Don't forget the possibility that IT actually offers this service but the person is not aware of it. Or it is offered in a way other than a native iPhone app.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said we should implement X when it actually has been implemented, documented on the documentation site, with training offered for years.
In that case, I think the IT guys would be perfectly justified in mandating some training:)
I think that is you asked all the people ranting in the posts above, most of them DO realize IT is a service. But IT is also the department responsible for the network and all machines on it. Legally and (since this is a hospital) ethically. We also have the experience to see the big picture.
Maybe there was a REASON IT didnt have this setup previously. Like laws and privacy and silly stuff like that.
I can understand the frustraiton, and applaud the technical knowledge behind the hack. But you dont put a hack into a produciton hospital network. Ever.
Yes, that "production" part does play a major deciding factor. In say, a research or development environment, with a machine not on the network used for learning and testing, I would expect the IT guys to pretty much ignore it. Since he's asking for a port to be opened, that does get serious. I'm surprised the IT guy doesn't want root!
In any case, this is kind of scary; either this guy knows better than the IT staff of his hospital, which is scary, or this guy doesn't care about the rules, which is *damned* scary. The people I most feel sorry for? The hospital's patients.
The thing that appals me is the reaction of some people here at slashdot automatically classifying this guy as a know-nothing luser, when it's pretty obvious he's not (installing BSD? asking for a port to be opened? these are not the requests of a know-nothing luser).
IT is a service. I know, he probably should have tried putting in a formal request first, but the feeling I get is that would have been a waste of time. That he went ahead and did this shows initiative on his part, or possibly frustration with the (lack) of support from IT.
I've been on both sides, and I can understand his frustration. As the quote by Plato goes, being ruled by lesser men is a punishment. Maybe the IT people where he works are competent, and he should try to get to know them better, get on their good side, etc. But if he needs something, and the IT department isn't providing it, it's not his fault. Could be the IT department is underfunded or apathetic. I wouldn't want to give someone who's apathetic access to a machine I rely on. OTOH, the guys who run the network *need* to know WTH is going on it.
I'll give you the best form of evidence - anecdotal:). I used to work in the virus research lab of a major anti-virus firm. All virus samples received by us were scanned by a large range of products automatically to aid research. We kept Clam in because it didn't use much in the way of resources, but it was next to useless for detecting stuff compared to the big boys.
I've always wondered why this is. Why don't more people submit viruses when they find them, even if with other tools? Even if you argue that people aren't paid to, I'm sure *some* sysadmins somewhere would like to not have to deal with a virus again, and therefore would submit it for inclusion in the clam database.
One thing that does bother me, though, is that ClamWin only offers the choices to delete or quarantine a virus, not remove it from a file.
I see this claim all the time, and I always have to wonder: what evidence is there for this claim?
If one need's an antivirus tool (it would be a fair point to call all of them snake oil) use a package with a higher detection rate.
Really? Please name a few, or even just one, that a) are open source, b) don't consume resources like the machine is some dedicated virus scanning box and c) can easily be integrated to any mail server (at a minimum they have to not require a GUI and run on Linux/BSD).
Manufacturing is dirty and nasty and you don't ever want to do it. It's for the dummies. It's buggywhips.
That's what's pounded into the heads of everyone going through school that scores above 100 on IQ. As Mike Rowe said at TED, there's a war on work that's been going on for 40 years.
If your job can be done by a robot, expect it to. Not that I have anything against hard work, or even working with your hands. I think far too many people don't realize the pleasure in crafting something, working hard on it, and having something to be proud of afterwords. But it's also not really reasonable to expect people to be robots and stand at an assembly line doing repetitive tasks all day; it's degrading.
That being said, I realize that there some jobs, that in the grand scheme of things, don't matter. Or worse, they detract from what does matter. This, I think, is the major failure of thinking when justifying CEO pay; without workers, a CEO is worthless. Without a CEO, workers can still produce useful things; just look at any co-op. Marketing, sales, advertising and even financial jobs are in a similar position as management, and could learn something from IT and tech support: their job is to support the real producers, the people who actually *make* things.
Ad hominem is not useful in evaluating the article, and does nothing to address the veracity of it.
Normally yes. But when someone keeps spewing the same falsehoods, even after being corrected, multiple times, it is wise to consider ignoring anything they say. As others in this thread have noted, there are multiple falsehoods in this story, some of which make it look like Watts is really stretching, at best. His attempt to silence his critics doesn't help his case any either.
So he breaks into your home, robs, and murders you.
