Wow - if you are keylogging, and someone access online banking, doesn't that (technically) constitute cracking? Are you scared of the information collected getting cracked?
Also, in the UK there is the Data Protection Act which legally obliges companies to disclose any and all information held on an indivual (at the time asked), for just £10: including any emails, pictures, post-it notes and records of any type. The penalties include jail time for the named officials. Do you have anything similar?
The reason for these questions is, I am pretty sure all schools and Uni's would be considered dutiful if the media caught them logging/recording activity. I would have thought the reverse would be true if a company was shown to be doing it...
While I do sympathise with the situation, and agree about logging and 'personal ownership' clauses, I find the family model awkward, but accurate.
I, and several of my colleagues (of varying degrees of computer competency) have at different points needed permission to install programs, set up laptops on the home network etc.. My gf was given a laptop by work, which we cannot use on our home network as the permissions are too strict and the proxies are pre-set, hidden and locked away. Should I hack it? Back up the HD image and replace it? Let her lug a crippled machine around and transfer things by USB when we have a wireless network? Make her work at her home PC when at home?
Problem is, she doesn't have the time (and they also take a dim view of her trying) to nag IT about every thing, little or big. It does, however, limit her performance, as she often finds quick internet access really helps her function. That said, she installed Kazaa on her home PC the moment I left her alone.. She is a typical professional idiot (I meant that in the nicest possible way, dear), and needs a lot of guidance, and someone on call to tend to her IT hiccups. At home, that's me, but they cant afford the workplace equivalent.
Can't be let loose, cant afford on-call support, dont want to constantly monitor - so the employee does not function effectively..
I would suggest that workers at all levels are treated (unless they prove otherwise, literally, through testing) as a DMZ; left to function (as you suggest), not monitored except in case of an overt issue, but not 'trusted' to be wise unless they can prove it. This would be more meritocratic, and less freindly than the typical family model often used, but would probably allow the employees (except possibly the tech support) to function more effectively.
Too simple to be useful. How do you email another company a document you have been drafting? What if you want to copy and paste some (relatively unimportant, non-threatening) financial data into it?
Apart from anything else, people dont want to use seperate computers at the same desk, and you still need some link between then, even if it meant using usb keys or something. That's why firewall engineers are employed to create layers of protection, so you get a similar effect to different networks, but with far more control over which channels stay open to 'the oustide'.
Also, there is a workforce benefit to complex networks: If you take the attitude "You say you want to work from home? Tough luck" then you can kiss goodbye to those skilled,computer-literate professionals - they will be happy to be headhunted by someone who can offer them a bit of freedom..
I wonder how many companies have introduced spyware internally to 'combat internal threats'?
It isn't a new idea that threats come from inside the network, and lots of remote desktop, keylogging and similar spyware has advertised itself for the 'legitimate' use of monitoring employees or children to 'prevent threats to security'. Even Back-Orifice used to claim it was a sysadmin's best tool..
I have heard lots of people in different jobs saying they have to be careful of getting caught surfing or emailing 'at the wrong time', but how many offices actually use potentially malicious spyware as a 'security measure'? If so, how does it work with the network anti-virus? Honestly, I would love to know, even from anonymous posters - has anyone reading this officially spied on their colleagues?
for companies that think of employees as liabilities...treating employees like family is a better approach...My mother, for example, has a computer with very strict security policies that she can't change.
How exactly is that different, other than in tone?
I have been using NTL as my (UK) ISP, and suddenly found I was banned from/.
On inspection, it's the (very well advertised) proxy which is banned..
The proxy IP is well advertised as it's the only one that works correctly with eBay on NTL's network. Unfortunately, I don't rate NTL's chances of finding or dealing with the kiddie responsible, based on their current performance: and they are a cable co.!
If you are sold something which is not as advertised, you can complain and should expect:
1) An apology 2) A refund 3) A commitment to correct it (the product or the advert or both)
If that doesn't work at the time, then there are institutions set up which will attempt to enforce satisfaction for you.. Sounds good so far, doesn't it?
The only thing which can ruin this system is people NOT complaining when something is not as advertised. As an example, if you ordered a meal with a full, fresh salad in a restaurant (from a photo), and got only 1 soggy lettuce leaf, you would expect them to apologise, take it back, do it again properly, and maybe even not charge you, since they failed to serve what they said (and showed) they would serve.
Macdonalds is of the few restaurants where this is not considered normal, and I can't see why. I complain about the mis-nomer 'fast food' in these places - loudly, to the 'manager'. I get 2 reactions - distaste (usually from people who think that MacD is some kind of food shrine to be worshipped on a daily basis), and grudging consent (by people who came for quick food, and either can't be arsed or don't have the time to bother themselves).
