1) general disdain for being responsible for their computers at work (aren't you responsible for putting oil and gas into the company car? If the engine freezes because you left the oil cap off, don't expect sympathy.)
2) probably they do the same at home. no relation to the original topic, but scary in general
But yes, you have a very valid point that on this particular issue (AV updates), there should be reliance on the IT department. But don't you still see the general apathy as worrisome?
True, it works both ways
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This all reminds me of a poll reported on by the Register about how end users don't see themselves as responsible for their own actions when related to IT.
Relevent quotes:
-One in five people surveyed said they are "too busy to download anti-virus updates".
-Depressingly, nine in ten of the workers quizzed believe that have no part to play in preventing the spread of viruses, preferring to leave responsibility to "their IT department, Microsoft or the government".
With this kind of attitude, it is no wonder IT workers get sufficiently frustrated so as to be "annoying".
Again, I would LOVE to do this. But I can't until reading and math apps for K-8 are available for linux -- apps that have a proven track record and will be OK so far as federal and state auditing.
I'm the net/sys/pc admin for a large urban school district in Mass. I would love to move to Linux, but I can't.
Like most states, we have testing requirements (MCAS here). The evaluation/learning software we use is StarMath (not star office math) and SRI reading (among others). There is no linux version,and attempts at WINE have failed. They don't work in Linux. There are no current alternatives, and we are mandated to do this sort of testing/preparation.
So, we do cheap dells, and use Fortres and ghosting to do lock-downs, imaging.
Given that the "department" I manage has only myself and one technician (and one MIS director) to administer/repair a 28-site WAN with 3500+ computers, I don't think they will invest in unknown software.
Also, if you are in a corporate environment, you may not need to reghost linux boxes... but most adults aren't as destructive as high school and middle school students who think that a penis as the desktop background is funny, and even funnier is breaking the OS. Believe me, you would have to reimage linux machines in this environment. In this way, schools have very different requirements - hence the lockdown software and regular reimaging.
Scoffing at prior art claims, an MS spokesman stated "We'll protect our intellectual property and pursue legal action against anyone who uses this feature!"
IANAL, but I'm curious if there is room in NJ law for friend of the court briefs, or whatever, to try to educate the judge about the real effects of this?
I can state as many times as I want "All Jews should be gassed". I can carry around a sign proclaming this to the world. I can take out newspaper ads proclaiming this. I can claim the holocaust is a hoax. I can state that John Kerry is an alien.
I can suggest that it would be good for someone to die. As long as I don't incite the violence, I can cheer it. I can go outdoors and scream that Intel is Satan.
They may all be true. They may all be false. But here where I live, I am protected. I'm also protected from libel and slander, but are those really limits on free speech, or are they protections against unwarranted attacks?
Sure, I can't yell "fire" in a theater, but the rest of your statements are weak, and some just wrong here in the U.S. I can't speak for your country, if you're not American, but if you can't do these things, then I guess that sucks for you.
Well, it has worked wonders in France and Europe. Their strict laws limiting Nazi and Nazi-sympathetic speech has basically eliminated hate crimes. And its not like ex-Nazi judges are being chosen as presidential electors these days.
The undertaker is providing a service - preparation of the deceased for burial (or whatever), wakes, funeral service arrangements, etc. Also, you don't need to use an undertaker - you can just let the state deal with it. Bottom line: the undertaker is getting paid for work being done in the present.
Now, a better argument would be that a credit card company would still want to collect on existing accounts after the death. But, this is for money already spent by the deceased, so the estate should be responsible.
Forcing an estate/widow to continue to pay for future services that will never be used is just cold. If a company did this to me or my family, I would cancel all accounts and take my story to the newspaper -- assuming that going to the top management didn't resolve the problem. I'd also call my Congressman - they are regulated, after all.
Sure, they *can* do it. But should they? Seems like bad business. Given my experience with Verizon as my land-line company, I can absolutely see them doing this. They are bastards. I've already reduced my service as much as possible to keep my DSL going - if I could drop them completely I would.
