So, (potentially) a quarter more class A narcotics entered the country due to (potentially) a quarter of the communications intercepted no longer being so. For one, I highly doubt those numbers translate to effective raise in class A narc. consumption or even availability. Let's not forget Snowden's actions also alerted the criminals, so they are EFFECTIVELY more aware, and thus LESS active since.
In any case, the number of drug addicts does not always increase with availability. Some studies actually indicate consumption is most influenced by other factors such as popularity/public opinion, novelty or ease of access (it's still socially difficult to contact dealers, thankfully). Some pioneer regions are proof availability is a deterrent for substance abuse, or induce more responsible use (Netherlands anyone?).
But even if I'm totally wrong, I'm personally happy with the trade off. I'll give in a few communications between criminals going undetected, for the assurance of private, universal communications any day.
Just spend the extra money on proven deterrents of narcotic use. Like prevention
This is probably based on statistical models, based on our own civilization, that predict genuine AI will be achieved way before we can either communicate with extraterrestrial life, or travel to such life.
So, you see, this is just the same paradox again: however we came to be whatever we are now (usually called the homo sapiens), we have evolved in a synthetic way by itself, and our DNA is the catalyst that promoted our evolution. So, to believe the evolution of animal life, and the appearance of rationality in homo sapiens is but randomness, is the only way to admit we are not synthetic - highly improbable occurrence, unless we happen to be the very first sentient beings in the universe (a very egocentric thought to say the least, except if you take religion as proof). It is much more probable that we have been synthesized ourselves by an entity that hasn't presented itself to us (and is God in one way or another, but that's a philosophical matter).
tl:dr - we are most likely synthetic life forms too, so whoever we find we should not be distinguishing sentience categorization with them. There will be other (more important) divergences in the event of 3rd kind close encounters
A joke for a joke heh ^_^. In any case, I doubt there are any black hat (open) courses anywhere across the globe, and even white-hat cyber-security courses won't teach you 1% of what you need for such an attack. They do provide guidelines though.
What you need to succeed in such attacks is: open-minded, out of the box thinking; access to computers; and some very open access to the webs deepest corners. All of this has to be set up in line with the emancipation of IT abilities, which is usually around teenage-hood to its end around 20-24, or else there's no aptitude inception for it to become any useful. All of the above boxes do NOT tick for 99.99% of the NK population (that's like everyone but the top 10 NK government executives, including KJU).
So unless NK government started breeding hackers before Y2K (which most developed countries didn't, and underdeveloped countries were still thinking plutonium enrichment back then), and SHA-2 is no slouch, so this was certainly not a solo-NK attack. This has Beijing written all over.
What should be seen from these blaming statements is one of two inevitable conclusions:
- either US is trying to set up North Korea's public opinion in order to excuse some new (military or cyber-) incursion to them, or...
- they are actually making honest statements, in which case China is surely helping these cyber-attacks. It should be obvious that North Korea doesn't have the IT background necessary for such attacks... Unless Kim Jong-Un took some hardcore CS crash-course back in his Switzerland days.
In any case, Korea is deepening its role of battleground in the economical and social proxy-war between China and the US. This is nothing more than a turn of that chess game, but this time I'm pretty sure I heard "check" from the "red" side...
Yeap, i thought exactly the same. AEDE is probably asking the government to pretty much make the extortion for them: " hey government, Google there can just walk away, so please do something we can't, like fining or restricting their non-news related services if they don't buy our news. Because, well the law we lobbied for you to pass for us was not enough to force Google to give us profit we didn't deserve in the first place. And that were probably not gonna get because Google is paying for those fines rather than paying us for news, but we still want them to burn for giving us traffic..."
Oh, nevermind, it actually makes sense because the top fans are supposed to heat the fluid circuit, which renders my point of air traveling throughout the case moot.
This is Slashsdot mate, not PhD Comics. Gaming is also geeky, and if you don't know and/or crave Alienware, I have good (bad) news for you... You need to get out of the lab more often:D
Despite the hype they make about the unencumbered airflow front and back, I seriously have my doubts on a system that has a pump-in fan so close to a pump-out fan.
