The current system of taxing vehicles based upon their value is ass-backwards. A brand new mini-cooper has less of an impact on the roads and the environment then a 10 year old suburban. Also, a person who drives 8,000 miles a year shouldn't be paying the same automotive taxes as a person who drives 30,000 miles a year. This is why I've thought that increasing taxes on gasoline would make a lot of sense.
I assume that there are commercial challenges/implications to doing this (although Europe doesn't seem to have a problem working these issues through) so that is why I assume they are now looking at electronic metering. I don't want any government devices tracking me (even if it is just an odometer).
In any case, tracking miles traveled doesn't address wear and tear and roads (i.e. heavier cars = presumably more wear 'n tear) and the need to promote fuel efficiency. This is why I still think taxing gas provides a better reward/punishment system without the privacy (and cost) implications of a tracking system.
My recollection is that to have a full account w/ paypal that you need to link it to your checking account. I don't blame people for finding this to be scary -- but I guess the idea is that paypal reserves the right to try and "take back" funds from your accounts if there is a dispute. While I find this distasteful, I don't think that this has anything to do with Bradley Manning..
I have a static IP and I've ran into variants of this problem before. My ISP started implementing port 25 filtering (which is a good thing IMHO) but they set up a process by which you could exclude yourself. I think their process included some automated checks to make sure you were well behaved (i.e. not an open relay).
I've had my emails rejected before because I my static IPs were being classified as dynamic IPs by a RBL. It was a while ago so I forgot what hoops I had to jump through, but I eventually got it straightened out.
Agreed... this article doesn't really say anything that is interesting and the article summary may just be making much about a quote taken out of context or that is incomplete...
Acquire the skills through a contract based relationship. Pay someone (or company) a very high $/hr rate so you can immediately get work done in the subject area needed. At the same time, make arrangements for your senior in-house talent to begin acquiring the skills (for example - involve them in the project so they are sitting w/ the contract resources).
Hiring someone fresh out of school and paying them $$$ more than your senior developer isn't going to work. The HR issues described in this article are significant, deep/impactful, and will easily have consequences beyond this single project.
Your staff understands that IT management will regularly look for people outside the organization to fill niche roles (i.e. you may need to hire an Exchange 2010 consultant to help you with the ugprade even if you have a decent "jack of all trades" admin in place). They know that consultants typically are well paid but that they won't be around long.
If the team members can't pick up the skills (i.e. the candidate is truly extraordinary or the skills are that niche), then things may be different...
BTW - reading between the lines of this story gives me the feeling that the developers in question were not keeping their skill sets polished and that this may be a bigger root problem that needs to be addressed. If the organization's developers are all client-server and the organization thinks its going to need web/mobile/etc developers then it needs to send the message to its developers that they need to acquire the appropriate skills, give them the opportunity to do so (i.e. training, work projects, etc), and get rid of them and replace them with people who are committed to evolving with the technology.
Performing sysadmin functions from a phone is far from ideal and its much more likely the sort of thing we want to be able to do (because getting it working seems "fun"), but having a tool in your belt for when the sh*t really hits the fan and you aren't near a computer or a laptop is a good idea.
I understand -- I'm just saying that I think it is a shame that when I remote wipe a phone, that I am also wiping out the user's data. This is an undesirable behavior and I'd prefer if the Apple implementation of a remote-phone wipe would just remove all exchange data (calendar, contacts, messages, etc) from the phone instead of actually restoring it to factory default.
iPhone backups don't work the way you describe. When you plug your iPhone into your computer + iTunes, it makes a backup of your settings, photos, and media.
No corporate data is backed up and if your phone is remote-wiped (or even if the user wipes it), no corporate data is wiped.
In other words, there is no need for the organization to backup the phones in any way shape or form. The only reason to backup the phones is to preserve user-specific data.
I agree that the remote wipe behavior implemented by Apple is poor. I guess they didn't want to bother implementing a "user requested" remote wipe (i.e. all corporate and personal data) vs. a "sysadmin requested" remote wipe (i.e. all corporate data).
Given that this is a flaw in the product, we have to work with what we have.
If you are required to have access to corporate email, then you need to either:
1. carry a second (corporate issued) device
2. submit to having corporate data wiped off your device even if that also means that personal data will go along with it
It is unfortunate that for the iPhone, these are the only two viable alternatives...
I suppose it depends on the work environment, but we regularly deal with sensitive customer information (i.e. financials, SSNs, credit cards, etc) and this sort of information ends up in internal emails.
I care more about protecting the identities of the people that do business with us then protecting the personal assets of employees that were careless (i.e. by not backing them up) with them.
I suggest thinking of it less as Employee vs Employer and more in terms of information risk.
Implications of having someone's SSN, credit card number, etc get in the wrong hands vs. risk of losing photos taken on the cell phone (that were never posted to Facebook, backed up, etc)
Some admins will not open IMAP or POP3 because they want to limit the attack surface in general.
An additional reason to not allow IMAP and POP3 is that it allows for a variety of mail clients to connect and pull copies of corporate emails offsite without giving the admins the "remote kill" switch.
