You know, I agree with you. Every day, when people log on to US government machines, they recieve a message along these lines:
***WARNING***WARNING***WARNING***WARNING***
YOU HAVE ACCESSED A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
COMPUTER. USE OF THIS COMPUTER WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
OR FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH AUTHORIZATION HAS NOT BEEN
EXTENDED IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW AND CAN BE
PUNISHED WITH FINES OR IMPRISONMENT.
(PUBLIC LAW 99-474) REPORT SUSPECTED VIOLATIONS TO
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY OFFICER.
***WARNING***WARNING***WARNING***WARNING***
Yet people still don't get it. So many people think the machine belongs to him/her. Crap shareware is installed, they instant message all day, browse the net, and just generally do things to f-up their systems. That doesn't even include the things that are more than simple time/productivity wasters, like visiting inappropriate internet sites. People should realize that the tools they are given are for work. Sure, certain leeway is given by most companies, but the employees still should be aware that this doesn't have to be the case.
They're selling you high speed internet access. My DSL provider, CapuNet, displays a very sensible article about security in their customer support section. It basically says, your machine is valuble because it has a high speed connection, so do something to secure it. I agree, and that's all they need to say. It is up to the customer to weigh the risks, rewards, and options and act accordingly.
There are plenty of firewall and security products out there, and if your computer gets comprimised, it is not the fault of the service provider. For those hear on/., probably the one that many would be interested in is the NetBSD firewall solution. If you don't have a machine to dedicate as a firewall, there are plenty of others, including free software like ZoneAlarm. One of the funniest things about this, though, is that a lot of the port scans and other intrusion attempts that people get are coming from their ISP. It would be nice if this was to benefit the customer, but I think it's mainly just to keep an eye on the customer instead.
Slashdot is a collection of opinions. When someone like Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, et al reports on something, they are presenting themselves as unbiased reporters. That is why news shows make it clear with a disclaimer when a reporter/commentator is voicing his own opinions.
I agree, this post is not balanced. But the point of it is not the dirty tricks or lies on both sides. The point is that the media should not be taking sides. They should be reporting the facts, including when one side is misrepresenting or distorting those facts.
It is one thing for talkshows and comedians to make jokes about things like Gore's invention of the internet, but it is a completely different story if journalists report partial facts or one side of a story. It is difficult for anyone to be completely impartial, but they can do a better job than they are doing.
"Our founding fathers knew that the only way to keep America free is to limit the Federal government, something this generation has not learned. "
The founding fathers had this view because it suited their needs. If they supported a central government, that would weaken their position against England. Do you really think they would have changed their mind if they had been given representation in England? Of course not.
That doesn't really matter, though. Why would you want to base your opinions on those of the founding fathers? Sure, they could be weighed along with beliefs of others you look up to, but it's a different world we live in now.
'This whole piece is dedicated to the principal that Government is smarter than people are. "We are from the Government and we are going to help" is one of the most scary thoughts anyone could have.'
How is this possible? Government is supposed to be the people. I don't think the author thinks the government is smarter than people. Being made up of the people, if they're idiots, it's the fault of us all; the voters, the non-voters, and the intelligent people who could run for office but are unwilling.
It's obvious we won't agree on a lot of this, but it's interesting. I'll lob a few back at you.
My point about the taxes is simply this: Do you truly believe that your taxes don't benefit you in any way? If you do, fine. But I tend to think that most people believe taxes don't benefit them in the way they should or as much as they should.
The argument about the founding fathers does not sway me in the least. Just because one of them made that statement, that makes it correct and accurate? What did the other founding fathers think about that? Is it relative 200+ years later? And most important, even if more than 5% is "fostering a heavy burden", why is it wrong? Just because it's a burden? A lot burdensome things are neccessary and/or deserved. Off hand, though, I can think of several federally funded agencies that might benefit you. National Weather Service? US Military? Like the bumper sticker says, it will be a great day when schools have enough money and the govenment has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.
Regarding the housewife, you shouldn't have to pay to support her. But until someone gets all those deadbeat dads to do it, what other choice do we have? We are the results of our childhood. I hope you would not argue that we can change the way someone turns out for better or worse according to their childhood. I am not willing to take the risk that is inherent in private funding. There are people that take advantage of the system now, and that sucks. But what if enough money could not be generated privately for those that really need help?