I personally like the idea of learning algorithms, through Mark as Spam or Add to Contacts. But as a sysop in a somewhat busy, mid-scale company MX, I find 2 big user-preference deterrents to its use:
1. wide email client preference, and thus flawed learning due to inconsistent behavior of Mark as Spam and Add to Contacts
2. user-specific enforcing of spam-to-inbox - older peers, usually managers, just prefer to get everything and filter manually, as they are allergic to new paradigms such as webmail (which interact well with learning algorithms, e.g. roundcube), and just panic to the possibility of getting an important mail not getting to their Outlook Inbox
My most used technique involves configuring amavis (spamassassin, amavis, etc) just like OP does, but then, and since I use ISPConfig with a plethora of configurable per-user Spam policies, I just tell everyone responsible for creating mailboxes to arbitrate between them, ad hoc. It works somewhat well: every month or so I get an unhappy camper, and I just accept the fact it happens.
I can really see some sense in your un-numbered paragraphs, because that's politics 101.
Except maybe here:
What it won't accomplish is giving you more freedom
You can use whatever rhetoric you want. You can tell me there are endless loopholes that net neutrality sponsors can abuse. But unless the dictionary has changed, neutrality still relates to the disregard for censorship. Whoever says the contrary is, indeed, applying smokescreens to the concept.
Now, about your numbered topics: you keep talking money. I don't care about money. I know this is all about money and Netflix and yada yada. I DON'T CARE. As long as I'm not using my internet for something that is morally wrong, I am using my internet like it was (or at least should) meant to.
Some Definitions: Morally Wrong - Pirating Copyrighted material; Getting illegal content such as child pornography; Hacking secure systems for illicit reasons. Not Morally Wrong - Paying and downloading copyrighted content; downloading 08FU5C473D content (because you can't prove what it is); Hacking secure systems for proof of concept and recreational purposes.
Some opinions: (1) It is the ISP's responsibility to get me the throughput I pay for without discrimination. If contracts allow discrimination the ISP is taking on someone else's responsability (read 3); (2) It is the content provider's responsibility to have content in legal form and to protect it in an acceptable fashion; (3) It is the governing regulatory bodies responsibility to scourge the content providers for bad content (and this includes bad content distribution form, such as, say, Netflix flooding the gates of the Internet to a point they are messing with a utility).
Are we really supposed to believe 814.000 Americans signed a petition to prevent them from using their internet as they see fit? Never mind the fact the triplicated the single signature purpose, this is flat out unbelievable.
it seems that the Irish government would actually get the extra money and suffer little for its part in the scheme
So, if the government was the victim because some of its members decided to abuse power in order to get personal compensation (be it money or just public opinion), why would the government itself be penalized? It's true that the government is made by elected members of the people in a democracy, but these people did NOT represent the government's best interests with the deal, as the deal did not do justice to the government by breaking its law.
It might even have benefited the country overall, with new money getting in through other revenue from Apple keeping business there, but that is just a political illusion of benefit to the government - it is more of a treat to the elected political party, who managed to gain popularity to the eyes of the community by committing public taxes for it.
Deals like this can be done, as long as they are made under the guise of a solid investment and they do not break any trade policies without lawmakers consent, which does not appear to be the case.
I see your point, but 99% of the services anyone uses online instantiate a form of server. Any P2P network, such as torrents or TOR, can be considered setting up a server. If that is basis for establishing that the user is running a server, they could very well shut down their entire user base. Nowadays, even a very basic browser page can be considered a server, the page just needs an open socket for incoming connections. Anyone else creating an online multiplayer private match (thinking of counter-strike, UT, Age of Empires, among thousands of others) can also be incriminated for "providing internet services" if you follow that logic.
Comcast gets to determine whether your activities can be deemed unlawful.
Now, this is a concept that even here in Europe we have to condone contractually, yet nobody abides to legally. If a com company is known to be doing something fishy like terminating contracts out of their own free-will, companies here get the hammer, be it from a lawsuit or from being dropped by their market. That's why you don't see any company doing it, even there in the US. Do you know of anyone having their service suspended out of the company not liking their usage patterns (and that don't go to jail)? All I hear is people getting their band throttled, but this happens on a mass scale and not to a singled out individual.