Example -- you hook your gmail account up to your work email. It is now filled w/ all of your work emails. In internal correspondence, a CC or SSN number is discussed. Now a copy of that info is sitting (unsecured) on your gmail accou
Many people would prefer to not carry two devices and would rather submit their personal device to the corporate rules. There is no "cake and eat it too" scenario here -- just informed user decision.
Employees should backup their own data. If they are uncomfortable with the possibility of Employer wiping their personal phone, then they should not connect their personal phone to work email.
If an Employer *wants* its Employees to be reading their email from cell phones and the Employee doesn't feel like using their own personal property to do so, then the Employer needs to buy the Employee a work owned device or "STFU". If the Employee doesn't want to carry around two devices then they either need to submit to their phone being wiped or "STFU" and carry around both devices.
If someone wants to connect their personal device to our servers and store corporate data on it, then they must submit to their phone being remote wiped. There have been a few people who have had issue w/ this (i.e. mostly around terminations), but the alternatives (i.e. loss of sensitive data, risk to customers, etc) far exceeds the risk that someone might lose some photos they didn't backup.
It's been a long time, but my recollection is that Windows used to multi-task anything that wasn't actually a Windows application *terribly*. I ran DESQview for a long time with plenty of fond memories. In fact, I want to think that a later version of DESQview was my first X-Server on my PC....
Take this story in the context of the Slashdot story earlier today. There are an increasing number of web sites operating outside of the US that are illegally selling products that they don't own. If there is one thing that we should ALL be able to agree upon is that organized crime for profit is not defensible.
The companies selling downloads of movies/etc are directly stealing money from US companies as well as the artistic community that creates them. Say what you will about the MPAA/etc, but at least they are contributing something (i.e. they are actually creating and distributing the movies). Companies that just steal their content and resell it to people are just plain stealing.
Going after organized villainy is a GOOD use of taxpayer resources. We should be supporting these sorts of efforts and contrasting them with the the music industry's war on consumers.
I was looking forward to an interesting article until I read the opening paragraph./facepalm. This guy is a moron and has nothing of interest to add to the subject.
I have no idea what the impact of long term storage has on drive failure rates, however Google has published a lot of data on drive failure rates in general:
Slashdot Mirror
The current system of taxing vehicles based upon their value is ass-backwards. A brand new mini-cooper has less of an impact on the roads and the environment then a 10 year old suburban. Also, a person who drives 8,000 miles a year shouldn't be paying the same automotive taxes as a person who drives 30,000 miles a year. This is why I've thought that increasing taxes on gasoline would make a lot of sense.
I assume that there are commercial challenges/implications to doing this (although Europe doesn't seem to have a problem working these issues through) so that is why I assume they are now looking at electronic metering. I don't want any government devices tracking me (even if it is just an odometer).
In any case, tracking miles traveled doesn't address wear and tear and roads (i.e. heavier cars = presumably more wear 'n tear) and the need to promote fuel efficiency. This is why I still think taxing gas provides a better reward/punishment system without the privacy (and cost) implications of a tracking system.
Yup. The tin foil hat brigade won this round... :)
My recollection is that to have a full account w/ paypal that you need to link it to your checking account. I don't blame people for finding this to be scary -- but I guess the idea is that paypal reserves the right to try and "take back" funds from your accounts if there is a dispute. While I find this distasteful, I don't think that this has anything to do with Bradley Manning..
I have a static IP and I've ran into variants of this problem before. My ISP started implementing port 25 filtering (which is a good thing IMHO) but they set up a process by which you could exclude yourself. I think their process included some automated checks to make sure you were well behaved (i.e. not an open relay).
I've had my emails rejected before because I my static IPs were being classified as dynamic IPs by a RBL. It was a while ago so I forgot what hoops I had to jump through, but I eventually got it straightened out.
Agreed... this article doesn't really say anything that is interesting and the article summary may just be making much about a quote taken out of context or that is incomplete...
In that situation, I'd suggest:
Acquire the skills through a contract based relationship. Pay someone (or company) a very high $/hr rate so you can immediately get work done in the subject area needed. At the same time, make arrangements for your senior in-house talent to begin acquiring the skills (for example - involve them in the project so they are sitting w/ the contract resources).
Hiring someone fresh out of school and paying them $$$ more than your senior developer isn't going to work. The HR issues described in this article are significant, deep/impactful, and will easily have consequences beyond this single project.
Your staff understands that IT management will regularly look for people outside the organization to fill niche roles (i.e. you may need to hire an Exchange 2010 consultant to help you with the ugprade even if you have a decent "jack of all trades" admin in place). They know that consultants typically are well paid but that they won't be around long.
If the team members can't pick up the skills (i.e. the candidate is truly extraordinary or the skills are that niche), then things may be different ...
BTW - reading between the lines of this story gives me the feeling that the developers in question were not keeping their skill sets polished and that this may be a bigger root problem that needs to be addressed. If the organization's developers are all client-server and the organization thinks its going to need web/mobile/etc developers then it needs to send the message to its developers that they need to acquire the appropriate skills, give them the opportunity to do so (i.e. training, work projects, etc), and get rid of them and replace them with people who are committed to evolving with the technology.
