The pay as you go phones are for people who are either A) poor (obviously because they can't manage finances since they bought this) or B) buy into the whole "it's cheaper cuz you pay for the minutes up front".
Or C) They are GOOD with their finances and are willing to pay $.25 per minute for 50 or so minutes per month they *WILL* use rather than pay $40+ per month or more for minutes they will *NEVER* use.
I fell in to this catagory through 2005. ATT had a deal where I spent $25, got a cell phone with $15 of minutes on it ($.10 per minute) -- and got 20 minutes per month for free every month for 1 year. The entire plan cost me $50 over a year (I needed to buy one $25 phone card when I ran low on minutes one month).
Other than for work, I can't see how ANYONE can spend more than 100 (hell, even 400) minutes on a cell phone per month. Even now, I RARELY go over 200 minutes per month.
I'm an IT advisor. Our company is growing by leaps and bounds and our employees are happy and productive. The company's call seems to be that I'm better at the job than you are.
You are better at your job for YOUR company that *I* am at doing the same job for YOUR company -- perhaps. If they let your users install whatever they want, great. Either they don't care about the increase in costs are they haven't sat down and calculated it. Perhaps your company doesn't have such restrictive rules/procedures such as CAP/CLIA. Or perhaps your company does but enjoys having staff spend all their time (and money) testing and retesting software, results produced, compairing to instrumentation results -- etc etc etc. AND then documenting all that. Signing off on it -- making sure all the material is reviewed semi-annually by your medical director. All so that the user can drop in and use whatever software they want.
I bet if you ran our company the way you describe you would be fired after your first CAP inspection. That's if you place was still in business and wasn't forced to shut it's doors before your pink-slip could be printed.
Again, I will state: It's not about USER ABILITY. It's about USER NEEDS with regards to their JOB FUNCTION with COSTS calculated in. That's the companys call. Not mine. Absolutely not yours.
At our shop, it was ruled that IT will keep base images as uniform as possible to reduce costs -- in support, risk management, and ensuring compliance. And my job is to run our IT department the way the COMPANY wants -- not yours. I just happen to completely agree with our GM in this case.
Since our company has grown by more than 10x over the last 5 years, we've had articles written about our process managment (many of which I authored myself) and never scored less than a 98.9 on any inspection, I'd have to say that I'm pretty damn good at my job, your snide remarks notwithstanding.
You tell Bob that Lennie was hired because he knows how to do these things and to mind his own business from now on. You tell Lennie that you officially support Outlook or whatever and that you can't and won't help him with anything else. Grow a spine and let Bob and Lennie know what's expected of them and leave it at that.
Start your own business and tell him your self.
If you can't do that, then the problem is that you suck at management and compensate by inflicting a uniform mediocrity. If you read Harrison Bergeron as a kid, did you find it scary or exciting?
Yeah... that's it. It has nothing to do with limited resources available to a given company. Or that the scope of work for company X doesn't REQUIRE anything but basic email for the majority of users. Or that systems are locked down because of State and/or government regulations and require DOCUMENTATION for everything installed on them AND if/how it interacts with previously installed software, AND documented validation checking AFTER software was installed (which again is a huge increases in cost overhead).
You nailed it buddy. I suck at management because we don't want to spend the time/resources required to let anybody install/use whatever fits their fancy. I'll nip off and shoot myself now. Don't worry. I'll be very humane.
*OR*, I've got a better idea: STFU on speaking authoritatively on topics you know next to nothing about. It's not about USER ABILITY. It's about USER NEEDS with regards to their JOB FUNCTION with COSTS calculated in. That's the companys call. Not mine. Absolutely not yours.
If you read Harrison Bergeron as a kid, did you find it scary or exciting?
Because businesses are the same as society... yeah, right. Or that you have the right to do what ever you want with and/or to your employer's hardware, money, and co-workers? What a GREAT Bergeron analogy you made!
Actually, no. The 'suits' are quite used to outlook and have no problems with it at all. My guys rarely get calls from anyone but fresh meat (new suit's new position). Most of the 'staff' use an internal company webmail client -- nothing to set up for them. Just click the icon on the desktop and enter username/password.