Why is the government handling this? Because few other organisations are willing to. I agree that the government is a model of ineffeciency and cost effectiveness. The problem with churches and the other organisations, though, is many have a vested interest in helping certain people or viewpoints over others. I agree government programs do not work to reduce the number of poor people. If they (or anyone) could accomplish that, it would make a lot of these arguments moot.
Of course, without poor people, sounds a lot like communism.
I understand your point, but do you really see no benefit from the taxes you are paying. If you make good money and live in a neighborhood that fits your income, I'm pretty sure your police, firefighters, schools, etc. are better equipped and trained than in a low-income neighborhood. Your streets and public spaces are probably better maintained, too. I don't, by the way, think this is right, at least not to the current extreme.
And how do you call the tax extremely burdensome. True, taxes are high and they could do more with or money if there was not so much government waste, but we have low taxes compared to a lot of the richer nations in the world. Besides, as an example, is a 33% tax on someone making $80000 a year more burdensome, or is 33% on $300000 a year more burdensome? If an unemployed housewife has her husband of 15 years leave her with their 3 kids, is it her fault she can only get a job making $20000? After all, she had been doing the most important job there is, which is raising the kids.
I'm probably in the minority, but I would be willing to pay high taxes if I knew it would help those that need it, especially children. We are the wealthiest nation in the world, and too many of our children live in poverty.
Anyway, my question is, if you could paint the White House, what color would you paint it?
I'm not usually this harsh or judgemental, but here it goes.
Man, are you a troll or just an idiot? Of course our nation has a bunch of problems. It's hundreds of millions of people from different cultures, upbringings, and beliefs. But would you rather live somewhere that would lock you up for saying what you just said?
Does it make any sense whatsoever to boycott an election to go to war against the US Government. Let's see, which is more likely? Getting together enough people and resources to overthrow the government, or getting the 55% of people who don't vote every election to vote and cause some change in the way things go down.
And you're talking about the government stealing from us with impunity. Tell you what, when you regain control of the government, let's get rid of taxes. Everybody will be responsible for their own shit. If I want to get to work, I'll pay to get the road fixed. If I want my kids to learn math, I'll teach them or hire a teacher. If I want them to be protected from molestors, I'll hire security. If I want to stop someone from using kids in a sweatshop, I'll cap someone. That's a much better idea than that 'liberalist "protecting the children"' crap.
Or maybe you should just be realistic. Some parts of our country and government suck. Some work well. What sucks to some, works well for others. You can't make everybody happy, but maybe if more people walked the walk instead of just talking the talk, things could get better.
Every vote gets counted (more than once in some cities:) There are more than ten presidential candidates almost every election. Make a choice. If you don't think that will do anything, then do more. There is a thing called political activism, and it doesn't have to be bad.
I dream about surfing the net, checking out/., playing games on Stanlee.net, punching users in the neck after fixing the PCs they're crashing(credit to Marc for that one), reading, not answering the phone, taking hour long morning coffee, and giving the boss the finger.
11. Mr. Perritt, what did you have for lunch today?
A cheeseburger and fries.
Post: He clearly didn't answer that question. What kind of cheese? Did he have mayonnaise or ketchup? I know he didn't eat without a drink. He's clearly avoiding the question.
Does it really matter what the answers are? The proof is in the pudding. The review should be judged by the methods with which it was conducted and the results. All these posts remind me of someone's wife (not my wife...really). "Well, I want to be mad, and since you haven't done anything wrong yet, I'll just get mad at you for something I think you're going to do in the near future."
Using the argument and logic that 18 year olds don't vote so it doesn't matter how the candidates appear to said 18 year olds does not make sense. Why? Because over half of registered voters do not vote! This happens every election. Not elegible voters, but people who are actually registered to vote. 18 year olds might have a higher percentage that don't vote, but looking at what a large percentage of the population they make up, I would say they are still relatively well represented.