Performing sysadmin functions from a phone is far from ideal and its much more likely the sort of thing we want to be able to do (because getting it working seems "fun"), but having a tool in your belt for when the sh*t really hits the fan and you aren't near a computer or a laptop is a good idea.
Brilliant. Why do I need a console hooked to my television when the cloud can magically render high performance 3D graphics on my television?
I understand -- I'm just saying that I think it is a shame that when I remote wipe a phone, that I am also wiping out the user's data. This is an undesirable behavior and I'd prefer if the Apple implementation of a remote-phone wipe would just remove all exchange data (calendar, contacts, messages, etc) from the phone instead of actually restoring it to factory default.
iPhone backups don't work the way you describe. When you plug your iPhone into your computer + iTunes, it makes a backup of your settings, photos, and media.
No corporate data is backed up and if your phone is remote-wiped (or even if the user wipes it), no corporate data is wiped.
In other words, there is no need for the organization to backup the phones in any way shape or form. The only reason to backup the phones is to preserve user-specific data.
1. The employees (should) know the risk/policy when they connect their personal devices.
2. SSN, financials, credit cards > photos
I agree that the remote wipe behavior implemented by Apple is poor. I guess they didn't want to bother implementing a "user requested" remote wipe (i.e. all corporate and personal data) vs. a "sysadmin requested" remote wipe (i.e. all corporate data).
Given that this is a flaw in the product, we have to work with what we have.
If you are required to have access to corporate email, then you need to either:
1. carry a second (corporate issued) device
2. submit to having corporate data wiped off your device even if that also means that personal data will go along with it
It is unfortunate that for the iPhone, these are the only two viable alternatives...
I suppose it depends on the work environment, but we regularly deal with sensitive customer information (i.e. financials, SSNs, credit cards, etc) and this sort of information ends up in internal emails.
I care more about protecting the identities of the people that do business with us then protecting the personal assets of employees that were careless (i.e. by not backing them up) with them.
I suggest thinking of it less as Employee vs Employer and more in terms of information risk.
Implications of having someone's SSN, credit card number, etc get in the wrong hands vs. risk of losing photos taken on the cell phone (that were never posted to Facebook, backed up, etc)
Some admins will not open IMAP or POP3 because they want to limit the attack surface in general.
An additional reason to not allow IMAP and POP3 is that it allows for a variety of mail clients to connect and pull copies of corporate emails offsite without giving the admins the "remote kill" switch.
Example -- you hook your gmail account up to your work email. It is now filled w/ all of your work emails. In internal correspondence, a CC or SSN number is discussed. Now a copy of that info is sitting (unsecured) on your gmail accou
Many people would prefer to not carry two devices and would rather submit their personal device to the corporate rules. There is no "cake and eat it too" scenario here -- just informed user decision.
And that is why server admins shouldn't (and typically do not) enable IMAP. :)
My $.02 on policy:
Employees should backup their own data. If they are uncomfortable with the possibility of Employer wiping their personal phone, then they should not connect their personal phone to work email.
If an Employer *wants* its Employees to be reading their email from cell phones and the Employee doesn't feel like using their own personal property to do so, then the Employer needs to buy the Employee a work owned device or "STFU". If the Employee doesn't want to carry around two devices then they either need to submit to their phone being wiped or "STFU" and carry around both devices.
Ditto.
If someone wants to connect their personal device to our servers and store corporate data on it, then they must submit to their phone being remote wiped. There have been a few people who have had issue w/ this (i.e. mostly around terminations), but the alternatives (i.e. loss of sensitive data, risk to customers, etc) far exceeds the risk that someone might lose some photos they didn't backup.
It's been a long time, but my recollection is that Windows used to multi-task anything that wasn't actually a Windows application *terribly*. I ran DESQview for a long time with plenty of fond memories. In fact, I want to think that a later version of DESQview was my first X-Server on my PC....
Take this story in the context of the Slashdot story earlier today. There are an increasing number of web sites operating outside of the US that are illegally selling products that they don't own. If there is one thing that we should ALL be able to agree upon is that organized crime for profit is not defensible.
The companies selling downloads of movies/etc are directly stealing money from US companies as well as the artistic community that creates them. Say what you will about the MPAA/etc, but at least they are contributing something (i.e. they are actually creating and distributing the movies). Companies that just steal their content and resell it to people are just plain stealing.
Going after organized villainy is a GOOD use of taxpayer resources. We should be supporting these sorts of efforts and contrasting them with the the music industry's war on consumers.
I was looking forward to an interesting article until I read the opening paragraph. /facepalm. This guy is a moron and has nothing of interest to add to the subject.
funny since gamefly's disks are wrapped in rigid cardboard and much more secure than netflix...
There is no conspiracy. Most people don't need line-ins on a laptop. Either:
1. Find a larger laptop that has the jacks
2. Purchase an external sound device (i.e. USB)
3. Use a desktop
I have no idea what the impact of long term storage has on drive failure rates, however Google has published a lot of data on drive failure rates in general:
http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
I don't think I've ever said this before, but this actually makes me embarrassed to be a Californian.