Taxes are what the rich people pay in exchange for the poor letting them continue to be rich. Doesn't seem fair? Tough shit. Life isn't fair. Just ask that starving kid next door.
This is what I keep trying to explain to people about Planned Parenthood. So you may object to abortions on ethical grounds (and Planned Parenthood provides more than just abortions), which I can understand. You may not want to pay for other people's abortions, but I'm pretty sure that one way or another, we will all end up paying. Either we can pay for an abortion now (cheap), or pay for the unaborted "person" the rest of his life (expensive). Don't want to pay taxes for welfare either? Okay, then you can pay with your life when the unaborted, unemployed starving person comes to rob your house. Oh, you'll fend them off with your shotgun? Sorry, there's too many of them; they overrun you after you run out of shots and tear you limb from limb for killing seven of their siblings.
I don't see how anyone with any grasp of the current unemployment rate can argue that we need *more* people in this world, or why they can't do simple math and logic to figure out that paying for abortions and condoms is an extremely cheap alternative to welfare. And don't start about "filthy sluts"; sometimes sex is the only thing making some peoples' lives worth living (listen to "Common People" by Pulp for example).
I like taxes; with them I buy civilization. As for paying for things I find morally reprehensible, let's talk about those two optional wars for oil; then maybe I'll be willing to listen to the so-called "pro-lifers" argue over the definition of a person.
At least now, when presented with a hyperlink, the user has an expectation that it might be broken, but even then the locally stored text remains accessible.
And then we didn't even mention copyrights...
And don't even mention malicious interference, such as oh, say deleting information that is inconvenient (several corporations and governments come to mind). One of the biggest reasons I insist on local copies of media (such as books, music and videos) is I don't want my access to that information to be at someone elses whim.
This is precisely why I tried modding the original FUD article down in the firehose. Anyone with half a clue and more than a few years experience in computing could have told you that Microsoft was most likely lying.
Similar to my thoughts: this is great added security; after all, why would I want my neighbors (or anyone driving down the street) to be able to sniff WiFi packets or even Bluetooth? Sure, I may not be able to web surf in the garden, but maybe being disconnected every once and a while is a good thing. And if you really need cell reception inside your house (what, you mean your cell phone doesn't have WiFi?), you can always get a repeater.
The title quote is by Gandhi. While it is sad that this may be merely another indicator of some people resting on their laurels, I don't think it's a good idea to lament a greater focus on such things as fuel efficiency. Maybe some people's priorities are backwards, or at the very least, just a bit too slanted?
I normally don't respond to AC's, but what the hell.
My big dream? To be financially independent. Not insanely rich, just wealthy enough to not have to work for a living. But I imagine I'd probably still do what I do now, I'd just work on software projects that I were personally interesting to me. Probably still play in the local big band and orchestra. Probably still volunteer for search and rescue. You really don't do anything besides slack all day?
You didn't think the government strung all that fiber and installed all those routers did you?
No, but we the taxpayers sure as hell paid for it. And you can be damn sure that if the telcos had to build from the ground up (no pre-existing ARPANET), the Internet would have never happened.
I'll never do anything productive, as I have no need to do so.
I don't believe you. You mean to tell me there is nothing creative that interests you? You have no motivation, besides putting food on the table, to do anything? If you do, I pity you. And I'm fairly sure you are in a small minority, or at least conditioned to be that way. Most children, before they get through high school, are eager to learn and create, even though their food and housing are provided for. It's human nature.
Granted, maybe "right" isn't the correct word, but tell me, would *you* be able to survive without access to the Internet? Seriously, if you had to look for a new job, do you think that having only printed paper classifieds is sufficient? It seems like any time someone tries to suggest that maybe if we try raising the bar and giving people a helping hand (you know, by giving them access to *find* a job) that people start saying the world is going to end and all those people without jobs are just no-good lazy bums anyway. You know what makes me cynical? Not the people on welfare. It's the people who bitch about welfare and "entitlements".
Having a VM that's not at the mercy of Oracle would, to my mind, be a huge plus. But Oracle's war against Google shows just how fraught with risk that could be.
Maybe Oracle's war against Google is/precisely/ why RedHat is developing their own VM. Besides, I look at the GP who talks about CLI and JVM, and think, gee, maybe it would be nice to have another VM, one that's open source from the outset and not chained down by patents. And competition is good.
What are you talking about? Every CVS, Walgreens, Kinkos, Walmart, etc., has photo printing. You take in a memory card rather than film, but it's the same business model and for the same reason: most people don't find it worth the bother and expense to have print making capability (whether that be a darkroom or a photo printer) at home.
