Having done I.T. for over 25 years and counting now, I'm *really* getting fed up with all the authoritarian sysadmin wanna-be's who impose all sorts of rules on what people CAN'T do on a network, instead of ENABLING people to do more with the resources available.
This is mostly right. Realize, though, that sometimes those authoritarian sysadmins aren't imposing the rules in any more than a technical sense. Requirements are imposed on them, too, and sometimes the only way to meet those requirements is to say sorry, guys, you can't just install whatever you want. Clearly the story you relate goes WAY beyond that.
At the end of the day, when you work in I.T, or network/systems administration, it's your job to construct and maintain a computer environment that everyone finds as productive as possible.
Nearly everything is a balancing act, and nearly every statement that something should be "as X as possible" is wrong, because it fails to take that into account.
What protects your DATA is the legal stuff.... non-compete clauses or signed agreements and documents promising you won't do certain things with the info. The BYOD or the company owned devices are just tools that can temporarily hold some of the data for people.
This, however, is completely wrong. Non-competes, NDAs, etc. don't protect your data at all. They merely give you stick to smack people with if they fail to protect your data if they had an obligation to do so..
Who buys the device is little more than a detail for accounting -- and shouldn't even matter much from the I.T. perspective.
IT doesn't care who buys it. IT cares who manages it because there's an implication about how it's managed, what it does, who uses it, etc.
I did. My dentist told me the soda, diet or not, was eroding the enamel on my teeth.
But I'm not talking just soda, they had free nuts, cookies, etc, etc. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner was however much you cared to eat. I didn't go entirely nuts, but it was quite easy to grab a cup of trail mix, nuts, a cookie or two before most classes just to feed the munchie reflex.
I'd just rather not be offered perqs that are bad for me. Sure, I can develop willpower (and have, the 20 and more is long gone), but doing harm to people in the guise of doing them good is bad, IMO.
I don't get this at work, but I did get it at $B_SCHOOL. It was great! And I gained 20 pounds. Looking back, I rather wished they didn't offer unlimited munchies, and I'm perfectly content that my orkplace doesn't.
Yahoo will sooner or later realize that they can't buy "cool", and that their either going to render Tumblr into yahoo, thereby ruining it, or let Tumblr go off on its merry way by selling it to someone else, or to it's prior owners who, thanks to Yahoo, have $1.1 billion to buy it with.
IMO, the net of this purchase is that in a few years, Yahoo will again not own Tumblr and will be about $900 million lighter for their trouble.
At least the EU and China aren't so rigidly individualistic that we'll poison our children for temporary comfort. I do feel bad for Canada and Mexico though.
I don't disagree. My simple example was intended just as barebones "here's how insurance works".
The US system has a terrible pricing disconnect from healthcare consumer to healthcare payor, and consequently consumers have very little pricing power.
Maybe in your country. In mine, it's more like 9 out of 10 eat butter from a jar. That's not really the point, though. Yes, we could very significantly reduce our overall healthcare spending if people actually took care of themselves. Even if we did, random disease strikes. A young friend of mine survived brain cancer. A 20-year-old friend of mine didn't survive a different cancer. Both endured lengthy and expensive treatments. Neither were linked to particular behaviors, they just drew the short straw. THAT is what insurance is for, and no matter how much you pare down the waste and cost, if it's done right, the bucket is still empty at the end of the year (on average, and hand waving a bit about cash reserves for exceptionally bad years).
Once people have serious ailments is the wrong time to intervene. If granny's 150 pounds overweight, good luck getting her to adopt an exercise regime. Really, we need to look in elementary schools and ask why so many kids are chubby and can't run. Some of them are your future 40 year olds in mart carts, and it's truly a crying shame. It doesn't have to be this way.
The freeloaders who have paid thousands into private health insurance without taking any benefits and then lose their job, can't pay, and get NONE of that money back when they need it?
Oh, you're one of those people who don't understand how insurance works. Let me help you out.
I'm one of those people who pays every year and gets virtually no medical treatment. Healthy as a horse. I should absolutely get my money back. Right?
Wrong. Here's a simplified example for you. There are 10 people in my fictional world. There's only one malady: heart attack. It strikes 10% of the people per year, and costs $100k to treat. Mere mortals like you and I can't just absorb a $100k hit, but we can absorb $10k/year in insurance costs. Everybody throws $10k/year in a bucket and the one guy per year (on average) who has a heart attack gets to take the money out of the bucket and use it for his treatment.
The bucket is an insurance company. You should see that the money that the 9 of us put in there who were healthy that year isn't still sitting there. It got paid out to the guy who wasn't healthy.
Or the freeloaders who are completely avoiding doctor visits to avoid getting any preventative care or diagnoses they need in order to keep pre-existing conditions from appearing on their health records (and end up costing the insurance companies and/or the government 100x what it would have if they had dealt with their issues earlier)?