Like everyone, I've had plenty of these problems, and I run adaware and spybot. Lately I've been enabling the spybot immunization - but haven't had the time to test it.
Gee, could it maybe be that there have been more attacks on the left than on the right?
Also, perhaps you missed the fact that our government is now headed by conservatives, so the power of the government will be flexed in that general direction (not a complaint - thats just the way it works).
Also, this certainly reflects the unhappiness of many Americans with our military and foreign policy. Did the fact that most protesters in the '60's protested for civil rights or against vietnam - stories that would lead on the Wall Street Journal -- make the Journal left wing?
Besides (ob-troll), it isn't my fault that right wingnuts have to resort to violence and the surpression of civil rights to get their point across.
Sure, I can censor anybody I don't like in the sense of changing channels, or ignoring posts.
And sure, the awards don't surpress my free speech.
Instead, that is left to John Ashcroft and Antonin Scalia (who did at least apologize).
You are so close-minded in your support for the administration that you are ignoring the fact that it is infringing on our rights more and more.
Indeed, where is the link between your goverment infringing on rights and you exerting parental control over porn and your kids? That line is just laughable.
Perhaps if you offered reasoned arguments about this, instead of just stating non sequitors, you wouldn't be modded down?
And this isn't "some members of government". This is the Department of Defense, a federal judge, the Secret Service, and other more localized (state, local) government bodies trampling on our rights.
And as far as non-governmental entities -- did you read the article?
CBS was cited for not allowing leftist propaganda ads to air, but allowing right-wing propaganda ads to air (and viagra et al). Two people who attacked others voicing their opinions in public were also cited. True, the "right" to free speech wasn't affected, but the general principal of free expression was.
"Our national experience instructs us that openness is essential to public confidence in the administration of justice." - The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Without question, the criminal investigation and prosecution of homemaking diva Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker Peter Bacanovic generated immense media coverage. So much so that prosecutors in the case requested that the public and press be denied access to the courtroom to observe the jury selection process. United States District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted the request. In arriving at this decision, Judge Cedarbaum reasoned that potential jurors would be more candid in their responses to questioning if the press were not present. She was also influenced by the fact a member of the jury pool had posted a question from the jury survey on the Internet.
While detecting biases among prospective jurors in a criminal case is vital to ensuring a fair trial, public openness generally acts to protect, rather than to threaten, that process. The Supreme Court has said, "public scrutiny of a criminal trial enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process, with benefits to both the defendant and society as a whole." Indeed, the Court has held the value of public scrutiny is so great that the First Amendment creates a nearly absolute presumption of public access to criminal proceedings that may be overcome in only rare circumstances.
Judge Cedarbaum's reasoning that the Stewart case was one of those rare circumstances is troubling. The judge contended that she could close the jury selection process because the case had generated "an extraordinary interest quite beyond the public's right to know." Under this view, jury selection in any case generating significant public interest could be closed.. In ruling that Judge Cedarbaum had erred by denying the press access to jury selection, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held, "[w]e find it difficult to conceive of a potential juror who would be more willing to reveal a bias against the defendants in their presence, but not in the presence of reporters." The Court of Appeals also took note of the fact that Judge Cedarbaum's ruling was prompted by a request from the prosecutors and not the defendants. "If openness would truly have jeopardized the fair trial rights of the defendants in this case, we imagine that the defendants, represented by experienced counsel, would have initiated the request for closure."
Judge Cedarbaum's decision is part of a disturbing trend of judges in high profile cases giving too little weight to the presumption of openness in criminal proceedings-a willingness to set aside for celebrity defendants the rules that are applied every day to less famous defendants in courts across the country. The danger is a perception that our justice system works differently for the rich and famous. In an editorial on the decision, executive director of The First Amendment Center Ken Paulson wrote: "The way to build confidence in the judicial process is through the even-handed administration of justice and public access to the entire trial, from beginning to end." For failing to recognize the importance of public access in the Martha Stewart case, Judge Cedarbaum earns a 2004 Jefferson Muzzle.