That's not quite the same; for one, how many digital printing centers require staff? Heck, I've seen some where you can pay directly at the terminal. For another, even counting the digital print stations, places to get photos printed have signficantly dropped. Most mom&pop photo places are gone. One last thing: people aren't required to go to one of these stations to print out or view photos, which the latter is what a good majority are satisfied with.
I still think Pure Digital's business plan was full of fail and just have to roll my eyes when they are surprised that people started hacking their devices.
The business model was that you'd pay CVS $20-30 for the camera, fill it with 20 minutes of video, and return it for "processing", where CVS would use a device with a proprietary USB connector and software that knew what key to use to handshake to the device to extract the video, burn it to CD for you, wipe the camera, and put it back on the shelf. (much like a "disposable" film camera.)
Okay, to me this just sounds like a business plan waiting to fail. If the marketing dept (or whatever dept that comes up with these ideas) should listen to their engineers only once, it would be to present the business plan to the engineers and ask "now, what would you do as a consumer?" If the engineers are worth anything, they will point out holes (like "not return it and just download the data myself") before the marketeers go off on a quixotic quest to try to dupe people out of their money. I mean, honestly, did they actually think people *liked* having to take their cameras/film back to the store just to get the photos? And pay for the "privilege"? There's two reasons one hour photos are virtually non-existent anymore, and they're called USB and digital cameras.
The company was understandably miffed about having people going into their local drugstore and buying what would have been a $50-100 gadget for $30.
No, that's not understandable; sounds like a just another bunch of MBA types trying to get rich quick by holding people's data ransom.
Well, this is now content creators agreeing with them.
Not really.
Well, this is them doing half of that.
Sure, if by "doing half of that" you mean "locking down content even more and abridging fair use by not allowing timeshifting or spaceshifting." Oh, wait that's exactly/against/ fair use principles.
This is in opposition to the "imaginary property" advocates that maintain that all content should be free-as-in-beer because it doesn't cost any money to duplicate, damned be the (sometimes significant) creation costs.
Guess what? You're also screwing the content creator, whose work you apparently want enough to pirate.
No, the content creator was screwed when they signed a contract with the big publishers; anyone who doesn't realize this probably isn't a creator who's had to deal with the big publishers. The Internet has largely made big publishers moot, but unfortunately this cloud thing (which is a fad) is again threatening not just fair use, but the very basis of our culture. What are you going to do when (*NOT* if) they disappear part of your culture?
And before you label me as just another pirate, let me just cut you short by letting you know I pay for my media, usually directly to the artist, and I get a permanent copy (permanent meaning no one can restrict my access to it, either by DRM or "losing" it in the cloud). If it's not avaible in CD or FLAC, I don't buy. F*ck the cloud.
There we go.. I don't understand this is still a question.
This is why. Also, dm-crypt/luks is included with Linux by default and Debian makes it dead simple to setup whole disk encryption on a fresh install; I believe that truecrypt won't work for whole disk encryption for Linux.
All due respect to the truecrypt guys and their work (cross-platform encrypted images are awesome), but the only reason Windows and OSX need truecrypt is because they don't have something like Linux's dm-crypt. Truecrypt really isn't necessary for Linux, unless you have to share encrypted images with other OSes, and you could also do that with GNUPG.
And again with the conservative downmods. Reality does have a well-known liberal bias. Oh, those darn pesky facts, are they getting in the way of your conservative worldview?
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, I think the IT guys would be perfectly justified in mandating some training :)
Yes, that "production" part does play a major deciding factor. In say, a research or development environment, with a machine not on the network used for learning and testing, I would expect the IT guys to pretty much ignore it. Since he's asking for a port to be opened, that does get serious. I'm surprised the IT guy doesn't want root!
In any case, this is kind of scary; either this guy knows better than the IT staff of his hospital, which is scary, or this guy doesn't care about the rules, which is *damned* scary. The people I most feel sorry for? The hospital's patients.
The thing that appals me is the reaction of some people here at slashdot automatically classifying this guy as a know-nothing luser, when it's pretty obvious he's not (installing BSD? asking for a port to be opened? these are not the requests of a know-nothing luser).
Okay, maybe not required, but I have a very strong preference for software I can check for back doors.
I was honestly curious about what people recommend for AV, as it's something I'm not really familiar with. I'll have to look into trendmicro, thanks!