In 8 years, I've had ONE suit give my staff problems outlook -- and it was a new AR exec who had zero experience in AR *AND*, quite frankly, I believe never used a computer in their life. But they didn't make it past their 3 months anyway...
I'm also the first to admit that *MY* staff uses whatever email clients they want. (pine, OE and Outlook (me -- sigh... I know, but calendar sync/BES is too damn important at my level)). Our policies read something to the effect:
"...cannot use, install, download, copy unapproved applications without prior written approval from the General Manager or the IT Director"
They aren't violating policies, because I approve it. Unfair? Perhaps -- in a communistic-everyone-is-the-same kind of way. But that doesn't sit well with my libertarian sensibilities.
If my installing linux or using an "unapproved" email client upsets someone in IT, that's because THEY are in the wrong not me.
There are countless examples available, but lets just focus on one you provided: your 'unapproved' email client.
*YOU* are in the wrong. This is true if *YOU* are not paying for the hardware. This is true if you do not pay the support staff. It is not up to an employee to dictate what services a companies IT department will support -- that's up to management (hopefully with IT input -- but certainly not final say-so).
We have limited budgets. I don't want to require that my staff knows eudora AND pine AND OE AND outlook AND thunderbird AND xyz AND abc AND fillintheblank. By making everyone use the same email client (or limited set of clients), you reduce training costs and quite frankly, you eliminate the user shooting themselves in the foot. YES there are some users who are quite able to troubleshoot for themselves. BUT, try telling Bob the luddite he can't use thunderbird (something he may have never used, but likes the way it looks) when Lennie The Linux Master two desks down is running pine!
Simple solutions for companies who don't want silly and frequent helpdesk calls: Keep the workstations as uniform as possible within the scope of work any given employee is required to complete. Feel free to start your own business if the company rules don't appeal to you.
unfortunately for you, merely lying under oath is not automatically perjury. lying under oath in a line of questioning that the judge later declares is not germane to the case, as in clinton's case, isn't perjury.
"unfortunately for you"? What the hell do you mean by that?
And, please, enlighun us as to WHEN any judge declared what Clinton did was not germane to the case. You state this happened in clinton's case. Please. Show me where? Of course, those with any sense of honesty KNOW the judge actually said that Clinton had "engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." with his "lie".
In a nutshell, you are wrong. He was not CONVICTED of it because he plead out -- and part of the agreement was that he would not be prosecuted for perjury.
But, perjury means lying under oath. And it is very clear that President Bill Clinton did not do that in this case.
You certainly have a weird definition of clear. Perhaps I can come visit you in opposite land?
For the record, in a plea agreement, he admitted to making false statements under oath. Some may... just *MAY* call that perjury -- but he wasn't prosecuted for it as part of the plea agreement. So, he's not a CONVICTED perjurer... but I'd strongly suggest that he did, in fact commit perjury.
For the record, he was admonished by the judge that he "engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
For the record, as a result, he was fined and lost his licence to practice law in his home state.
but it is now catching up to where its nearing XP's usability.
Great. So, it costs more to run an operating system at or below the previous versions performance level -- while fewer hardware platforms are supported, too.
This whole shoot first and not even ask questions later bit is concerning.
The part I find a bit concerning is that things changed when hijackers decided to use aircraft as ad-hoc smart-bombs and people pulled in to airports with little or no notice and attempt to blow themselves (and as many people around them) up.
Hind sight is 20/20. Had she been a bomber and managed to blow herself up (taking out who knows how many people with her) we'd be asking questions like "Look at the security video! Didn't people SEE she was wearing a bomb?" and throwing out all kinds of blame.
People acting fast have saved many lives. Remember the shoe-bomber? Or even at Glasgow, with a car on fire, people were running TOWARDS the flames trying to stop the guys ON FIRE from setting off anything else.
You paraphrase a bit from the DoI, so I thought I'd include a snip here:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Since these non-citizens never consented to be governed by the US, how can you make such broad statements as you do above?
It's a fact that SCOTUS has decided that all constitutional rights are not provided to EVERYONE and EVERYWHERE and that citizenship can be a distinction. If you want reality to change, file a writ of certiorari to SCOTUS, don't argue with me.