The United States Department of Defense
"That's a flat-out gag order" -- Miami Attorney Neal Sonnett, Chairman of the American Bar Association Task Force on the Treatment of Enemy Combatants
Soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration announced its intention to make use of military tribunals for the trial of yet undesignated enemy combatants. The precise policies and regulations that would govern such tribunals were yet to be developed, but would be announced in the future. During the spring of 2003, the Department of Defense issued such policies. Several provisions evoked immediate media interest, and drew cr
Well, as someone who worked for a House Armed Services committee chairman in the late 80's/early 90's, I can say that Congress was pretty aware of how important stealth , cruise missiles, tacit rainbow, gps and other technologies were during their development. These developments did not take place in a vacuum. Heck, in the earliest stages, even researchers don't know if this crap will work, forget if it will be important.
To someone who has to read thousands of pages of budgetspeak, especially in the authorization stages (where projects are authorized, as opposed to appropriations, where they are funded) - any small program not in the "black" was generally known.
No, Congress doesn't know of every project DARPA starts in on. But they are aware of many of them.
They don't get involved in the projects anyways. Research is research. They may defund a project, but they don't change the research. That's not the way the system works.
And as for your blanket statement about Congress, you are just plain wrong. Most of those folks are hard-working, dedicated people from all spectrums of the political rainbow. Yes, there are kooks, and whackjobs. But aside from the giant egos and wallets, they are just as smart or stupid as the general population, and they include surgeons, cops, and housewives.
But DARPA in this case probably cares less about non-military adoption than creating a working system for DoD.
This is going to be designed primarily for military application, like the cruise missile or GPS. If it is easily adapted for civilian use, great (GPS). If not, well, that wasn't the point in the first place (cruise missiles).
Lord knows that DARPA isn't capable of this sort of thing. I mean, stuff like GPS, stealth, and a little network called Arpanet are sure indications that DARPA/ARPA is just a bunch of red-tape loving bureaucrats.
For one thing, the local wires were run to my house back in the late 19th century (yes, 19th) at a subsidized cost - subsidized by taxpayers. (I know the dating because the Verizon tech told me what a pain it is to wire my house to the 1890-s era copper)
Why should an infrastructure built by an illegal (well, eventually ruled illegal) monopoly be left completely in control of, in my case, Verizon?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to ask MCI to provide me service over 100-year-old copper?
Should MCI or AT&T have to run copper to every house in my town that wants to use their services?
The 1918 pandemic killed 30-40 million, about half of them otherwise healthy adults (as opposed to most flu's, which affect mostly the young and old).
Given that the world population has more than tripled since then, and given the increases in world travel, a death toll of over 100 million would not be unlikely for a similar flu. I wouldn't be surprised if it went higher (with a similar strain to the 1918 flu).
I heard on NPR a week or two ago, from an author who wrote about the 1918 pandemic, that in one instance a man boarded a trolley. Before the trolley got to the end of the line, the conductor and several passengers were dead.
As far as the benefit outweighing the dangers, I agree. But I don't think the dangers are exaggerated.
My asthma is triggered by allergens, but also by cold air, especially cold dry air.
And my understanding is that many communities have (stupidly) planted trees and other plants from back east, and made the area almost as bad pollen-wise.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a bad indication of two things:
1) general disdain for being responsible for their computers at work (aren't you responsible for putting oil and gas into the company car? If the engine freezes because you left the oil cap off, don't expect sympathy.)
2) probably they do the same at home. no relation to the original topic, but scary in general
But yes, you have a very valid point that on this particular issue (AV updates), there should be reliance on the IT department. But don't you still see the general apathy as worrisome?