MacDonalds in particular has fostered this culture of acceptance to the extent that while 5 or so years ago I would have got an apology, nowadays I am treated as a loon, by other customers and staff. They seem to think that because it is unusual to complain, there is nothing wrong with handing you a late, cold, damp shadow of what you ordered, often with relish when I specifically asked for none.
You wouldn't accept it anywhere else: why is it normal in a 'fast food' place?
Oh yes, and back to the games industry - too bloody right. By all means show it in a nice light (or even some lovelies holding the box in provacative stances), but lying about the content itself is unnaceptable. Fraud, to be precise. They can lie all they like about the 'lifestyle image' of a product, but correct representation of the actual content is a legal requirement that we would be fools not to enforce.
Here in the UK defensive driving is a skill set appropriate to all road (and some pavement) users.
That includes awareness of how ABS & traction control work (or not, as many cars on the road here arent new enough to have either), and the skill to traverse a slalom, especially given the amount of traffic and some of the manouvres and corning you have to do on a daily basis: If you drive past a school during the 'school run', this in particular becomes a matter of life and death, but still needs to be done at speed in order to not be late.
A better question might be, why aren't tests designed for both modern and old car systems, in the same way as you get test for manual and automatic cars. You can drive an automatic if you pass the manual test (so we all do), why not have the same thing with aided-control and driver-control tests? (You could even incorporate the automatic clutch into the aided-control test, and keep the names as automatic and manual)..
Thats fabulously proficient damage: inspired! Did that kid make many 'errors'?
I only ask because I get to fix everyone else's PC problems, and have seen some really bad ideas and bad 'luck' by others (icluding opening a case mid operation, placing the hard drive on a live PSU and sparking arcs between them - the HDD survived!), and I am really interested in finding out if some people are prone to accidents.
My girlfriend gets electric shocks off shopping trolleys and car doors etc, and even though I build her PCs for her (now), they last half the time that mine do. Same parts, same settings..
When we first got together she had a PC that she had built where every component and setting was one step up from mine that benchmarked at 2/3 the performance of mine. To this day I cannot see why, when mine had bigger bottlenecks. I sometimes wonder if she is doing something inspired..
Is there any way of avoiding (or at least efficiently cleaning up after) accident-prone people?
Are there static attarctors, do they have some aura bringing down hardware, or are they just wiping out our hard work 'to make it look neat'?
Sorry but IMHO you have it the wrong way around. (This is not meant purely as flamebait btw)
Speilburg makes the mainstream news because he is commercially important *but* DVD encryption, region coding and other throttling of media really is stuff that matters.
Spielburg wont be important for long after his death, whereas media control is massively important now and will be throughout the future, not just for the celebrity of the rich, but the rest of us too. Stick to the point.
Did you really say "Although nukes COULD be used for the noble purpose of deflecting incoming Comets/Asteroids."?????
Are you nuts or what?
The reason we have an international ban or nuclear reactions in space is so that we dont destroy not just ourselves, but the rest of our known universe..
If a nuke was set of in near-vacuum space, the chain reaction would still occur, but at huge distances - I'm not sure of the mechanics between explosions in space and bodies of large mass (which will have an awfull lot to do with type and size of atmosphere, if any), but there is absolutely no reason to assume that chain reactions among the far more dispersed matter of near-vacuum will not be absolutely catastrophic.
Feel free to correct me on this, but isn't there good reason to suggest that based on reactions that happen on Earth, the chain reaction in space could basically rip through all known near-vacuum, impacting every large-matter-body in space aswell?
In other words, wouldn't it be like, instead of one point nuke within Earth atmosphere, simultaneous nuking of the whole outer atmosphere of every planet or star or comet everywhere?
Since I am relying on memory posting this, I will research further over the weekend - in the meantime, feel free to reply candidly.
Since no-one in their correct mind can get the ecomomy-supercorp. relationship the wrong way around, I am assuming you are just writing this as flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow - if you are keylogging, and someone access online banking, doesn't that (technically) constitute cracking? Are you scared of the information collected getting cracked?
Also, in the UK there is the Data Protection Act which legally obliges companies to disclose any and all information held on an indivual (at the time asked), for just £10: including any emails, pictures, post-it notes and records of any type. The penalties include jail time for the named officials. Do you have anything similar?
The reason for these questions is, I am pretty sure all schools and Uni's would be considered dutiful if the media caught them logging/recording activity. I would have thought the reverse would be true if a company was shown to be doing it...