A company cannot just speculate, because that would be considered an abuse of power. The state can do that though, and that is why we have "piracy taxes" for hard disk drives and now even for flash-based built-in memory on our cells and tablets (yeah, we just got it approved in Portugal last month)... The state can say that if there is "massive, yet unidentifiable known use of copyrighted material", it can establish a generalized tax that applies even for people that do not infringe the copyright. It is even applied twice or three times for people that purchase digital/physical content. Companies can't do such type of generalization or speculation.
To whomever is getting calls like these, take the chance to install a call recorder. Ask for the operator name, and for a reference that proves the operator is really a Comcast representative such as "can you tell me my current service/plan?".
After all this, let them know you will continue using TOR, and sue them for breach of contract and intimidation if they go forth with their mischievous threats. You are allowed to use your internet connection according to their TOS, which does not bar TOR unless the FCC really let that slide. If Comcast themselves are trying to enforce the law-enforcement right to spy on you as approved by congress, they are infringing the law by abusing a right not theirs. Comcast can't also add policies ad-hoc unilaterally. Tell them you will not stop using the service, and that their communication to you is proof that you are most likely going to be targeted by law-enforcement agencies due to Comcast snooping and discriminating your internet usage.
You can sue them for discrimination out of the blue, just from that call, as they are probing your ability to be blacklisted. You can sue them for breach of contract if they cut your line and/or suspend your contract like they said they would.
You need to find better ways to cover your tracks after browsing them freshmen girls mobile photo. If boss asks about the name, just tell them it's a reference to Harry Potter, and the black hat is for wizardry
This is just another one of the recent MS gimmicks to get you to switch to the Metro version.
I just received a very official Skype Team email stating my desktop version would be automatically removed. That's exactly what it said: YOUR SKYPE VERSION WILL BE REMOVED. If a company would add such a trigger on an application (even one that highly depends on a single external cloud service to do anything at all), I would call that heavy persuasion.
Southwest policy appears to restrict entrance in this very specific case to JUST after all A-list passengers and before others. This is because his kids were older than 4 and NOT entitled to A-list boarding. If they were younger than 4, the hostess would be infringing policy. But she was actually enforcing policy strictly, doing her job as she is told to.
The real problem here is a conflict between the freedom of speech right and the defamation civil wrong (for which she can sue actually). I personally don't think there is real libel here, but some might argue that using the hostess's name on the tweet is reason enough for her to sue. What is impressive is the fact the guy had to go to the news after the incident to whine even more, and that gets me thinking he is a little more butthurt than he should for nothing important. He pretty much wanted the hostess fired from her job, which is her source of income. I think everybody gets defensive when their job is at stake. And all this for not indulging him in something he didn't have the right to, despite being "used to" have.
She wanted to avoided having defamation about her and the company wanted to avoid bad publicity. If the tweet was still up, he would have been left on the ground and he could be sued. If they let him fly without deleting the tweet, hostess would have been fired and both hostess and company could sue. This was the best scenario for both... Until he decided to strike back like a little girl. He could have never used the company again for the lack of poise but he just had to make the issue bigger. These are my two cents about it,
I have no idea on what's going on in Finland, but I extrapolated it because it's what I see in Western/Central Europe. What I meant by young prodigies is pretty obvious: I doubt Nokia hires any freshmen with an average lower than A on the European Scale (that's the top 10%). Since I wasn't close to an A and I knew where most of the A's from my year ended up (top companies or research, for those who disliked corporate environments and/or wanted to give some luck back to the environment). When such a student is hired to by , they usually assume (and sometimes even implied in interviews) that they are gonna have a big shot at the managing pos. in a short term (I know this from friends in such scenarios).
Something I don't notice is people being fired right-and-left in most of the IT sector as you describe, as all companies here tend to overvalue the importance of knowing what you can count on (and they also spend a lot in education for all their human resources, making severance packages highly prohibitive, especially here in Portugal). Keeping employers is usually cheaper and safer than firing them. Talent IS the driving force in escalating the corporate food-chain, but it rarely is a catalyst for dismissals, even in at least 2 major companies I see here (one is a Big Four consultant and the other is the major betting company back/front-end main developer). And these companies are probably the exception to what I mentioned in my first comment, as I have yet to know companies that are so self-sufficient in Portugal as these 2 are - they never happened to use co-paid internships to my knowledge and supply/abuse outsourced work as a means to keep a good number on fixed positions.