This all reminds me of a poll reported on by the Register about how end users don't see themselves as responsible for their own actions when related to IT. Relevent quotes: -One in five people surveyed said they are "too busy to download anti-virus updates". -Depressingly, nine in ten of the workers quizzed believe that have no part to play in preventing the spread of viruses, preferring to leave responsibility to "their IT department, Microsoft or the government". With this kind of attitude, it is no wonder IT workers get sufficiently frustrated so as to be "annoying".
Again, I would LOVE to do this. But I can't until reading and math apps for K-8 are available for linux -- apps that have a proven track record and will be OK so far as federal and state auditing.
I envy you.
I'm the net/sys/pc admin for a large urban school district in Mass. I would love to move to Linux, but I can't.
Like most states, we have testing requirements (MCAS here). The evaluation/learning software we use is StarMath (not star office math) and SRI reading (among others). There is no linux version,and attempts at WINE have failed. They don't work in Linux. There are no current alternatives, and we are mandated to do this sort of testing/preparation.
So, we do cheap dells, and use Fortres and ghosting to do lock-downs, imaging.
Given that the "department" I manage has only myself and one technician (and one MIS director) to administer/repair a 28-site WAN with 3500+ computers, I don't think they will invest in unknown software.
Also, if you are in a corporate environment, you may not need to reghost linux boxes... but most adults aren't as destructive as high school and middle school students who think that a penis as the desktop background is funny, and even funnier is breaking the OS. Believe me, you would have to reimage linux machines in this environment. In this way, schools have very different requirements - hence the lockdown software and regular reimaging.
MS also patented the buffer overflow.
Scoffing at prior art claims, an MS spokesman stated "We'll protect our intellectual property and pursue legal action against anyone who uses this feature!"
Except the order included orders to update BGP with the info.
IANAL, but I'm curious if there is room in NJ law for friend of the court briefs, or whatever, to try to educate the judge about the real effects of this?
I can state as many times as I want "All Jews should be gassed". I can carry around a sign proclaming this to the world. I can take out newspaper ads proclaiming this. I can claim the holocaust is a hoax. I can state that John Kerry is an alien.
I can suggest that it would be good for someone to die. As long as I don't incite the violence, I can cheer it. I can go outdoors and scream that Intel is Satan.
They may all be true. They may all be false. But here where I live, I am protected. I'm also protected from libel and slander, but are those really limits on free speech, or are they protections against unwarranted attacks?
Sure, I can't yell "fire" in a theater, but the rest of your statements are weak, and some just wrong here in the U.S. I can't speak for your country, if you're not American, but if you can't do these things, then I guess that sucks for you.
Well, it has worked wonders in France and Europe. Their strict laws limiting Nazi and Nazi-sympathetic speech has basically eliminated hate crimes. And its not like ex-Nazi judges are being chosen as presidential electors these days.
The undertaker is providing a service - preparation of the deceased for burial (or whatever), wakes, funeral service arrangements, etc. Also, you don't need to use an undertaker - you can just let the state deal with it. Bottom line: the undertaker is getting paid for work being done in the present.
Now, a better argument would be that a credit card company would still want to collect on existing accounts after the death. But, this is for money already spent by the deceased, so the estate should be responsible.
Forcing an estate/widow to continue to pay for future services that will never be used is just cold. If a company did this to me or my family, I would cancel all accounts and take my story to the newspaper -- assuming that going to the top management didn't resolve the problem. I'd also call my Congressman - they are regulated, after all.
Sure, they *can* do it. But should they? Seems like bad business. Given my experience with Verizon as my land-line company, I can absolutely see them doing this. They are bastards. I've already reduced my service as much as possible to keep my DSL going - if I could drop them completely I would.
Like everyone, I've had plenty of these problems, and I run adaware and spybot. Lately I've been enabling the spybot immunization - but haven't had the time to test it.
Has anyone seen whether this really works?
I offered the CNN story yesterday -
SCO Investor wants its money back - Friday April 23, @03:14PM - Rejected
Basically, they already asked for their money back. But it seems they will agree to huge changes where SCO goes for more litigation cash.