Are you really that dumb, or are you pleading ignorance to save face because you have no rebuttal
Am *I* really that dumb? Jeez, what kind of moron are *YOU*? He provided nothing to rebutte. What he asked does not change the fact that SCOTUS has stated there ARE differences in Constitutional protections offered to citizens and non-citizens -- if he wants to know WHY, let HIM look it up in the SCOTUS cases himself.
You are making this up as you go along, admit it. *IM* trying to save face?
He was using a "Rhetorical Question"? WTF? The guy said this himself when I pointed out I had already provided backup: "If you have already stated an argument previously in the thread then just say that.
It's PAINFULLY obvious he was reading one of my posts out of context. YOU are the one who cant seem to read. Still feeling smug?
If the US constitution only applies to US citizens as you state based on the preamble
Way to put words in my mouth. Since you appear to be the one who needs things explicitly stated: my argument was that just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly STATE citizen or resident doesn't mean everything in it applies to EVERYONE -- AND I pointed to a SCOTUS case for an example.
It's in this very thread! I wasn't asking him to back up my argument at all.
I'm not going to recap every thread I post to because some lazy-arse is going to just pick random posts to read while ignoring context. THAT would be an utter waste of my time and re-inforce lazy habits.
No, you didn't. You brought up one point, which he rebutted by asking
Are you serious? He didn't rebutt anything by asking anything. I pointed out SCOTUS had made exceptions and distinctions with regards to constitutional rights and citizenship and provided an example. He asked basically "why"?
That's a rebuttal? My answer was basically for him to spend the time and find out himself "why". It's not my job to educate him. If he's really interested, he can look it up.
Since I don't think you, Scrameustache, have ever served on SCOTUS, I ignore your "WRONG" statement end suggest you look at some supreme court cases which DO address this. I've pointed to one in particular in this thread already.
it should at least apply to the "people" in the United States.
I for one shudder at the thought of our Constitution being interpreted by people who consider something as subjective as the word "should" as an important legal principle.
With regards to "people" in the United States, there is precedent (SCOTUS) that it does not. Due Process does, but not the Constitution in total.
I agree with you in terms of Due Process -- and have some serious issues with MCA. I'm OK with slowing down due process in a number of the cited cases. But certainly not holding people forever.
The Constitution applies to the U.S. Federal government, and how it interacts with ALL people EVERYWHERE.
Really? Cool! No wait... you're wrong!
The fact that all persons, aliens and citizens alike, are protected by the Due Process Clause does not lead to the further conclusion that all aliens are entitled to enjoy all the advantages of citizenship or, indeed, to the conclusion that all aliens must be placed in a single homogeneous legal classification. For a host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class not accorded to the other; 12 and the class of aliens is itself a heterogeneous [426 U.S. 67, 79] multitude of persons with a wide-ranging variety of ties to this country.
"We the people of the United States of America" So where it says "the people" generally applies to citizens.
Yes there are some ambiguities that the courts have addressed (see MATHEWS v. DIAZ, 426 U.S. 67, for example), but just because it doesn't SAY "citizen" or "resident" or whatever doesn't mean it covers the world's population.
Slashdot Mirror
Or C) They are GOOD with their finances and are willing to pay $.25 per minute for 50 or so minutes per month they *WILL* use rather than pay $40+ per month or more for minutes they will *NEVER* use.
I fell in to this catagory through 2005. ATT had a deal where I spent $25, got a cell phone with $15 of minutes on it ($.10 per minute) -- and got 20 minutes per month for free every month for 1 year. The entire plan cost me $50 over a year (I needed to buy one $25 phone card when I ran low on minutes one month).
Other than for work, I can't see how ANYONE can spend more than 100 (hell, even 400) minutes on a cell phone per month. Even now, I RARELY go over 200 minutes per month.
You are better at your job for YOUR company that *I* am at doing the same job for YOUR company -- perhaps. If they let your users install whatever they want, great. Either they don't care about the increase in costs are they haven't sat down and calculated it. Perhaps your company doesn't have such restrictive rules/procedures such as CAP/CLIA. Or perhaps your company does but enjoys having staff spend all their time (and money) testing and retesting software, results produced, compairing to instrumentation results -- etc etc etc. AND then documenting all that. Signing off on it -- making sure all the material is reviewed semi-annually by your medical director. All so that the user can drop in and use whatever software they want.