There's this notion of freedom. It's not all about saving money. If I don't want to go to the doctor, that's really none of your business. Now, should I bear the costs of not getting preventive care? Sure! I used to have a dental plan like that. Get your twice a year routine cleaning and exam and everything is covered 100%. Don't, and you pay a percentage of the cost of fixing the teeth you didn't take care of.
The fact is, healthcare costs would be far lower if we had a single payer system.
No, that's just a claim backed up by no evidence you've presented.
Cover EVERYONE at a federal level, then none of your concerns about private corporate interest are relevant.
And that, regrettably, is the typical appeal to authority that harkens back to the days when mommy and daddy could make everything all better. The federal government is just a collection of people like me and you. Some of them are very good at their jobs. Some of them are very bad. Most of them are average. You know, just like the rest of us.
The problem with federalizing it is that you get just one option. You get saddled with the choices that are made by a set of bureaucrats at the top. You naively assume they'll be the right choices for you, but that's not necessarily true. Many like to point at countries like Canada as a claim that it works fine. Well, I have family in Canada and they don't think it works fine. Canadians also have an exercise another option when they need better or faster treatment: they come to the US.
There are definitely things we should reform about the healthcare industry. Pre-existing conditions is part of it, but Obamacare did that already. Separating health insurance from employment should happen. Some sort of incentive to get us to stop being a nation that eats and couch surfs itself to death would go a long way to bringing costs down. There are lots more.
It's not about Google ignoring the order. Google could diligently remove all copies of the video from their servers. They can't remove it from mine, or yours. For that, the judge would have to order me and you to remove it, and not being under his jurisdiction, I expect I could ignore him with impunity (as long as I don't travel to.ie ever).
It sounds like you're saying it should be actionable if one person steals your work, but if everyone steals your work, it shouldn't be.
IMO, Warner Bros is in a "live by the IP, die by the IP" place. If they took someone else's work and used it for commercial gain, I don't have a problem with the creator whacking them on the head for it. The foolproof defense, oh big companies who make your fortunes by creating characters, is just never to steal someone else's characters.
Oooo! I'll answer! Education, like most things, should be a local issue because people tend to screw things up. If it's a local issue and they screw it up, you can move. Moving out of Louisiana isn't a huge deal. If it's a national issue and they screw up, you have to leave the country, which for most people with family and other attachments, is a much bigger deal.
For the same reason mutual funds and hedge funds exist (spare me the anti-rich-people jokes, please). If I know how to get a good return on invested money, I can either invest my small pool of money and make x% on that, or offer the service of knowing how to get a good return on invested money and get a smaller % of a potentially MUCH larger pool of money. This works out to a lot more dollars per year for me and for you, assuming my skills are genuine. If they're not, then I'm deluding myself (and you) or I'm a fraud. Telling the difference between those possibilities is often hard.
There's an unfortunate tendency to label "heroes" people who suffer some dramatic, tragic fate. The crews of Challenger and Columbia were hailed as heroes, when in reality they weren't any more heroic than any other space shuttle crew, just a lot more unfortunate.
If most of your health care comes from ER visits, you're probably doing it wrong.
Your point, though, is valid. Price comparison at the consumer level is all but impossible. Try walking into your doctor's office and asking how much for an appointment. They won't be able to tell you. The real answer is "it depends on what we end up doing, and what rates your insurance company negotiated, if you have one".
Nonsense. Wanting someone who planted a bomb in a crowd of people to suffer in the same way his victims did doesn't make you a psychopath. It makes you vengeful. IMO, anyone who has watched any of the video of the immediate aftermath or seen still images of the carnage could quite reasonably want the perpetrator(s) to suffer.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 2
No one underwrites the losses. That's what the interest and fees are for. Or do you think that 4% + 7.9% should be entirely risk free for the lender?
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 2
Maybe you mean taxpayer funded, but unless every hour of labor is donated, all supplies are donated, the buildings in which education happens are donated, then it's not free. Paying for something in a different way doesn't make it free, although I get that it makes a lot of people feel like it is.
4) Decline agreed upon repair because he's concerned customer may be involved in illegal activity. Stop doing all such work because, come on, he knew all along this is what they were for and the last thin vestiges of plausible deniability are gone.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. Reading the article, he essentially admits he knew or at least suspected what they were being used for, especially once he found the $800k, but thought shielding himself from knowing with absolute certainty would work. Nope.
It's a harsh sentence for sure, but the guy tangled with the DEA and chose to use the sort of logic you or I might have in a playground dispute. Not a good idea.
It's just a gimmick. It's entertaining, and so catches the news (I think it was on Today...today). It's also basically a dumb idea. The guy is a poster child for the idea that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. He might be able to roll this into a movie and make a little money (Catfish, anyone?) but other than that, there's nothing to see here. Move along.