IT is a service. I know, he probably should have tried putting in a formal request first, but the feeling I get is that would have been a waste of time. That he went ahead and did this shows initiative on his part, or possibly frustration with the (lack) of support from IT.
I've been on both sides, and I can understand his frustration. As the quote by Plato goes, being ruled by lesser men is a punishment. Maybe the IT people where he works are competent, and he should try to get to know them better, get on their good side, etc. But if he needs something, and the IT department isn't providing it, it's not his fault. Could be the IT department is underfunded or apathetic. I wouldn't want to give someone who's apathetic access to a machine I rely on. OTOH, the guys who run the network *need* to know WTH is going on it.
I've always wondered why this is. Why don't more people submit viruses when they find them, even if with other tools? Even if you argue that people aren't paid to, I'm sure *some* sysadmins somewhere would like to not have to deal with a virus again, and therefore would submit it for inclusion in the clam database.
One thing that does bother me, though, is that ClamWin only offers the choices to delete or quarantine a virus, not remove it from a file.
I see this claim all the time, and I always have to wonder: what evidence is there for this claim?
Really? Please name a few, or even just one, that a) are open source, b) don't consume resources like the machine is some dedicated virus scanning box and c) can easily be integrated to any mail server (at a minimum they have to not require a GUI and run on Linux/BSD).
If your job can be done by a robot, expect it to. Not that I have anything against hard work, or even working with your hands. I think far too many people don't realize the pleasure in crafting something, working hard on it, and having something to be proud of afterwords. But it's also not really reasonable to expect people to be robots and stand at an assembly line doing repetitive tasks all day; it's degrading.
That being said, I realize that there some jobs, that in the grand scheme of things, don't matter. Or worse, they detract from what does matter. This, I think, is the major failure of thinking when justifying CEO pay; without workers, a CEO is worthless. Without a CEO, workers can still produce useful things; just look at any co-op. Marketing, sales, advertising and even financial jobs are in a similar position as management, and could learn something from IT and tech support: their job is to support the real producers, the people who actually *make* things.
Normally yes. But when someone keeps spewing the same falsehoods, even after being corrected, multiple times, it is wise to consider ignoring anything they say. As others in this thread have noted, there are multiple falsehoods in this story, some of which make it look like Watts is really stretching, at best. His attempt to silence his critics doesn't help his case any either.
This is what I keep trying to explain to people about Planned Parenthood. So you may object to abortions on ethical grounds (and Planned Parenthood provides more than just abortions), which I can understand. You may not want to pay for other people's abortions, but I'm pretty sure that one way or another, we will all end up paying. Either we can pay for an abortion now (cheap), or pay for the unaborted "person" the rest of his life (expensive). Don't want to pay taxes for welfare either? Okay, then you can pay with your life when the unaborted, unemployed starving person comes to rob your house. Oh, you'll fend them off with your shotgun? Sorry, there's too many of them; they overrun you after you run out of shots and tear you limb from limb for killing seven of their siblings.
I don't see how anyone with any grasp of the current unemployment rate can argue that we need *more* people in this world, or why they can't do simple math and logic to figure out that paying for abortions and condoms is an extremely cheap alternative to welfare. And don't start about "filthy sluts"; sometimes sex is the only thing making some peoples' lives worth living (listen to "Common People" by Pulp for example).
I like taxes; with them I buy civilization. As for paying for things I find morally reprehensible, let's talk about those two optional wars for oil; then maybe I'll be willing to listen to the so-called "pro-lifers" argue over the definition of a person.
And don't even mention malicious interference, such as oh, say deleting information that is inconvenient (several corporations and governments come to mind). One of the biggest reasons I insist on local copies of media (such as books, music and videos) is I don't want my access to that information to be at someone elses whim.
This is precisely why I tried modding the original FUD article down in the firehose. Anyone with half a clue and more than a few years experience in computing could have told you that Microsoft was most likely lying.
Similar to my thoughts: this is great added security; after all, why would I want my neighbors (or anyone driving down the street) to be able to sniff WiFi packets or even Bluetooth? Sure, I may not be able to web surf in the garden, but maybe being disconnected every once and a while is a good thing. And if you really need cell reception inside your house (what, you mean your cell phone doesn't have WiFi?), you can always get a repeater.
The title quote is by Gandhi. While it is sad that this may be merely another indicator of some people resting on their laurels, I don't think it's a good idea to lament a greater focus on such things as fuel efficiency. Maybe some people's priorities are backwards, or at the very least, just a bit too slanted?
I normally don't respond to AC's, but what the hell.