I bet if you ran our company the way you describe you would be fired after your first CAP inspection. That's if you place was still in business and wasn't forced to shut it's doors before your pink-slip could be printed.
Again, I will state: It's not about USER ABILITY. It's about USER NEEDS with regards to their JOB FUNCTION with COSTS calculated in. That's the companys call. Not mine. Absolutely not yours.
At our shop, it was ruled that IT will keep base images as uniform as possible to reduce costs -- in support, risk management, and ensuring compliance. And my job is to run our IT department the way the COMPANY wants -- not yours. I just happen to completely agree with our GM in this case.
Since our company has grown by more than 10x over the last 5 years, we've had articles written about our process managment (many of which I authored myself) and never scored less than a 98.9 on any inspection, I'd have to say that I'm pretty damn good at my job, your snide remarks notwithstanding.
Start your own business and tell him your self.Yeah... that's it. It has nothing to do with limited resources available to a given company. Or that the scope of work for company X doesn't REQUIRE anything but basic email for the majority of users. Or that systems are locked down because of State and/or government regulations and require DOCUMENTATION for everything installed on them AND if/how it interacts with previously installed software, AND documented validation checking AFTER software was installed (which again is a huge increases in cost overhead).
You nailed it buddy. I suck at management because we don't want to spend the time/resources required to let anybody install/use whatever fits their fancy. I'll nip off and shoot myself now. Don't worry. I'll be very humane.
*OR*, I've got a better idea: STFU on speaking authoritatively on topics you know next to nothing about. It's not about USER ABILITY. It's about USER NEEDS with regards to their JOB FUNCTION with COSTS calculated in. That's the companys call. Not mine. Absolutely not yours.Because businesses are the same as society... yeah, right. Or that you have the right to do what ever you want with and/or to your employer's hardware, money, and co-workers? What a GREAT Bergeron analogy you made!
Actually, no. The 'suits' are quite used to outlook and have no problems with it at all. My guys rarely get calls from anyone but fresh meat (new suit's new position). Most of the 'staff' use an internal company webmail client -- nothing to set up for them. Just click the icon on the desktop and enter username/password.
In 8 years, I've had ONE suit give my staff problems outlook -- and it was a new AR exec who had zero experience in AR *AND*, quite frankly, I believe never used a computer in their life. But they didn't make it past their 3 months anyway...
I'm also the first to admit that *MY* staff uses whatever email clients they want. (pine, OE and Outlook (me -- sigh... I know, but calendar sync/BES is too damn important at my level)). Our policies read something to the effect:
"...cannot use, install, download, copy unapproved applications without prior written approval from the General Manager or the IT Director"
They aren't violating policies, because I approve it. Unfair? Perhaps -- in a communistic-everyone-is-the-same kind of way. But that doesn't sit well with my libertarian sensibilities.
*YOU* are in the wrong. This is true if *YOU* are not paying for the hardware. This is true if you do not pay the support staff. It is not up to an employee to dictate what services a companies IT department will support -- that's up to management (hopefully with IT input -- but certainly not final say-so).
We have limited budgets. I don't want to require that my staff knows eudora AND pine AND OE AND outlook AND thunderbird AND xyz AND abc AND fillintheblank. By making everyone use the same email client (or limited set of clients), you reduce training costs and quite frankly, you eliminate the user shooting themselves in the foot. YES there are some users who are quite able to troubleshoot for themselves. BUT, try telling Bob the luddite he can't use thunderbird (something he may have never used, but likes the way it looks) when Lennie The Linux Master two desks down is running pine!
Simple solutions for companies who don't want silly and frequent helpdesk calls: Keep the workstations as uniform as possible within the scope of work any given employee is required to complete. Feel free to start your own business if the company rules don't appeal to you.
rll = real life lesbian?
I paid nearly $900 for an mfm drive. 20 MB. It was the first thing I ever financed. Took me 2 years to pay for it.
I actually still have it. It worked when I pulled it a few years ago. I just can't seem to toss out something I spent so much money on.