I definitely think you might have not understood the larger print in your contract: if you are staying in a company that is so eager to downsize in order to pursue a dead cause such as WinMo, you are on your way to a dark future as opposed to a promising one. In your defense, I am very young, and might have a narrow vision of the industry, but there are a lot of supporting facts to my statements:D
The only way I see this happening is if you totally migrate your lab to something like Amazon AWS/EC2, and link each user to an individual account with specific bandwidth and storage (GRATIS) quotas.
For one, processing power wont be an issue since that's on Amazon's side, and it's virtually unlimited. Now, everyone will have a decent amount of the other resources for whatever they need, as long as quotas stay inside each user's scope (for which their free quota should have been well defined).
A user abuses his quota? No problem - Students get overcharged on their tuition fees, or reflected on their grades. Same for employees/researchers, in their salaries OR performance reviews. Is it a public community lab like, say, a library? Restrict access based on fair usage, maintaining an external log of who is where and when. Hell, if anything like this is politically unfeasible, just warn your users, at least you will know individually who is doing what without the heavy-lifting that is required to analyze it manually.
Everybody will be self-educated on how to use the system. On the long-run, the community will educate itself with no need for personal bad experiences. Much like using a printing quota, or the water/electricity bill.
All resources are very similar when it comes to management, so the principle of fair-use with retroactive consequence will always be the best bet.
In the US it might be H1B visas to hire cheap specialty workers from abroad. In the EU (where apparetnly most of this is happening), it's basically the same strategy but applied to EU supported fresh-outta-college internships (co-paid salaries tending to ZERO by employers), basically sending off the worst of the elders, and enslave the f*ck out of the young prodigies who they will scopp with mild salaries and a "promissing" future. This cycle happens in every major company in Europe. I have seen it in 3: Bosch, PT.pt and Siemens
I'm not familiar with CentOS or Redhat, but in Debian it's not uncommon to get the odd update that requires configuration wizards. There's no shortcut to those, and in the event of it happening, you are gonna have some early risers complaining.
And even the supposedly safe, unattended updates aren't that safe: For example I updated to the latest linux-image from Debian's repos yesterday. I didn't expect some core services to depend on a computer reboot to start working again, but 5 minutes in people were complaining a Jboss web app wasn't working.
Slashdot Mirror
So, (potentially) a quarter more class A narcotics entered the country due to (potentially) a quarter of the communications intercepted no longer being so. For one, I highly doubt those numbers translate to effective raise in class A narc. consumption or even availability. Let's not forget Snowden's actions also alerted the criminals, so they are EFFECTIVELY more aware, and thus LESS active since.
In any case, the number of drug addicts does not always increase with availability. Some studies actually indicate consumption is most influenced by other factors such as popularity/public opinion, novelty or ease of access (it's still socially difficult to contact dealers, thankfully). Some pioneer regions are proof availability is a deterrent for substance abuse, or induce more responsible use (Netherlands anyone?).
But even if I'm totally wrong, I'm personally happy with the trade off. I'll give in a few communications between criminals going undetected, for the assurance of private, universal communications any day.
Just spend the extra money on proven deterrents of narcotic use. Like prevention
This is probably based on statistical models, based on our own civilization, that predict genuine AI will be achieved way before we can either communicate with extraterrestrial life, or travel to such life.
So, you see, this is just the same paradox again: however we came to be whatever we are now (usually called the homo sapiens), we have evolved in a synthetic way by itself, and our DNA is the catalyst that promoted our evolution. So, to believe the evolution of animal life, and the appearance of rationality in homo sapiens is but randomness, is the only way to admit we are not synthetic - highly improbable occurrence, unless we happen to be the very first sentient beings in the universe (a very egocentric thought to say the least, except if you take religion as proof). It is much more probable that we have been synthesized ourselves by an entity that hasn't presented itself to us (and is God in one way or another, but that's a philosophical matter).
tl:dr - we are most likely synthetic life forms too, so whoever we find we should not be distinguishing sentience categorization with them. There will be other (more important) divergences in the event of 3rd kind close encounters
A joke for a joke heh ^_^. In any case, I doubt there are any black hat (open) courses anywhere across the globe, and even white-hat cyber-security courses won't teach you 1% of what you need for such an attack. They do provide guidelines though.