If you look at this& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; lt;/a> site at the US Census you can do a query and see that the number of 18 year olds was less during the baby boom years than it is now. Not that unusual. The baby boomers have 18 year olds now, and the average family has more children than parents. Here are stats for the years 1963-68 and 1999-2000 just as an example.
You should fact check before you call somebody an idiot... or just call him an idiot without using statistics as an excuse.
I have to disagree that jobs are just something you do to get money. I hope you don't really think that. It is definitely true in some cases, but a job should be something that gives you satisfaction, interest you, or is otherwise fulfilling. To some people this is money, to others recognition, to others it is something else and/or a combination of things.
A job is what you make of it. There are always options. I used to be in retail, which I of course couldn't stand. But I made it into an opportunity. After going back to school and suffering job burn out from 50+ hour weeks, I now am quite happy to work 40 hour weeks making more money in a field, technology, that interests me and always offers more to learn. I did not stay with retail management for the financial rewards. I used it to gain valuable skills that could be applied towards where I saw myself in the future. Anyway, I'm off on a rant...
Companies have no qualms laying off, downsizing or exploiting thousands of workers but, contrary to popular belief, have not generally cut their management ranks. While companies savagely root out low and mid-level workers in order to stay lean and mean, executive salaries have shot through the roof.
Not that I disagree with the whole article, but this part seems odd. Last time I checked, unemployment was relatively low. Does that mean all those layed off workers have been hired as management at those executive salaries?
From my experience, tech jobs have less drug testing than most. Out of three jobs I interviewed for recently, only one required a drug test. A friend of mine had the same experience. His tech job did not require a drug test. And several of the positions have been contract jobs for the government.
"Complicated leases or house refinancing contracts, for example, can take days to finalize while the parties track each other down, waving pens for the other to sign on the dotted line."
So what is a few days when you are leasing, refinancing or buying a house or something? Is it that big a deal for it to take a few days to get everything signed when someone is buying something as expensive as a house? It may be to the real estate agent, but I don't know if it really matters to the consumer. I know I would have been leary of an using an e-sig when I bought my house.
I know one thing. If I am alive here but would be dead there, in most cases I would say that my life is better. If it isn't, well I guess that's why some people kill themselves, because they think their life is so bad.
But quality of life is for the most part subjective. You espouse what they do in New Guinea as actually living, but I am certain that my life is more satisfying here. Not to be rude, but you can give up technology and make that trip if it is your opinion that their quality of life is better. The fact is, there are people who really live, and people who don't, and it doesn't need to have anything to do with technology.
You're right. Maybe the military should stop advertising. I mean, if they don't get enough recruits, they can always just implement the draft again. Nobody would mind, right?
Also, despite the link in the comment above about the USPS, from what I understand, the USPS never has to use taxpayers money. They are supposedly self-sufficient, operating off money only from their own revenue. I guess it's deciding what source you will believe after checking something like that out. Besides, I think the USPS does have competition. I know if I have to ship something important, I'm sending it FedEx or UPS. If I want to send a letter, I send email.
What? Don't you have freedom of religion? Yeah you do, and I don't think this employer would be in business after the lawsuit. Why is this any different?
This is different because it has nothing to do with religion. They are treating every athlete in the same way. Every athlete, and probably coaches and other participants, has to sign this agreement. You are adding things to this argument that don't belong there. Also, since it is the International Olympic Committee, why do they have to go by U.S. law? Everybody seems to assume, just because there are U.S. athletes the IOC has to follow U.S. law. That is not the case.
The point is you cannot make exercise of rights the deciding factor in an unrelated situation. It's wrong.
Being wrong isn't always illegal. I think you're confusing two different types of wrong. You say they are restricting free speech, which is wrong. Which wrong is it? Morally wrong? Most would say yes. Legally wrong? That would be for the courts to decide, but if the contract is written properly, this type of thing could hold up.
It is not illegal. Plus, the article says they can't write about it during the games. It implies that they are only limited during the Olympics, not after.
You are confusing things. Your examples do not apply. Voting is a right given under the Constitution. Participating in the Olympics is not a right. If you want to participate, you have to follow their rules. It doesn't have to be right. They are allowed to require the athletes to sign a contract to participate.