The parent should be modded up - the CNN/AP story is informative.
Gee, could it maybe be that there have been more attacks on the left than on the right?
Also, perhaps you missed the fact that our government is now headed by conservatives, so the power of the government will be flexed in that general direction (not a complaint - thats just the way it works).
Also, this certainly reflects the unhappiness of many Americans with our military and foreign policy. Did the fact that most protesters in the '60's protested for civil rights or against vietnam - stories that would lead on the Wall Street Journal -- make the Journal left wing?
Besides (ob-troll), it isn't my fault that right wingnuts have to resort to violence and the surpression of civil rights to get their point across.
Sure, I can censor anybody I don't like in the sense of changing channels, or ignoring posts.
And sure, the awards don't surpress my free speech.
Instead, that is left to John Ashcroft and Antonin Scalia (who did at least apologize).
You are so close-minded in your support for the administration that you are ignoring the fact that it is infringing on our rights more and more.
Indeed, where is the link between your goverment infringing on rights and you exerting parental control over porn and your kids? That line is just laughable.
Perhaps if you offered reasoned arguments about this, instead of just stating non sequitors, you wouldn't be modded down?
And this isn't "some members of government". This is the Department of Defense, a federal judge, the Secret Service, and other more localized (state, local) government bodies trampling on our rights.
And as far as non-governmental entities -- did you read the article?
CBS was cited for not allowing leftist propaganda ads to air, but allowing right-wing propaganda ads to air (and viagra et al). Two people who attacked others voicing their opinions in public were also cited. True, the "right" to free speech wasn't affected, but the general principal of free expression was.
These are more than just filtering porn for kids.
U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
"Our national experience instructs us that openness is essential to public confidence in the administration of justice."
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Without question, the criminal investigation and prosecution of homemaking diva Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker Peter Bacanovic generated immense media coverage. So much so that prosecutors in the case requested that the public and press be denied access to the courtroom to observe the jury selection process. United States District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted the request. In arriving at this decision, Judge Cedarbaum reasoned that potential jurors would be more candid in their responses to questioning if the press were not present. She was also influenced by the fact a member of the jury pool had posted a question from the jury survey on the Internet.
While detecting biases among prospective jurors in a criminal case is vital to ensuring a fair trial, public openness generally acts to protect, rather than to threaten, that process. The Supreme Court has said, "public scrutiny of a criminal trial enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process, with benefits to both the defendant and society as a whole." Indeed, the Court has held the value of public scrutiny is so great that the First Amendment creates a nearly absolute presumption of public access to criminal proceedings that may be overcome in only rare circumstances.
Judge Cedarbaum's reasoning that the Stewart case was one of those rare circumstances is troubling. The judge contended that she could close the jury selection process because the case had generated "an extraordinary interest quite beyond the public's right to know." Under this view, jury selection in any case generating significant public interest could be closed.. In ruling that Judge Cedarbaum had erred by denying the press access to jury selection, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held, "[w]e find it difficult to conceive of a potential juror who would be more willing to reveal a bias against the defendants in their presence, but not in the presence of reporters." The Court of Appeals also took note of the fact that Judge Cedarbaum's ruling was prompted by a request from the prosecutors and not the defendants. "If openness would truly have jeopardized the fair trial rights of the defendants in this case, we imagine that the defendants, represented by experienced counsel, would have initiated the request for closure."
Judge Cedarbaum's decision is part of a disturbing trend of judges in high profile cases giving too little weight to the presumption of openness in criminal proceedings-a willingness to set aside for celebrity defendants the rules that are applied every day to less famous defendants in courts across the country. The danger is a perception that our justice system works differently for the rich and famous. In an editorial on the decision, executive director of The First Amendment Center Ken Paulson wrote: "The way to build confidence in the judicial process is through the even-handed administration of justice and public access to the entire trial, from beginning to end." For failing to recognize the importance of public access in the Martha Stewart case, Judge Cedarbaum earns a 2004 Jefferson Muzzle.