My big dream? To be financially independent. Not insanely rich, just wealthy enough to not have to work for a living. But I imagine I'd probably still do what I do now, I'd just work on software projects that I were personally interesting to me. Probably still play in the local big band and orchestra. Probably still volunteer for search and rescue. You really don't do anything besides slack all day?
No, but we the taxpayers sure as hell paid for it. And you can be damn sure that if the telcos had to build from the ground up (no pre-existing ARPANET), the Internet would have never happened.
I don't believe you. You mean to tell me there is nothing creative that interests you? You have no motivation, besides putting food on the table, to do anything? If you do, I pity you. And I'm fairly sure you are in a small minority, or at least conditioned to be that way. Most children, before they get through high school, are eager to learn and create, even though their food and housing are provided for. It's human nature.
For pete's sake, comparing web access to "fast cars, a big house and loose women"? Or "a million dollars"? Fucking retarded.
Granted, maybe "right" isn't the correct word, but tell me, would *you* be able to survive without access to the Internet? Seriously, if you had to look for a new job, do you think that having only printed paper classifieds is sufficient? It seems like any time someone tries to suggest that maybe if we try raising the bar and giving people a helping hand (you know, by giving them access to *find* a job) that people start saying the world is going to end and all those people without jobs are just no-good lazy bums anyway. You know what makes me cynical? Not the people on welfare. It's the people who bitch about welfare and "entitlements".
Maybe Oracle's war against Google is /precisely/ why RedHat is developing their own VM. Besides, I look at the GP who talks about CLI and JVM, and think, gee, maybe it would be nice to have another VM, one that's open source from the outset and not chained down by patents. And competition is good.
That's not quite the same; for one, how many digital printing centers require staff? Heck, I've seen some where you can pay directly at the terminal. For another, even counting the digital print stations, places to get photos printed have signficantly dropped. Most mom&pop photo places are gone. One last thing: people aren't required to go to one of these stations to print out or view photos, which the latter is what a good majority are satisfied with.
I still think Pure Digital's business plan was full of fail and just have to roll my eyes when they are surprised that people started hacking their devices.
Okay, to me this just sounds like a business plan waiting to fail. If the marketing dept (or whatever dept that comes up with these ideas) should listen to their engineers only once, it would be to present the business plan to the engineers and ask "now, what would you do as a consumer?" If the engineers are worth anything, they will point out holes (like "not return it and just download the data myself") before the marketeers go off on a quixotic quest to try to dupe people out of their money. I mean, honestly, did they actually think people *liked* having to take their cameras/film back to the store just to get the photos? And pay for the "privilege"? There's two reasons one hour photos are virtually non-existent anymore, and they're called USB and digital cameras.
No, that's not understandable; sounds like a just another bunch of MBA types trying to get rich quick by holding people's data ransom.
I've been able to program on my phone since my Treo 650. The Nokia N900 just takes it to a whole new level.
I thought Medicare and Social Security were self-funding? How would it help to cut self-funding projects?
Not really.
Sure, if by "doing half of that" you mean "locking down content even more and abridging fair use by not allowing timeshifting or spaceshifting." Oh, wait that's exactly /against/ fair use principles.
This is so wrong, I'm not even sure I'm being trolled or not. Try to understand people's arguments before you put up strawmen of them.
No, the content creator was screwed when they signed a contract with the big publishers; anyone who doesn't realize this probably isn't a creator who's had to deal with the big publishers. The Internet has largely made big publishers moot, but unfortunately this cloud thing (which is a fad) is again threatening not just fair use, but the very basis of our culture. What are you going to do when (*NOT* if) they disappear part of your culture?
And before you label me as just another pirate, let me just cut you short by letting you know I pay for my media, usually directly to the artist, and I get a permanent copy (permanent meaning no one can restrict my access to it, either by DRM or "losing" it in the cloud). If it's not avaible in CD or FLAC, I don't buy. F*ck the cloud.
This is why. Also, dm-crypt/luks is included with Linux by default and Debian makes it dead simple to setup whole disk encryption on a fresh install; I believe that truecrypt won't work for whole disk encryption for Linux.
All due respect to the truecrypt guys and their work (cross-platform encrypted images are awesome), but the only reason Windows and OSX need truecrypt is because they don't have something like Linux's dm-crypt. Truecrypt really isn't necessary for Linux, unless you have to share encrypted images with other OSes, and you could also do that with GNUPG.
And again with the conservative downmods. Reality does have a well-known liberal bias. Oh, those darn pesky facts, are they getting in the way of your conservative worldview?