I agree it's wrong, but that comparison is extreme and inaccurate. Even if, under U.S. law, the IOC can't do this because it is free speech, the threat of not competing or a lawsuit will hold athletes in check. Free speech is not a right in every country either.
But I won't be looking at anything like that for a while. You can get plenty of performance these days for a pretty good price. Until there are a few DDR boards that are proven, I'm not interested.
Hey, they don't have to give you internet access at all, do they? But, were you able to check the train schedule? I'm sure there are better ways, but anything they try would be objectionable to someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an actual reported case involving BSOD.
You know, I agree with you. Every day, when people log on to US government machines, they recieve a message along these lines:
Yet people still don't get it. So many people think the machine belongs to him/her. Crap shareware is installed, they instant message all day, browse the net, and just generally do things to f-up their systems. That doesn't even include the things that are more than simple time/productivity wasters, like visiting inappropriate internet sites. People should realize that the tools they are given are for work. Sure, certain leeway is given by most companies, but the employees still should be aware that this doesn't have to be the case.
Anyway, I've got to get back to my browsing.
They're selling you high speed internet access. My DSL provider, CapuNet, displays a very sensible article about security in their customer support section. It basically says, your machine is valuble because it has a high speed connection, so do something to secure it. I agree, and that's all they need to say. It is up to the customer to weigh the risks, rewards, and options and act accordingly.
There are plenty of firewall and security products out there, and if your computer gets comprimised, it is not the fault of the service provider. For those hear on /., probably the one that many would be interested in is the NetBSD firewall solution. If you don't have a machine to dedicate as a firewall, there are plenty of others, including free software like ZoneAlarm. One of the funniest things about this, though, is that a lot of the port scans and other intrusion attempts that people get are coming from their ISP. It would be nice if this was to benefit the customer, but I think it's mainly just to keep an eye on the customer instead.
Slashdot is a collection of opinions. When someone like Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, et al reports on something, they are presenting themselves as unbiased reporters. That is why news shows make it clear with a disclaimer when a reporter/commentator is voicing his own opinions.
I agree, this post is not balanced. But the point of it is not the dirty tricks or lies on both sides. The point is that the media should not be taking sides. They should be reporting the facts, including when one side is misrepresenting or distorting those facts.
It is one thing for talkshows and comedians to make jokes about things like Gore's invention of the internet, but it is a completely different story if journalists report partial facts or one side of a story. It is difficult for anyone to be completely impartial, but they can do a better job than they are doing.
The founding fathers had this view because it suited their needs. If they supported a central government, that would weaken their position against England. Do you really think they would have changed their mind if they had been given representation in England? Of course not.
That doesn't really matter, though. Why would you want to base your opinions on those of the founding fathers? Sure, they could be weighed along with beliefs of others you look up to, but it's a different world we live in now.
How is this possible? Government is supposed to be the people. I don't think the author thinks the government is smarter than people. Being made up of the people, if they're idiots, it's the fault of us all; the voters, the non-voters, and the intelligent people who could run for office but are unwilling.
It's obvious we won't agree on a lot of this, but it's interesting. I'll lob a few back at you.
My point about the taxes is simply this: Do you truly believe that your taxes don't benefit you in any way? If you do, fine. But I tend to think that most people believe taxes don't benefit them in the way they should or as much as they should.
The argument about the founding fathers does not sway me in the least. Just because one of them made that statement, that makes it correct and accurate? What did the other founding fathers think about that? Is it relative 200+ years later? And most important, even if more than 5% is "fostering a heavy burden", why is it wrong? Just because it's a burden? A lot burdensome things are neccessary and/or deserved. Off hand, though, I can think of several federally funded agencies that might benefit you. National Weather Service? US Military? Like the bumper sticker says, it will be a great day when schools have enough money and the govenment has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.
Regarding the housewife, you shouldn't have to pay to support her. But until someone gets all those deadbeat dads to do it, what other choice do we have? We are the results of our childhood. I hope you would not argue that we can change the way someone turns out for better or worse according to their childhood. I am not willing to take the risk that is inherent in private funding. There are people that take advantage of the system now, and that sucks. But what if enough money could not be generated privately for those that really need help?
