look on her face when I asked about using it for authentication. Oh, but she knew about Active Directory! This is just one anecdote among many that I witness that display the abject ignorance of computer professionals who think the entire computing universe is Microsoft or Apple, and perhaps that oddity Linux.
The only reason I force IE use for our non-public, work-only websites is because they require smart-card authentication, and the users' card reader software is configured for IE only. My sites are all running open source, Apache, and no Microsoft, yet a Microsoft browser is required!
That's good to know, wish I'd known it this year and saved $20 plus being able to e-file free. I have State Farm for home and car, and use TurboTax Premier since it makes it dead-simple to do taxes for my investment property. Hope they offer this discount next year, too. Thanks for the tip.
That is what I do. Prepare with TurboTax, print, and mail. I'm not paying an additional $17 when I can drop it off at the Post Office; ridiculous. But I could not deduct the $78 tax prep fee (the price of TurboTax) because that amount didn't qualify as a high enough percentage of my income. I don't recall that requirement last year, which was my first year using TurboTax and I wrote off its purchase price.
I fail to see where the directive is mandating an all-Microsoft Windows policy for the Federal Government, as some have posted here, let alone a requirement for Vista.
From the directive, "Agencies with these operating systems and/or plans to upgrade to these operating systems must adopt these standard security configurations"
Meaning, it only applies to existing or future Windows installs. Not, "all government computers must follow this Windows' configuration" (therefore computer must run Windows).
Open Source *is* getting traction in the US government. Certainly there is a Microsoft monoculture, and it's frightening sometimes to see the ignorance that can result from it. But I have my choice of Windows or RedHat for servers, and not long ago I found documentation on the RedHat desktop on our help desk's web site. I groan about the.Net bandwagon-jumpers (like Java in the 90's), but there is diversity evident from where I sit.
Wrong, decent IT departments have problems with MS pretty much every day of operation, in a large enough organization. Maybe they don't have problems *fixing* the problems (which I doubt), but they incur high maintenance and support costs due to the vagaries of MS products. While they may have a staff with a high degree of expertise in putting out fires, does that warrant keeping something so prone to figuratively bursting into flames?
I will be surprised if we see this take effect before the release of Microsoft's next OS. This *is* the government we're talking about. I've been waiting 3+ years for certain hardware that's been bought and been sitting warehoused. Was trained on it last year. Getting trained on it again this year. Someday...
Pretty much any guy I know who has daughters appreciates (and uses) the joke about cleaning guns, knives, or whatever when the daughter's boyfriend visits. It's a fairly old jest, usually tongue-in-cheek, and a way these fathers share their nervousness about the travails of raising daughters. I didn't know it was such an inside joke, and I don't think the poster needed to be taken to task over it.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that it looks like a modern piece of electronics that will fit unobtrusively in tight places, rather than looking like a big clunky piece of office machinery in your home, does help.
This is good. A couple years back there was a DoD-wide directive forbidding "Freeware, Shareware, and stuff without a license" that many in IT incorrectly assumed meant no Open Source. Lots of confusion about that one ("what about Java? It's free" was often brought up). There already was a lot of FOSS in my non-Navy shop. Long after several of us had this clarified to confirm that Open Source *was* allowed, some IT staffer would persist with the wrong interpretation. But still, there was a "compelling need" aspect to non-commercial (but licensed, GPL, MIT, BSD, what have you) software, like Apache. MS was and is favored by most that I encounter. It's heartening to see this Navy directive come out. You may not think it will make a difference, but it serves to legitimize FOSS to those managers and techs who assume it has to be MS, Oracle, or Sun (usually MS). There are quite a few of us pushing FOSS in DoD, now we can point to this.
Gonzo. Libby didn't testify to Congress IIRC, at least, it's his testimony to a Grand Jury that's sending him to jail.
Unless the President has full faith and confidence in you.
They had a standing in the community?
Now we can look forward to years of the dreaded shirt analogy. Henceforth, even computer security threads will not feature houses and locks analogies, but instead, shirts and buttons vs. zippers analogies.
But they aren't just announcing intent to protect their patent rights, they are declaring that the competition is violating hundreds of their patents. I see this as interfering in trade - it is designed to have a chilling effect.
<analogy type="car">
Suppose Toyota began airing commercials stating that Mazda was violating hundreds of Toyota patents, and if Toyota cared to sue, Mazda could be aversely affected, including a loss of parts supplies. People shopping for a car might stop to think, if I buy a Mazda, who knows if a year or so from now, Toyota may enforce their patents, and I can't get my car serviced? Maybe I'd better not buy the Mazda after all.
</analogy>
Seems like this type of behavior should either be subject to a fine, or a requirement to either prove or retract your claims. I don't mean a retraction like "we won't sue... for now" but rather, a retraction of your claims of patent violations.
Yeah, that "some reason" would be an inquiry of slashdotters so I could get some discussion and maybe some learning. All you contributed was snark.
I have never had a drug screening, nor a physical as a part of employment or prospective employment. Almost all my jobs have been white-collar, office-type of work, with the last 4 being programming and IT. I'm in the USA, maybe it's different in other countries.
When I took a position that required a military security clearance, I was fingerprinted AFTER I'd already accepted the position. It wasn't done as a screening process during the interview/consideration stage. I wonder how far along in the process this sister is? If she knows she gets the job once she passes the screening, it seems reasonable to me that a financial firm knows whether its employees have a criminal record, beyond expecting the applicant to be truthful on the application.
I really don't see why the story submitter is conjuring up fears of frame-ups and scandals. Should it raise a flag? A flag signifying what? That the sister will be employed and soon after will have to use the one-armed man excuse as she runs for her life?