The United States Department of Defense
"That's a flat-out gag order"
-- Miami Attorney Neal Sonnett, Chairman of the American Bar Association Task Force on the Treatment of Enemy Combatants
Soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration announced its intention to make use of military tribunals for the trial of yet undesignated enemy combatants. The precise policies and regulations that would govern such tribunals were yet to be developed, but would be announced in the future. During the spring of 2003, the Department of Defense issued such policies. Several provisions evoked immediate media interest, and drew cr
In light of the Madrid bombing, France has raised their terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide".
The Defense Ministry noted that the only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaboration"
Well, as someone who worked for a House Armed Services committee chairman in the late 80's/early 90's, I can say that Congress was pretty aware of how important stealth , cruise missiles, tacit rainbow, gps and other technologies were during their development. These developments did not take place in a vacuum. Heck, in the earliest stages, even researchers don't know if this crap will work, forget if it will be important.
To someone who has to read thousands of pages of budgetspeak, especially in the authorization stages (where projects are authorized, as opposed to appropriations, where they are funded) - any small program not in the "black" was generally known.
No, Congress doesn't know of every project DARPA starts in on. But they are aware of many of them.
They don't get involved in the projects anyways. Research is research. They may defund a project, but they don't change the research. That's not the way the system works.
And as for your blanket statement about Congress, you are just plain wrong. Most of those folks are hard-working, dedicated people from all spectrums of the political rainbow. Yes, there are kooks, and whackjobs. But aside from the giant egos and wallets, they are just as smart or stupid as the general population, and they include surgeons, cops, and housewives.
But DARPA in this case probably cares less about non-military adoption than creating a working system for DoD.
This is going to be designed primarily for military application, like the cruise missile or GPS. If it is easily adapted for civilian use, great (GPS). If not, well, that wasn't the point in the first place (cruise missiles).
Lord knows that DARPA isn't capable of this sort of thing. I mean, stuff like GPS, stealth, and a little network called Arpanet are sure indications that DARPA/ARPA is just a bunch of red-tape loving bureaucrats.
For one thing, the local wires were run to my house back in the late 19th century (yes, 19th) at a subsidized cost - subsidized by taxpayers. (I know the dating because the Verizon tech told me what a pain it is to wire my house to the 1890-s era copper)
Why should an infrastructure built by an illegal (well, eventually ruled illegal) monopoly be left completely in control of, in my case, Verizon?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to ask MCI to provide me service over 100-year-old copper?
Should MCI or AT&T have to run copper to every house in my town that wants to use their services?
Everything I've read puts 20 million as the low number. Given the lack of statistics from third world countries, I'd think 20 million is way low.
An excerpt from the book Flu by (Gina Kolata) about the pandemic puts the number between 20 - 100 million.
I agree the time to kill seemed strange.
NPR = National Public Radio
Can a virus not kill that fast? I'm not a doctor.
The 1918 pandemic killed 30-40 million, about half of them otherwise healthy adults (as opposed to most flu's, which affect mostly the young and old).
Given that the world population has more than tripled since then, and given the increases in world travel, a death toll of over 100 million would not be unlikely for a similar flu. I wouldn't be surprised if it went higher (with a similar strain to the 1918 flu).
I heard on NPR a week or two ago, from an author who wrote about the 1918 pandemic, that in one instance a man boarded a trolley. Before the trolley got to the end of the line, the conductor and several passengers were dead.
As far as the benefit outweighing the dangers, I agree. But I don't think the dangers are exaggerated.
Besides, I've used my magnetic strip card all over Europe in atm's. So the technology seems pretty popular still outside the US.
My asthma is triggered by allergens, but also by cold air, especially cold dry air.
And my understanding is that many communities have (stupidly) planted trees and other plants from back east, and made the area almost as bad pollen-wise.