Of course, but I do believe that for most of us, that's exactly how we operate. Or rather, it's part of how we operate. When our moral compass fails, there's still the value of deterrence. That's why looting is rampant in disasters, for example. The value of deterrence is drops to near zero because people believe, often correctly, that the chaos and fact that so many others are looting as well means they won't be prosecuted. They have the same (broken) moral compass they had before. What changes is their expectation of being held accountable.
Slashdot Mirror
This is mostly right. Realize, though, that sometimes those authoritarian sysadmins aren't imposing the rules in any more than a technical sense. Requirements are imposed on them, too, and sometimes the only way to meet those requirements is to say sorry, guys, you can't just install whatever you want. Clearly the story you relate goes WAY beyond that.
Nearly everything is a balancing act, and nearly every statement that something should be "as X as possible" is wrong, because it fails to take that into account.
This, however, is completely wrong. Non-competes, NDAs, etc. don't protect your data at all. They merely give you stick to smack people with if they fail to protect your data if they had an obligation to do so..
IT doesn't care who buys it. IT cares who manages it because there's an implication about how it's managed, what it does, who uses it, etc.
It was just made up on the spot, like 73% of statistics are.
I did. My dentist told me the soda, diet or not, was eroding the enamel on my teeth.
But I'm not talking just soda, they had free nuts, cookies, etc, etc. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner was however much you cared to eat. I didn't go entirely nuts, but it was quite easy to grab a cup of trail mix, nuts, a cookie or two before most classes just to feed the munchie reflex.
I'd just rather not be offered perqs that are bad for me. Sure, I can develop willpower (and have, the 20 and more is long gone), but doing harm to people in the guise of doing them good is bad, IMO.
I don't get this at work, but I did get it at $B_SCHOOL. It was great! And I gained 20 pounds. Looking back, I rather wished they didn't offer unlimited munchies, and I'm perfectly content that my orkplace doesn't.
Yahoo will sooner or later realize that they can't buy "cool", and that their either going to render Tumblr into yahoo, thereby ruining it, or let Tumblr go off on its merry way by selling it to someone else, or to it's prior owners who, thanks to Yahoo, have $1.1 billion to buy it with.
IMO, the net of this purchase is that in a few years, Yahoo will again not own Tumblr and will be about $900 million lighter for their trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
Riiiiight.
I don't disagree. My simple example was intended just as barebones "here's how insurance works".
The US system has a terrible pricing disconnect from healthcare consumer to healthcare payor, and consequently consumers have very little pricing power.
Maybe in your country. In mine, it's more like 9 out of 10 eat butter from a jar. That's not really the point, though. Yes, we could very significantly reduce our overall healthcare spending if people actually took care of themselves. Even if we did, random disease strikes. A young friend of mine survived brain cancer. A 20-year-old friend of mine didn't survive a different cancer. Both endured lengthy and expensive treatments. Neither were linked to particular behaviors, they just drew the short straw. THAT is what insurance is for, and no matter how much you pare down the waste and cost, if it's done right, the bucket is still empty at the end of the year (on average, and hand waving a bit about cash reserves for exceptionally bad years).
Once people have serious ailments is the wrong time to intervene. If granny's 150 pounds overweight, good luck getting her to adopt an exercise regime. Really, we need to look in elementary schools and ask why so many kids are chubby and can't run. Some of them are your future 40 year olds in mart carts, and it's truly a crying shame. It doesn't have to be this way.
Oh, you're one of those people who don't understand how insurance works. Let me help you out.
I'm one of those people who pays every year and gets virtually no medical treatment. Healthy as a horse. I should absolutely get my money back. Right?
Wrong. Here's a simplified example for you. There are 10 people in my fictional world. There's only one malady: heart attack. It strikes 10% of the people per year, and costs $100k to treat. Mere mortals like you and I can't just absorb a $100k hit, but we can absorb $10k/year in insurance costs. Everybody throws $10k/year in a bucket and the one guy per year (on average) who has a heart attack gets to take the money out of the bucket and use it for his treatment.
The bucket is an insurance company. You should see that the money that the 9 of us put in there who were healthy that year isn't still sitting there. It got paid out to the guy who wasn't healthy.
There's this notion of freedom. It's not all about saving money. If I don't want to go to the doctor, that's really none of your business. Now, should I bear the costs of not getting preventive care? Sure! I used to have a dental plan like that. Get your twice a year routine cleaning and exam and everything is covered 100%. Don't, and you pay a percentage of the cost of fixing the teeth you didn't take care of.
No, that's just a claim backed up by no evidence you've presented.