I'm mostly ignorant of the subject, but I believe cell phones are used as detonators by calling the phone, which then detonates the explosion. How would an AM radio be used for detonation purposes? If it's switched on, it's constantly getting signals. How would it know which signal was the instruction to spark the explosive?
You mean the wealthy who controlled the South's means of production rebelled against the federal government trying to restrict slavery. Funny thing that many of the non-wealthy Southerners weren't so keen on fighting the plantation masters' war. West Virginia, East Tennessee, for example. Of course, the aristocrats sold the war as a noble cause (states' rights), just as today those in power sell a war as "spreading democracy".
"I am hoping to eat... hrmm, a p-word... hrmm... Ponies! Of the things starting with P that I'd like to eat, ponies it is!"
Yes, this is indeed Slashdot.
"If you were to watch any channel other than Fox News during the first part of the war, you would have thought that we were losing - that we were being driven out of the country."
Not true in the slightest. Each major outlet had their "Road to Bagdhad" or "March to War" or whatever stupid catch-phrase for their war reporting, and the reports were congratulatory and all about "gee, ain't our armed forces great!" Events such as the death of Saddam's sons, and his capture, were heralded as great successes. It wasn't until the Abu Graib scandal that media reports on Iraq were less than cheerleading. Never was it implied we were being driven out of the country.
Funny how those who accuse media of bias typically have so much bias themselves, they mis-remember coverage so that it fits with their viewpoint.
No, he's right. Most SUV's are macho-looking, inefficient station wagons that do less than real station wagons do. Their cargo area, when you have passengers in the rear seats, is no better than most cars. My dad's 66 Chevy Bel Air station wagon, and most wagons of that period, could fit more stuff, and longer stuff, in the rear. Where is the utility in the SUV? For hauling many people in comfort, minivans are better-suited, but consumers were taught to think of them as dorky. For hauling big heavy stuff or towing, pickup trucks make sense. The utilitarian vehicle for urban life would be the station (estate) wagon. SUVs are the worst of compromises, not the best of all worlds. Why people choose them for their main everyday vehicle in urban areas is beyond me.
And I wouldn't be too surprised to find prior art for Winnie, too.
Yeah, like A.A. Milne. Surprise!
That was at least the second post here referring to it as a goat or goat-like thing. I don't get it. If Linux were called PENGUIN, would people be calling Tux "that tern-albatross-birdlike thing"?
I have nothing but distaste for the Microsoft monoculture and the blinders that result in people who know nothing except the Microsoft way. This was driven home to me recently when I had to take a .Net class from Learning Tree, and the teacher, who seemed very knowledgeable about the topic and had years of professional programming experience, asked "what's LDAP?" with a genuinely puzzled look on her face when I asked about using it for authentication. Oh, but she knew about Active Directory! This is just one anecdote among many that I witness that display the abject ignorance of computer professionals who think the entire computing universe is Microsoft or Apple, and perhaps that oddity Linux.
The only reason I force IE use for our non-public, work-only websites is because they require smart-card authentication, and the users' card reader software is configured for IE only. My sites are all running open source, Apache, and no Microsoft, yet a Microsoft browser is required!
That's good to know, wish I'd known it this year and saved $20 plus being able to e-file free. I have State Farm for home and car, and use TurboTax Premier since it makes it dead-simple to do taxes for my investment property. Hope they offer this discount next year, too. Thanks for the tip.
That is what I do. Prepare with TurboTax, print, and mail. I'm not paying an additional $17 when I can drop it off at the Post Office; ridiculous. But I could not deduct the $78 tax prep fee (the price of TurboTax) because that amount didn't qualify as a high enough percentage of my income. I don't recall that requirement last year, which was my first year using TurboTax and I wrote off its purchase price.
I fail to see where the directive is mandating an all-Microsoft Windows policy for the Federal Government, as some have posted here, let alone a requirement for Vista.
.Net bandwagon-jumpers (like Java in the 90's), but there is diversity evident from where I sit.
From the directive, "Agencies with these operating systems and/or plans to upgrade to these operating systems must adopt these standard security configurations"
Meaning, it only applies to existing or future Windows installs. Not, "all government computers must follow this Windows' configuration" (therefore computer must run Windows).
Open Source *is* getting traction in the US government. Certainly there is a Microsoft monoculture, and it's frightening sometimes to see the ignorance that can result from it. But I have my choice of Windows or RedHat for servers, and not long ago I found documentation on the RedHat desktop on our help desk's web site. I groan about the
I vote as Aficionado. Although I don't have the hair style yet, I'm working on it. I could borrow a pair of my father's glasses to complete the look.
Wrong, decent IT departments have problems with MS pretty much every day of operation, in a large enough organization. Maybe they don't have problems *fixing* the problems (which I doubt), but they incur high maintenance and support costs due to the vagaries of MS products. While they may have a staff with a high degree of expertise in putting out fires, does that warrant keeping something so prone to figuratively bursting into flames?
I will be surprised if we see this take effect before the release of Microsoft's next OS. This *is* the government we're talking about. I've been waiting 3+ years for certain hardware that's been bought and been sitting warehoused. Was trained on it last year. Getting trained on it again this year. Someday...
Pretty much any guy I know who has daughters appreciates (and uses) the joke about cleaning guns, knives, or whatever when the daughter's boyfriend visits. It's a fairly old jest, usually tongue-in-cheek, and a way these fathers share their nervousness about the travails of raising daughters. I didn't know it was such an inside joke, and I don't think the poster needed to be taken to task over it.