Why is the government handling this? Because few other organisations are willing to. I agree that the government is a model of ineffeciency and cost effectiveness. The problem with churches and the other organisations, though, is many have a vested interest in helping certain people or viewpoints over others. I agree government programs do not work to reduce the number of poor people. If they (or anyone) could accomplish that, it would make a lot of these arguments moot.
Of course, without poor people, sounds a lot like communism.
I understand your point, but do you really see no benefit from the taxes you are paying. If you make good money and live in a neighborhood that fits your income, I'm pretty sure your police, firefighters, schools, etc. are better equipped and trained than in a low-income neighborhood. Your streets and public spaces are probably better maintained, too. I don't, by the way, think this is right, at least not to the current extreme.
And how do you call the tax extremely burdensome. True, taxes are high and they could do more with or money if there was not so much government waste, but we have low taxes compared to a lot of the richer nations in the world. Besides, as an example, is a 33% tax on someone making $80000 a year more burdensome, or is 33% on $300000 a year more burdensome? If an unemployed housewife has her husband of 15 years leave her with their 3 kids, is it her fault she can only get a job making $20000? After all, she had been doing the most important job there is, which is raising the kids.
I'm probably in the minority, but I would be willing to pay high taxes if I knew it would help those that need it, especially children. We are the wealthiest nation in the world, and too many of our children live in poverty.
Anyway, my question is, if you could paint the White House, what color would you paint it?
I'm not usually this harsh or judgemental, but here it goes.
Man, are you a troll or just an idiot? Of course our nation has a bunch of problems. It's hundreds of millions of people from different cultures, upbringings, and beliefs. But would you rather live somewhere that would lock you up for saying what you just said?
Does it make any sense whatsoever to boycott an election to go to war against the US Government. Let's see, which is more likely? Getting together enough people and resources to overthrow the government, or getting the 55% of people who don't vote every election to vote and cause some change in the way things go down.
And you're talking about the government stealing from us with impunity. Tell you what, when you regain control of the government, let's get rid of taxes. Everybody will be responsible for their own shit. If I want to get to work, I'll pay to get the road fixed. If I want my kids to learn math, I'll teach them or hire a teacher. If I want them to be protected from molestors, I'll hire security. If I want to stop someone from using kids in a sweatshop, I'll cap someone. That's a much better idea than that 'liberalist "protecting the children"' crap.
Or maybe you should just be realistic. Some parts of our country and government suck. Some work well. What sucks to some, works well for others. You can't make everybody happy, but maybe if more people walked the walk instead of just talking the talk, things could get better.
Every vote gets counted (more than once in some cities :) There are more than ten presidential candidates almost every election. Make a choice. If you don't think that will do anything, then do more. There is a thing called political activism, and it doesn't have to be bad.
Right on, brotha!
I don't know if he's a twit or not, but I loved his game. Steve Jackson got jacked for no reason.
I dream about surfing the net, checking out /., playing games on Stanlee.net, punching users in the neck after fixing the PCs they're crashing(credit to Marc for that one), reading, not answering the phone, taking hour long morning coffee, and giving the boss the finger.
It's annoying dreaming about work.
11. Mr. Perritt, what did you have for lunch today?
A cheeseburger and fries.
Post: He clearly didn't answer that question. What kind of cheese? Did he have mayonnaise or ketchup? I know he didn't eat without a drink. He's clearly avoiding the question.
Does it really matter what the answers are? The proof is in the pudding. The review should be judged by the methods with which it was conducted and the results. All these posts remind me of someone's wife (not my wife...really). "Well, I want to be mad, and since you haven't done anything wrong yet, I'll just get mad at you for something I think you're going to do in the near future."
Using the argument and logic that 18 year olds don't vote so it doesn't matter how the candidates appear to said 18 year olds does not make sense. Why? Because over half of registered voters do not vote! This happens every election. Not elegible voters, but people who are actually registered to vote. 18 year olds might have a higher percentage that don't vote, but looking at what a large percentage of the population they make up, I would say they are still relatively well represented.