What you need to succeed in such attacks is: open-minded, out of the box thinking; access to computers; and some very open access to the webs deepest corners. All of this has to be set up in line with the emancipation of IT abilities, which is usually around teenage-hood to its end around 20-24, or else there's no aptitude inception for it to become any useful. All of the above boxes do NOT tick for 99.99% of the NK population (that's like everyone but the top 10 NK government executives, including KJU).
So unless NK government started breeding hackers before Y2K (which most developed countries didn't, and underdeveloped countries were still thinking plutonium enrichment back then), and SHA-2 is no slouch, so this was certainly not a solo-NK attack. This has Beijing written all over.
In any case, Korea is deepening its role of battleground in the economical and social proxy-war between China and the US. This is nothing more than a turn of that chess game, but this time I'm pretty sure I heard "check" from the "red" side...
Yeap, i thought exactly the same. AEDE is probably asking the government to pretty much make the extortion for them: " hey government, Google there can just walk away, so please do something we can't, like fining or restricting their non-news related services if they don't buy our news. Because, well the law we lobbied for you to pass for us was not enough to force Google to give us profit we didn't deserve in the first place. And that were probably not gonna get because Google is paying for those fines rather than paying us for news, but we still want them to burn for giving us traffic..."
This is why my Yahoo account is my "disposable account" creation SH*TBOX . Way back since 1998
...do we get to see Jennifer Lawrence's "account balance"?
Your'e not giving enough credit to the organization that enabled you to write comments that look this c o o l
Oh, nevermind, it actually makes sense because the top fans are supposed to heat the fluid circuit, which renders my point of air traveling throughout the case moot.
This is Slashsdot mate, not PhD Comics. Gaming is also geeky, and if you don't know and/or crave Alienware, I have good (bad) news for you... You need to get out of the lab more often :D
Despite the hype they make about the unencumbered airflow front and back, I seriously have my doubts on a system that has a pump-in fan so close to a pump-out fan.
I mean, look at the top triangle tip.
In their defense, there are 2 extra fans below, but some fluid dynamics graph would be nice for prooving good thermals exist there.
I personally like the idea of learning algorithms, through Mark as Spam or Add to Contacts. But as a sysop in a somewhat busy, mid-scale company MX, I find 2 big user-preference deterrents to its use:
My most used technique involves configuring amavis (spamassassin, amavis, etc) just like OP does, but then, and since I use ISPConfig with a plethora of configurable per-user Spam policies, I just tell everyone responsible for creating mailboxes to arbitrate between them, ad hoc. It works somewhat well: every month or so I get an unhappy camper, and I just accept the fact it happens.
I can really see some sense in your un-numbered paragraphs, because that's politics 101.
Except maybe here:
What it won't accomplish is giving you more freedom
You can use whatever rhetoric you want. You can tell me there are endless loopholes that net neutrality sponsors can abuse. But unless the dictionary has changed, neutrality still relates to the disregard for censorship. Whoever says the contrary is, indeed, applying smokescreens to the concept.
Now, about your numbered topics: you keep talking money. I don't care about money. I know this is all about money and Netflix and yada yada. I DON'T CARE. As long as I'm not using my internet for something that is morally wrong, I am using my internet like it was (or at least should) meant to.
Some Definitions:
Morally Wrong - Pirating Copyrighted material; Getting illegal content such as child pornography; Hacking secure systems for illicit reasons.
Not Morally Wrong - Paying and downloading copyrighted content; downloading 08FU5C473D content (because you can't prove what it is); Hacking secure systems for proof of concept and recreational purposes.
Some opinions:
(1) It is the ISP's responsibility to get me the throughput I pay for without discrimination. If contracts allow discrimination the ISP is taking on someone else's responsability (read 3);
(2) It is the content provider's responsibility to have content in legal form and to protect it in an acceptable fashion;
(3) It is the governing regulatory bodies responsibility to scourge the content providers for bad content (and this includes bad content distribution form, such as, say, Netflix flooding the gates of the Internet to a point they are messing with a utility).