Nevermind most, can you name even one?
You are misinformed and are misleading others.
"unfortunately for you"? What the hell do you mean by that?
And, please, enlighun us as to WHEN any judge declared what Clinton did was not germane to the case. You state this happened in clinton's case. Please. Show me where? Of course, those with any sense of honesty KNOW the judge actually said that Clinton had "engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." with his "lie".
In a nutshell, you are wrong. He was not CONVICTED of it because he plead out -- and part of the agreement was that he would not be prosecuted for perjury.You certainly have a weird definition of clear. Perhaps I can come visit you in opposite land?
For the record, in a plea agreement, he admitted to making false statements under oath. Some may... just *MAY* call that perjury -- but he wasn't prosecuted for it as part of the plea agreement. So, he's not a CONVICTED perjurer... but I'd strongly suggest that he did, in fact commit perjury.
For the record, he was admonished by the judge that he "engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
For the record, as a result, he was fined and lost his licence to practice law in his home state.
Just for the record...
Let me upgrade now!
Hind sight is 20/20. Had she been a bomber and managed to blow herself up (taking out who knows how many people with her) we'd be asking questions like "Look at the security video! Didn't people SEE she was wearing a bomb?" and throwing out all kinds of blame.
People acting fast have saved many lives. Remember the shoe-bomber? Or even at Glasgow, with a car on fire, people were running TOWARDS the flames trying to stop the guys ON FIRE from setting off anything else.
It's a fact that SCOTUS has decided that all constitutional rights are not provided to EVERYONE and EVERYWHERE and that citizenship can be a distinction. If you want reality to change, file a writ of certiorari to SCOTUS, don't argue with me.
You are making this up as you go along, admit it. *IM* trying to save face?
He was using a "Rhetorical Question"? WTF? The guy said this himself when I pointed out I had already provided backup: "If you have already stated an argument previously in the thread then just say that.
It's PAINFULLY obvious he was reading one of my posts out of context. YOU are the one who cant seem to read. Still feeling smug?Way to put words in my mouth. Since you appear to be the one who needs things explicitly stated: my argument was that just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly STATE citizen or resident doesn't mean everything in it applies to EVERYONE -- AND I pointed to a SCOTUS case for an example.
It's in this very thread! I wasn't asking him to back up my argument at all.
I'm not going to recap every thread I post to because some lazy-arse is going to just pick random posts to read while ignoring context. THAT would be an utter waste of my time and re-inforce lazy habits.
Are you serious? He didn't rebutt anything by asking anything. I pointed out SCOTUS had made exceptions and distinctions with regards to constitutional rights and citizenship and provided an example. He asked basically "why"?
That's a rebuttal? My answer was basically for him to spend the time and find out himself "why". It's not my job to educate him. If he's really interested, he can look it up.
How about re-reading this thread and see where I did? Why should I do his work for him and/or repeat myself?
The quoted text in total disagrees with him. I bolded that section because it notes a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.
But I guess that's why you posted as AC... you don't have to be responsible for reading AND comprehending.
I'm sure it wouldn't hurt you to do a little research. Find out why!
Since I don't think you, Scrameustache, have ever served on SCOTUS, I ignore your "WRONG" statement end suggest you look at some supreme court cases which DO address this. I've pointed to one in particular in this thread already.
Seriously, you've got it wrong.
With regards to "people" in the United States, there is precedent (SCOTUS) that it does not. Due Process does, but not the Constitution in total.
I agree with you in terms of Due Process -- and have some serious issues with MCA. I'm OK with slowing down due process in a number of the cited cases. But certainly not holding people forever.
Really? Cool! No wait... you're wrong!That was from MATHEWS v. DIAZ, 426 U.S. 67.
Ug... remove "of America" -- that's what I get for trying to recite the preamble from a song and filling in from memory...
Right at the beginning...
"We the people of the United States of America" So where it says "the people" generally applies to citizens.
Yes there are some ambiguities that the courts have addressed (see MATHEWS v. DIAZ, 426 U.S. 67, for example), but just because it doesn't SAY "citizen" or "resident" or whatever doesn't mean it covers the world's population.