If you look at this& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; lt;/a> site at the US Census you can do a query and see that the number of 18 year olds was less during the baby boom years than it is now. Not that unusual. The baby boomers have 18 year olds now, and the average family has more children than parents. Here are stats for the years 1963-68 and 1999-2000 just as an example.
You should fact check before you call somebody an idiot... or just call him an idiot without using statistics as an excuse.
I have to disagree that jobs are just something you do to get money. I hope you don't really think that. It is definitely true in some cases, but a job should be something that gives you satisfaction, interest you, or is otherwise fulfilling. To some people this is money, to others recognition, to others it is something else and/or a combination of things.
A job is what you make of it. There are always options. I used to be in retail, which I of course couldn't stand. But I made it into an opportunity. After going back to school and suffering job burn out from 50+ hour weeks, I now am quite happy to work 40 hour weeks making more money in a field, technology, that interests me and always offers more to learn. I did not stay with retail management for the financial rewards. I used it to gain valuable skills that could be applied towards where I saw myself in the future. Anyway, I'm off on a rant...
Not that I disagree with the whole article, but this part seems odd. Last time I checked, unemployment was relatively low. Does that mean all those layed off workers have been hired as management at those executive salaries?
From my experience, tech jobs have less drug testing than most. Out of three jobs I interviewed for recently, only one required a drug test. A friend of mine had the same experience. His tech job did not require a drug test. And several of the positions have been contract jobs for the government.
So what is a few days when you are leasing, refinancing or buying a house or something? Is it that big a deal for it to take a few days to get everything signed when someone is buying something as expensive as a house? It may be to the real estate agent, but I don't know if it really matters to the consumer. I know I would have been leary of an using an e-sig when I bought my house.
I know one thing. If I am alive here but would be dead there, in most cases I would say that my life is better. If it isn't, well I guess that's why some people kill themselves, because they think their life is so bad.
But quality of life is for the most part subjective. You espouse what they do in New Guinea as actually living, but I am certain that my life is more satisfying here. Not to be rude, but you can give up technology and make that trip if it is your opinion that their quality of life is better. The fact is, there are people who really live, and people who don't, and it doesn't need to have anything to do with technology.
Spooon!
You're right. Maybe the military should stop advertising. I mean, if they don't get enough recruits, they can always just implement the draft again. Nobody would mind, right?
Also, despite the link in the comment above about the USPS, from what I understand, the USPS never has to use taxpayers money. They are supposedly self-sufficient, operating off money only from their own revenue. I guess it's deciding what source you will believe after checking something like that out. Besides, I think the USPS does have competition. I know if I have to ship something important, I'm sending it FedEx or UPS. If I want to send a letter, I send email.
Spooon!
What? Don't you have freedom of religion? Yeah you do, and I don't think this employer would be in business after the lawsuit. Why is this any different?
This is different because it has nothing to do with religion. They are treating every athlete in the same way. Every athlete, and probably coaches and other participants, has to sign this agreement. You are adding things to this argument that don't belong there. Also, since it is the International Olympic Committee, why do they have to go by U.S. law? Everybody seems to assume, just because there are U.S. athletes the IOC has to follow U.S. law. That is not the case.
The point is you cannot make exercise of rights the deciding factor in an unrelated situation. It's wrong.
Being wrong isn't always illegal. I think you're confusing two different types of wrong. You say they are restricting free speech, which is wrong. Which wrong is it? Morally wrong? Most would say yes. Legally wrong? That would be for the courts to decide, but if the contract is written properly, this type of thing could hold up.
Spooon!
It is not illegal. Plus, the article says they can't write about it during the games. It implies that they are only limited during the Olympics, not after.
Spooon!
You are confusing things. Your examples do not apply. Voting is a right given under the Constitution. Participating in the Olympics is not a right. If you want to participate, you have to follow their rules. It doesn't have to be right. They are allowed to require the athletes to sign a contract to participate.
I agree it's wrong, but that comparison is extreme and inaccurate. Even if, under U.S. law, the IOC can't do this because it is free speech, the threat of not competing or a lawsuit will hold athletes in check. Free speech is not a right in every country either.
Spooon!
Spooon!
Spooon!
Spooon!