Are we really supposed to believe 814.000 Americans signed a petition to prevent them from using their internet as they see fit? Never mind the fact the triplicated the single signature purpose, this is flat out unbelievable.
it seems that the Irish government would actually get the extra money and suffer little for its part in the scheme
So, if the government was the victim because some of its members decided to abuse power in order to get personal compensation (be it money or just public opinion), why would the government itself be penalized? It's true that the government is made by elected members of the people in a democracy, but these people did NOT represent the government's best interests with the deal, as the deal did not do justice to the government by breaking its law.
It might even have benefited the country overall, with new money getting in through other revenue from Apple keeping business there, but that is just a political illusion of benefit to the government - it is more of a treat to the elected political party, who managed to gain popularity to the eyes of the community by committing public taxes for it.
Deals like this can be done, as long as they are made under the guise of a solid investment and they do not break any trade policies without lawmakers consent, which does not appear to be the case.
I see your point, but 99% of the services anyone uses online instantiate a form of server. Any P2P network, such as torrents or TOR, can be considered setting up a server. If that is basis for establishing that the user is running a server, they could very well shut down their entire user base. Nowadays, even a very basic browser page can be considered a server, the page just needs an open socket for incoming connections. Anyone else creating an online multiplayer private match (thinking of counter-strike, UT, Age of Empires, among thousands of others) can also be incriminated for "providing internet services" if you follow that logic.
Comcast gets to determine whether your activities can be deemed unlawful.
Now, this is a concept that even here in Europe we have to condone contractually, yet nobody abides to legally. If a com company is known to be doing something fishy like terminating contracts out of their own free-will, companies here get the hammer, be it from a lawsuit or from being dropped by their market. That's why you don't see any company doing it, even there in the US. Do you know of anyone having their service suspended out of the company not liking their usage patterns (and that don't go to jail)? All I hear is people getting their band throttled, but this happens on a mass scale and not to a singled out individual.
A company cannot just speculate, because that would be considered an abuse of power. The state can do that though, and that is why we have "piracy taxes" for hard disk drives and now even for flash-based built-in memory on our cells and tablets (yeah, we just got it approved in Portugal last month)... The state can say that if there is "massive, yet unidentifiable known use of copyrighted material", it can establish a generalized tax that applies even for people that do not infringe the copyright. It is even applied twice or three times for people that purchase digital/physical content. Companies can't do such type of generalization or speculation.
To whomever is getting calls like these, take the chance to install a call recorder. Ask for the operator name, and for a reference that proves the operator is really a Comcast representative such as "can you tell me my current service/plan?".
After all this, let them know you will continue using TOR, and sue them for breach of contract and intimidation if they go forth with their mischievous threats. You are allowed to use your internet connection according to their TOS, which does not bar TOR unless the FCC really let that slide. If Comcast themselves are trying to enforce the law-enforcement right to spy on you as approved by congress, they are infringing the law by abusing a right not theirs. Comcast can't also add policies ad-hoc unilaterally. Tell them you will not stop using the service, and that their communication to you is proof that you are most likely going to be targeted by law-enforcement agencies due to Comcast snooping and discriminating your internet usage.
You can sue them for discrimination out of the blue, just from that call, as they are probing your ability to be blacklisted.
You can sue them for breach of contract if they cut your line and/or suspend your contract like they said they would.
Nice typo, Anatoly Kucherena will be pleased :D.
Apparently the original source, among other sites, added the extra L, so poster has an excuse :D
You need to find better ways to cover your tracks after browsing them freshmen girls mobile photo. If boss asks about the name, just tell them it's a reference to Harry Potter, and the black hat is for wizardry
This is just another one of the recent MS gimmicks to get you to switch to the Metro version.
I just received a very official Skype Team email stating my desktop version would be automatically removed. That's exactly what it said: YOUR SKYPE VERSION WILL BE REMOVED. If a company would add such a trigger on an application (even one that highly depends on a single external cloud service to do anything at all), I would call that heavy persuasion.
Southwest policy appears to restrict entrance in this very specific case to JUST after all A-list passengers and before others. This is because his kids were older than 4 and NOT entitled to A-list boarding. If they were younger than 4, the hostess would be infringing policy. But she was actually enforcing policy strictly, doing her job as she is told to.