While I do sympathise with the situation, and agree about logging and 'personal ownership' clauses, I find the family model awkward, but accurate.
I, and several of my colleagues (of varying degrees of computer competency) have at different points needed permission to install programs, set up laptops on the home network etc.. My gf was given a laptop by work, which we cannot use on our home network as the permissions are too strict and the proxies are pre-set, hidden and locked away. Should I hack it? Back up the HD image and replace it? Let her lug a crippled machine around and transfer things by USB when we have a wireless network? Make her work at her home PC when at home?
Problem is, she doesn't have the time (and they also take a dim view of her trying) to nag IT about every thing, little or big. It does, however, limit her performance, as she often finds quick internet access really helps her function. That said, she installed Kazaa on her home PC the moment I left her alone.. She is a typical professional idiot (I meant that in the nicest possible way, dear), and needs a lot of guidance, and someone on call to tend to her IT hiccups. At home, that's me, but they cant afford the workplace equivalent.
Can't be let loose, cant afford on-call support, dont want to constantly monitor - so the employee does not function effectively..
I would suggest that workers at all levels are treated (unless they prove otherwise, literally, through testing) as a DMZ; left to function (as you suggest), not monitored except in case of an overt issue, but not 'trusted' to be wise unless they can prove it. This would be more meritocratic, and less freindly than the typical family model often used, but would probably allow the employees (except possibly the tech support) to function more effectively.
Too simple to be useful. How do you email another company a document you have been drafting? What if you want to copy and paste some (relatively unimportant, non-threatening) financial data into it?
Apart from anything else, people dont want to use seperate computers at the same desk, and you still need some link between then, even if it meant using usb keys or something. That's why firewall engineers are employed to create layers of protection, so you get a similar effect to different networks, but with far more control over which channels stay open to 'the oustide'.
Also, there is a workforce benefit to complex networks: If you take the attitude "You say you want to work from home? Tough luck" then you can kiss goodbye to those skilled,computer-literate professionals - they will be happy to be headhunted by someone who can offer them a bit of freedom..
I wonder how many companies have introduced spyware internally to 'combat internal threats'?
It isn't a new idea that threats come from inside the network, and lots of remote desktop, keylogging and similar spyware has advertised itself for the 'legitimate' use of monitoring employees or children to 'prevent threats to security'. Even Back-Orifice used to claim it was a sysadmin's best tool..
I have heard lots of people in different jobs saying they have to be careful of getting caught surfing or emailing 'at the wrong time', but how many offices actually use potentially malicious spyware as a 'security measure'? If so, how does it work with the network anti-virus? Honestly, I would love to know, even from anonymous posters - has anyone reading this officially spied on their colleagues?
for companies that think of employees as liabilities...treating employees like family is a better approach...My mother, for example, has a computer with very strict security policies that she can't change.
How exactly is that different, other than in tone?
I have been using NTL as my (UK) ISP, and suddenly found I was banned from /.
On inspection, it's the (very well advertised) proxy which is banned..
The proxy IP is well advertised as it's the only one that works correctly with eBay on NTL's network. Unfortunately, I don't rate NTL's chances of finding or dealing with the kiddie responsible, based on their current performance: and they are a cable co.!
I thought it meant 2001 - as a maths, sci-fi & film techie (i.e. a techie) it ranks up there with the ten kinds of people joke..
those whoe know binary, and those who dont
backwards..
Good point. Well made.
I hadn't even noticed I was doing it..
How useful - slagging off CMS system on\.
When I saw the mod score reason I laughed out loud:
Someone give that modder a (free) beer - I was seriously considering the evils of \. until then!
Windows and Internet Explorer, so far..
News needed on \.
Adverts need not apply.
Agreed, and btw, nice sig.
If you are sold something which is not as advertised, you can complain and should expect:
1) An apology
2) A refund
3) A commitment to correct it (the product or the advert or both)
If that doesn't work at the time, then there are institutions set up which will attempt to enforce satisfaction for you.. Sounds good so far, doesn't it?
The only thing which can ruin this system is people NOT complaining when something is not as advertised. As an example, if you ordered a meal with a full, fresh salad in a restaurant (from a photo), and got only 1 soggy lettuce leaf, you would expect them to apologise, take it back, do it again properly, and maybe even not charge you, since they failed to serve what they said (and showed) they would serve.
Macdonalds is of the few restaurants where this is not considered normal, and I can't see why. I complain about the mis-nomer 'fast food' in these places - loudly, to the 'manager'. I get 2 reactions - distaste (usually from people who think that MacD is some kind of food shrine to be worshipped on a daily basis), and grudging consent (by people who came for quick food, and either can't be arsed or don't have the time to bother themselves).
