In many environments, several hundred machines are "imaged" and the software image comprises of close source programs with proprietary protocols to proprietary server networks. When vendor # 1 out of 7 says "hey we've updated our systems and you'll need to upgrade your client version to 2.blah.1" these applications need to be tested alongside of the applications from vendors 2-6, often time with much tweaking to get things to jive. In this type of environment, Although I prefer using Linux, I'd rather not invest the time to get all those applications working for me to be productive at my job, and then have to keep up with any changes. That is why there is someone in IT who creates the drive "images", so I can do my job and not worry about it. It's against company policy to install ANY SOFTWARE without approval of IT (might not even waste time asking although I did ask to use Linux) If I was a webmaster with one machine hooked into a network only to allow a connection to the outside world and some network drives, I'd go to IT and let them know I'd be using Linux. If the rules state "no software without IT approval" installing a different OS without asking is a very blatent "F-U" to company policy. While firing someone for this at first offense may be an extreme, in some cases, I'm sure it's justified, wheather it's a Java applet, a game, or an OS(Linux or Windoze).
I don't want a figurehead, I want an employee
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
I want the candidates to work for the american people. I want to cast my vote on issues, not people. How about this idea, we get some guy/gal in the office, or a team of people, and then create a system for voting on a daily basis, not just once every 4 years. I don't want to care about the candidates personal views or his 'stance' on important issues, his moral upbringing, who he did/didn't do. I want someone who has NO PERSONAL OPINION. Then, when a bill gets to office to be passed, they could submit a post to slashdot.gov, and take a poll of the american public. No more of this "during election you said you'd do this and now you've betrayed us!" Where I work, my representation of my company is not that of my own personal opinion, if I took my personal views over that of which my company wants presented to the public, I get fired.
The president is our employee, we are his employer, and to only be able to select an employee and let them run with it for 4 years puts the people out of the loop. Sure there are also local elections, but the majority of the campaigning HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISSUES. street corners get plastered with signs that say:
"vote foe Joe blow for better schools"
does anyone honestly believe that the other candidate doesn't also want better schools? what when how why.... these are the issues, that for the most part, the issues and debates are popularity contests. For somweone to say, "this is the greatest country in the world and I'm going to make sure it stays that way" will likely get that person votes on the Fluff factor (fluff: doesn't mean much but it feels nice) In olden days, information moved slowly and counting votes itself, and campaigning from city to city was a major logistical issue, today, some guy could sitt at a computer and share his views in one place to everybody everywhere. It's time we took the personalities out of the picture and use this information age to put poeple directly in touch with the voting on Issues, Bills, and Laws. The Idea that the political canbdidate somehow knows what we want because of his stance on the issues has lots of holes in it. Not being able to vote for someone against censorship, while also seeing eye 2 eye on some of the other issues is an example of this.I'd like a ballot that had questions like 1-5 1=strongly agree 5= strongly disagree "libraries should censor internet connections." and I could vote 5 for strongly disagree and not worry how that vote might affect the abortion issue. Instead the vote ballot reads something like this:
who's your buddy?
a. Gore
B. Bush
I can't believe how much fluff is involved in running for office, I think we should just do an IQ test, take the top 10%, disqualify anyone who wants to be president, and hold a raffle and pick someone at random. All that campaign money could now be used to back a cause instead of a personality. I like the idea of just making 'Bill' foot the bill, and banning the evil closed source and tossing intellectual property/ patents out. sure there would be chaos for awhile, but it'd be better in the end. It offends me that they think censorware should be mandated, but even if the big money folows through, the people will create their own way around this for free. See no evil, Hear no evil, have not a clue!
Slashdot Mirror
In many environments, several hundred machines are "imaged" and the software image comprises of close source programs with proprietary protocols to proprietary server networks. When vendor # 1 out of 7 says "hey we've updated our systems and you'll need to upgrade your client version to 2.blah.1" these applications need to be tested alongside of the applications from vendors 2-6, often time with much tweaking to get things to jive. In this type of environment, Although I prefer using Linux, I'd rather not invest the time to get all those applications working for me to be productive at my job, and then have to keep up with any changes. That is why there is someone in IT who creates the drive "images", so I can do my job and not worry about it. It's against company policy to install ANY SOFTWARE without approval of IT (might not even waste time asking although I did ask to use Linux) If I was a webmaster with one machine hooked into a network only to allow a connection to the outside world and some network drives, I'd go to IT and let them know I'd be using Linux. If the rules state "no software without IT approval" installing a different OS without asking is a very blatent "F-U" to company policy. While firing someone for this at first offense may be an extreme, in some cases, I'm sure it's justified, wheather it's a Java applet, a game, or an OS(Linux or Windoze).
I want the candidates to work for the american people. I want to cast my vote on issues, not people. How about this idea, we get some guy/gal in the office, or a team of people, and then create a system for voting on a daily basis, not just once every 4 years. I don't want to care about the candidates personal views or his 'stance' on important issues, his moral upbringing, who he did/didn't do. I want someone who has NO PERSONAL OPINION. Then, when a bill gets to office to be passed, they could submit a post to slashdot.gov, and take a poll of the american public. No more of this "during election you said you'd do this and now you've betrayed us!" Where I work, my representation of my company is not that of my own personal opinion, if I took my personal views over that of which my company wants presented to the public, I get fired. The president is our employee, we are his employer, and to only be able to select an employee and let them run with it for 4 years puts the people out of the loop. Sure there are also local elections, but the majority of the campaigning HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISSUES. street corners get plastered with signs that say: "vote foe Joe blow for better schools" does anyone honestly believe that the other candidate doesn't also want better schools? what when how why.... these are the issues, that for the most part, the issues and debates are popularity contests. For somweone to say, "this is the greatest country in the world and I'm going to make sure it stays that way" will likely get that person votes on the Fluff factor (fluff: doesn't mean much but it feels nice) In olden days, information moved slowly and counting votes itself, and campaigning from city to city was a major logistical issue, today, some guy could sitt at a computer and share his views in one place to everybody everywhere. It's time we took the personalities out of the picture and use this information age to put poeple directly in touch with the voting on Issues, Bills, and Laws. The Idea that the political canbdidate somehow knows what we want because of his stance on the issues has lots of holes in it. Not being able to vote for someone against censorship, while also seeing eye 2 eye on some of the other issues is an example of this.I'd like a ballot that had questions like 1-5 1=strongly agree 5= strongly disagree "libraries should censor internet connections." and I could vote 5 for strongly disagree and not worry how that vote might affect the abortion issue. Instead the vote ballot reads something like this: who's your buddy? a. Gore B. Bush
I can't believe how much fluff is involved in running for office, I think we should just do an IQ test, take the top 10%, disqualify anyone who wants to be president, and hold a raffle and pick someone at random. All that campaign money could now be used to back a cause instead of a personality. I like the idea of just making 'Bill' foot the bill, and banning the evil closed source and tossing intellectual property/ patents out. sure there would be chaos for awhile, but it'd be better in the end. It offends me that they think censorware should be mandated, but even if the big money folows through, the people will create their own way around this for free. See no evil, Hear no evil, have not a clue!