The real problem here is a conflict between the freedom of speech right and the defamation civil wrong (for which she can sue actually). I personally don't think there is real libel here, but some might argue that using the hostess's name on the tweet is reason enough for her to sue. What is impressive is the fact the guy had to go to the news after the incident to whine even more, and that gets me thinking he is a little more butthurt than he should for nothing important. He pretty much wanted the hostess fired from her job, which is her source of income. I think everybody gets defensive when their job is at stake. And all this for not indulging him in something he didn't have the right to, despite being "used to" have.
She wanted to avoided having defamation about her and the company wanted to avoid bad publicity. If the tweet was still up, he would have been left on the ground and he could be sued. If they let him fly without deleting the tweet, hostess would have been fired and both hostess and company could sue. This was the best scenario for both... Until he decided to strike back like a little girl. He could have never used the company again for the lack of poise but he just had to make the issue bigger. These are my two cents about it,
I have no idea on what's going on in Finland, but I extrapolated it because it's what I see in Western/Central Europe. What I meant by young prodigies is pretty obvious: I doubt Nokia hires any freshmen with an average lower than A on the European Scale (that's the top 10%). Since I wasn't close to an A and I knew where most of the A's from my year ended up (top companies or research, for those who disliked corporate environments and/or wanted to give some luck back to the environment). When such a student is hired to by , they usually assume (and sometimes even implied in interviews) that they are gonna have a big shot at the managing pos. in a short term (I know this from friends in such scenarios).
Something I don't notice is people being fired right-and-left in most of the IT sector as you describe, as all companies here tend to overvalue the importance of knowing what you can count on (and they also spend a lot in education for all their human resources, making severance packages highly prohibitive, especially here in Portugal). Keeping employers is usually cheaper and safer than firing them. Talent IS the driving force in escalating the corporate food-chain, but it rarely is a catalyst for dismissals, even in at least 2 major companies I see here (one is a Big Four consultant and the other is the major betting company back/front-end main developer). And these companies are probably the exception to what I mentioned in my first comment, as I have yet to know companies that are so self-sufficient in Portugal as these 2 are - they never happened to use co-paid internships to my knowledge and supply/abuse outsourced work as a means to keep a good number on fixed positions.
I definitely think you might have not understood the larger print in your contract: if you are staying in a company that is so eager to downsize in order to pursue a dead cause such as WinMo, you are on your way to a dark future as opposed to a promising one. In your defense, I am very young, and might have a narrow vision of the industry, but there are a lot of supporting facts to my statements :D
The only way I see this happening is if you totally migrate your lab to something like Amazon AWS/EC2, and link each user to an individual account with specific bandwidth and storage (GRATIS) quotas.
For one, processing power wont be an issue since that's on Amazon's side, and it's virtually unlimited. Now, everyone will have a decent amount of the other resources for whatever they need, as long as quotas stay inside each user's scope (for which their free quota should have been well defined).
A user abuses his quota? No problem - Students get overcharged on their tuition fees, or reflected on their grades. Same for employees/researchers, in their salaries OR performance reviews. Is it a public community lab like, say, a library? Restrict access based on fair usage, maintaining an external log of who is where and when. Hell, if anything like this is politically unfeasible, just warn your users, at least you will know individually who is doing what without the heavy-lifting that is required to analyze it manually.
Everybody will be self-educated on how to use the system. On the long-run, the community will educate itself with no need for personal bad experiences. Much like using a printing quota, or the water/electricity bill.
All resources are very similar when it comes to management, so the principle of fair-use with retroactive consequence will always be the best bet.
In the US it might be H1B visas to hire cheap specialty workers from abroad. In the EU (where apparetnly most of this is happening), it's basically the same strategy but applied to EU supported fresh-outta-college internships (co-paid salaries tending to ZERO by employers), basically sending off the worst of the elders, and enslave the f*ck out of the young prodigies who they will scopp with mild salaries and a "promissing" future. This cycle happens in every major company in Europe. I have seen it in 3: Bosch, PT.pt and Siemens
I'm not familiar with CentOS or Redhat, but in Debian it's not uncommon to get the odd update that requires configuration wizards. There's no shortcut to those, and in the event of it happening, you are gonna have some early risers complaining.
And even the supposedly safe, unattended updates aren't that safe: For example I updated to the latest linux-image from Debian's repos yesterday. I didn't expect some core services to depend on a computer reboot to start working again, but 5 minutes in people were complaining a Jboss web app wasn't working.