MacDonalds in particular has fostered this culture of acceptance to the extent that while 5 or so years ago I would have got an apology, nowadays I am treated as a loon, by other customers and staff. They seem to think that because it is unusual to complain, there is nothing wrong with handing you a late, cold, damp shadow of what you ordered, often with relish when I specifically asked for none.
You wouldn't accept it anywhere else: why is it normal in a 'fast food' place?
Oh yes, and back to the games industry - too bloody right. By all means show it in a nice light (or even some lovelies holding the box in provacative stances), but lying about the content itself is unnaceptable. Fraud, to be precise. They can lie all they like about the 'lifestyle image' of a product, but correct representation of the actual content is a legal requirement that we would be fools not to enforce.
Here in the UK defensive driving is a skill set appropriate to all road (and some pavement) users.
That includes awareness of how ABS & traction control work (or not, as many cars on the road here arent new enough to have either), and the skill to traverse a slalom, especially given the amount of traffic and some of the manouvres and corning you have to do on a daily basis: If you drive past a school during the 'school run', this in particular becomes a matter of life and death, but still needs to be done at speed in order to not be late.
A better question might be, why aren't tests designed for both modern and old car systems, in the same way as you get test for manual and automatic cars. You can drive an automatic if you pass the manual test (so we all do), why not have the same thing with aided-control and driver-control tests? (You could even incorporate the automatic clutch into the aided-control test, and keep the names as automatic and manual)..
Link: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22750- 1973418,00.html
1) Real link here
2) The test involved only 4 people, who seem to have been deliberately chosen from the very worst of rich idiots: what a suprise, they cant drive.
3) If you're not scared by other drivers, you haven't been paying attention.
Good flamebait: Die, troll.
Good point. Well made.
Thats fabulously proficient damage: inspired!
Did that kid make many 'errors'?
I only ask because I get to fix everyone else's PC problems, and have seen some really bad ideas and bad 'luck' by others (icluding opening a case mid operation, placing the hard drive on a live PSU and sparking arcs between them - the HDD survived!), and I am really interested in finding out if some people are prone to accidents.
My girlfriend gets electric shocks off shopping trolleys and car doors etc, and even though I build her PCs for her (now), they last half the time that mine do. Same parts, same settings..
When we first got together she had a PC that she had built where every component and setting was one step up from mine that benchmarked at 2/3 the performance of mine. To this day I cannot see why, when mine had bigger bottlenecks.
I sometimes wonder if she is doing something inspired..
Is there any way of avoiding (or at least efficiently cleaning up after) accident-prone people?
Are there static attarctors, do they have some aura bringing down hardware, or are they just wiping out our hard work 'to make it look neat'?
Sorry but IMHO you have it the wrong way around.
(This is not meant purely as flamebait btw)
Speilburg makes the mainstream news because he is commercially important
*but*
DVD encryption, region coding and other throttling of media really is stuff that matters.
Spielburg wont be important for long after his death, whereas media control is massively important now and will be throughout the future, not just for the celebrity of the rich, but the rest of us too.
Stick to the point.
Anyone seen something like a case on this kind of scale that could be modified to hold all the bits screwed in at appropriate points?
I would really like to fit my own systems into a single wall unit, which would require space for several mobos, fans, psu's (ATX and AT), etc..
Has anyone seen either some generic configurable storage area, or better yet the equivalent of mechano or lego for doing this kind of thing cheaply?
I would be amazed if the industry hasnt made a shelf-type system with correctly spaced parts and screw-holes for this yet.
Are you nuts or what?
The reason we have an international ban or nuclear reactions in space is so that we dont destroy not just ourselves, but the rest of our known universe..
If a nuke was set of in near-vacuum space, the chain reaction would still occur, but at huge distances - I'm not sure of the mechanics between explosions in space and bodies of large mass (which will have an awfull lot to do with type and size of atmosphere, if any), but there is absolutely no reason to assume that chain reactions among the far more dispersed matter of near-vacuum will not be absolutely catastrophic.
Feel free to correct me on this, but isn't there good reason to suggest that based on reactions that happen on Earth, the chain reaction in space could basically rip through all known near-vacuum, impacting every large-matter-body in space aswell?
In other words, wouldn't it be like, instead of one point nuke within Earth atmosphere, simultaneous nuking of the whole outer atmosphere of every planet or star or comet everywhere?
Since I am relying on memory posting this, I will research further over the weekend - in the meantime, feel free to reply candidly.
Success!
You must be so proud.