And that, regrettably, is the typical appeal to authority that harkens back to the days when mommy and daddy could make everything all better. The federal government is just a collection of people like me and you. Some of them are very good at their jobs. Some of them are very bad. Most of them are average. You know, just like the rest of us.
The problem with federalizing it is that you get just one option. You get saddled with the choices that are made by a set of bureaucrats at the top. You naively assume they'll be the right choices for you, but that's not necessarily true. Many like to point at countries like Canada as a claim that it works fine. Well, I have family in Canada and they don't think it works fine. Canadians also have an exercise another option when they need better or faster treatment: they come to the US.
There are definitely things we should reform about the healthcare industry. Pre-existing conditions is part of it, but Obamacare did that already. Separating health insurance from employment should happen. Some sort of incentive to get us to stop being a nation that eats and couch surfs itself to death would go a long way to bringing costs down. There are lots more.
It's not about Google ignoring the order. Google could diligently remove all copies of the video from their servers. They can't remove it from mine, or yours. For that, the judge would have to order me and you to remove it, and not being under his jurisdiction, I expect I could ignore him with impunity (as long as I don't travel to .ie ever).
Actually, that's been done.
http://www.ted.com/talks/nathan_myhrvold_could_this_laser_zap_malaria.html
Pretty cool, imo.
It sounds like you're saying it should be actionable if one person steals your work, but if everyone steals your work, it shouldn't be.
IMO, Warner Bros is in a "live by the IP, die by the IP" place. If they took someone else's work and used it for commercial gain, I don't have a problem with the creator whacking them on the head for it. The foolproof defense, oh big companies who make your fortunes by creating characters, is just never to steal someone else's characters.
Oooo! I'll answer! Education, like most things, should be a local issue because people tend to screw things up. If it's a local issue and they screw it up, you can move. Moving out of Louisiana isn't a huge deal. If it's a national issue and they screw up, you have to leave the country, which for most people with family and other attachments, is a much bigger deal.
For the same reason mutual funds and hedge funds exist (spare me the anti-rich-people jokes, please). If I know how to get a good return on invested money, I can either invest my small pool of money and make x% on that, or offer the service of knowing how to get a good return on invested money and get a smaller % of a potentially MUCH larger pool of money. This works out to a lot more dollars per year for me and for you, assuming my skills are genuine. If they're not, then I'm deluding myself (and you) or I'm a fraud. Telling the difference between those possibilities is often hard.
In a word, geology. Actually worth learning something about before claiming it's all BS.
There's an unfortunate tendency to label "heroes" people who suffer some dramatic, tragic fate. The crews of Challenger and Columbia were hailed as heroes, when in reality they weren't any more heroic than any other space shuttle crew, just a lot more unfortunate.
If most of your health care comes from ER visits, you're probably doing it wrong.
Your point, though, is valid. Price comparison at the consumer level is all but impossible. Try walking into your doctor's office and asking how much for an appointment. They won't be able to tell you. The real answer is "it depends on what we end up doing, and what rates your insurance company negotiated, if you have one".
Nonsense. Wanting someone who planted a bomb in a crowd of people to suffer in the same way his victims did doesn't make you a psychopath. It makes you vengeful. IMO, anyone who has watched any of the video of the immediate aftermath or seen still images of the carnage could quite reasonably want the perpetrator(s) to suffer.
No one underwrites the losses. That's what the interest and fees are for. Or do you think that 4% + 7.9% should be entirely risk free for the lender?
Maybe you mean taxpayer funded, but unless every hour of labor is donated, all supplies are donated, the buildings in which education happens are donated, then it's not free. Paying for something in a different way doesn't make it free, although I get that it makes a lot of people feel like it is.
4) Decline agreed upon repair because he's concerned customer may be involved in illegal activity. Stop doing all such work because, come on, he knew all along this is what they were for and the last thin vestiges of plausible deniability are gone.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. Reading the article, he essentially admits he knew or at least suspected what they were being used for, especially once he found the $800k, but thought shielding himself from knowing with absolute certainty would work. Nope.
It's a harsh sentence for sure, but the guy tangled with the DEA and chose to use the sort of logic you or I might have in a playground dispute. Not a good idea.
It's just a gimmick. It's entertaining, and so catches the news (I think it was on Today...today). It's also basically a dumb idea. The guy is a poster child for the idea that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. He might be able to roll this into a movie and make a little money (Catfish, anyone?) but other than that, there's nothing to see here. Move along.
Shear holders? Is this about the vasectomy?
Of course, but I do believe that for most of us, that's exactly how we operate. Or rather, it's part of how we operate. When our moral compass fails, there's still the value of deterrence. That's why looting is rampant in disasters, for example. The value of deterrence is drops to near zero because people believe, often correctly, that the chaos and fact that so many others are looting as well means they won't be prosecuted. They have the same (broken) moral compass they had before. What changes is their expectation of being held accountable.