I'd love to spend my mod points on you, brother, but your sage words deserve more....
I am not sure about the union part but it absolutely should have engineer type signoffs.
Most engineers in charge of building things that can hurt people of those things fail are required to prove their expertise and conform to both a professional code of conduct and civil codes that define a framework within which the engineer's must be done. Information technology has no such thing, and as others have already observed, this allows bean-counters, PHB's, and frankly, IT "engineers" who lack the requisite expertise, to put systems in place that have nowhere near the proper level of security measures around those systems. We've seen a few attempts from various sectors (HIPAA, PCI, SOX) to force some standards and accountability on entities in those sectors, but it's a patchwork of bureaucratic noise that, most often, doesn't result in the desired level of security. The one partial exception is PCI. If you are a vendor large enough to fall into the "Level 1" category, your stuff must be reviewed regularly by a third party. That rule is enforced by the banks, whose money is at risk. They really don't give a rat's ass about card-holders.
And that is the problem. The SC Dept. of Revenue didn't have enough skin in the game to give a shit about, so they didn't. That needs to change. If you're going to build things that can hurt people when they fail, be those things skyscrapers, bridges, airplanes, or information security systems, you should have to prove that you know what you are doing and have your work reviewed by someone else who knows what they're doing.
And lots of Christian, Jewish, and other religious leaders do not kill their people either, so when Atheists condemn all religions on the actions of a few, it is completely disingenuous double set of rules, one for evaluating Atheism and one evaluating Religions.
Nice try. It's not the religion, or it's followers that draws the ire of thinking persons everywhere. It's the idea that anyone should come to harm over superstitious bullshit. Millions have been killed in the name of {insert religion here}. Which holy wars and genocidal campaigns have been fought by atheists again? Not that I am apologizing for the fanatical atheists who fail to recognize that their beliefs are still nothing more than beliefs, but to suggest that they're the same as the fanatical Christians or Muslims is just plain stupid. It's time for everyone to wake the hell up and realize the utter insanity of fucking with other people over the things they believe...or don't believe.
How many people reading this intentionally pay more tax than they are strictly required to?
Only the most benevolent, and arguably, foolish, would do so, but that's really quite beside the point, isn't it. This is all about the myopic "privatize the profits and socialize the expense" mindset that is well on it's way to ruining this once great country.
Oil money touches everything in the Great State of Texas. What we can't get by scaring superstitious yokels into voting for it, we just buy. That's the way it's always been done. Always will be. So just relax and go for a drive in yer Hummer. We'll tell you what's good for the environment and what isn't. And if we're wrong, we've got money to buy back the public's good will too. Just ask BP.
True, they don't need it, but quite for the reasons you suggest, though your statement that it's "bad for business" is spot on. Business, in particular the telecom industry and to a lesser extent the legacy "content providers" RIAA and MPIAA, dictates the rules to our government. Paid toadies (congressmen and senators whose elections were paid for by "business", simply rubber stamp those policies. Want proof? Look no further than the retroactive immunity granted to all the telecom players for the blatant civil rights violations those companies perpetrated at the behest of a run-away administration. Why tie your hands with international treaties when all you have to do is make a few phone calls and get the rules changed so that your position remains protected?
That Facebook is so brazenly whoring out their bitches (their users) to the johns (aka "third-party app makers"), or that so many users so willingly lay down and take it. I'm all for legalizing prostitution, so I am a bit torn, but the metaphor kinda breaks down when "the bitches" are unaware of what's being done to them.
I am surprised that it has take the world so long to realise that IT salaries are overpriced. Because the hardware used to be so rare and expensive the people who used it and looked after it were also rare and expensive.Now that the hardware is cheap as chips, and the labor market is approaching truly global is it a big surprise that salaries are flat?
If a bad patch breaks my two year old $500 company laptop or a $200 tablet I am not going to pay somebody to fix it. I replace it and move my data over. There was a time when PCs cost thousands, and servers cost tens of thousands. People won't pay people $100/hr to fix a $200 devices.
I also imagine that it is a heck of a lot cheaper to engage off-shore programmers than using local resources (you can't do that for a truck driver...) - supply and demand in a free market in action.
You have a seriously short-sighted view of what constitutes "IT". That $200 tablet relies almost entirely on things developed, managed and maintained by people you never see. Just because you have the impressive tech savvy to copy your data from such device to another doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. The services and applications you depend on run on servers that cost tens of thousands of dollars, on complex networks that are equally expensive. Those services and applications are written, deployed and managed by people with skill sets the average user (like you) can scarcely comprehend. And while it's true that one can hire impressive talent overseas for a fraction of what that talent would cost if hired locally, there are other costs associated with using off-shore talent. Substantial, sometimes even ruinous, costs.
Your sister sounds like someone that's never actually been in Texas. It's a little more diverse than Hollywood stereotypes (which you happen to be repeating) would lead you to believe.
I have lived in Texas for many years. While it is true that the state is "a little more diverse...", it is only barely so, and usually not in a good way. The predominant "culture" is ignorant, redneck, WASP. The state school board insists that creationism be taught as science and most of the populace has no problem with that. While there are exceptions (Austin, Galveston, and the very diverse international communities in Houston), there's very, very little that would hold a candle to the cultural diversity found in SF. Oh sure, the folks in the tonier areas around Houston and Dallas like to pretend they're right up there with NYC snobbery, but you can still smell the cow shit on their boots.
...I consider my VOIP soft-phone as something apart from a traditional base-and-handset phone. Setting aside that difference, I still need a "phone". First of all, my position requires that people (vendors, customers, etc.) be able to reach me via the PSTN, and I, them. Second, I need the features afforded by our PBX. Other people in my office need those features even more. Yes, Skype is superior for a certain subset of telephony tasks, and I use that too, but it is not a phone system, and it's too expensive as a PSTN gateway, compared to other VOIP-PSTN gateway services. Corporate IM? Same thing. It offloads a LOT of communication that used to require a phone call, but there are times when the nature of the conversation is impeded by the need to type.
Campaign contributions do not influence the Supreme Court, which would be the logical place to argue against a violation of anti-wiretapping laws or the right to privacy. However, IANAL, but nobody is placing this device in your house without your knowledge so I am not sure this would be considered wiretapping so much as a "service" you requested.
It is more than a little disingenuous to suggest that every consumer who buys devices containing this technology will:
1. Even know that the technology is there
2. Understand what it does, if he does know it exists.
3. Know how to disable it. This includes understanding the process and having access to the necessary tools.
In other words, it is entirely unreasonable to expect fully informed consumers in this market place, so spare us your libertarian rant. About redress via the courts. This is an entirely appropriate place for government regulation.
Until recently, I've been buying 100% AMD for 15 years... but AMD is so far behind that for the first time, I bought several Intel-based servers.
Not sure what advantages you think AMD has over Intel... I would love to see a list. because frankly, it's sad to see AMD where it is.
That's easy. Core density per dollar in the same n rack units.
For the same number of dollars I can buy more real estate on which to run my virtualization stacks with AMD processors than Intel processors. And the savings extend beyond the hardware too. With more cores per socket, my VMWare licensing costs (per core or per VM, however you want to break it out) can be much lower with AMD processors in those sockets. So cheaper CAPEX (hardware and license costs) and cheaper OPEX (support subscription costs) makes AMD hardware a very attractive choice.
Simple. Verizon (or whoever licenses their technology) will have made more than enough "campaign contributions" to keep the regulators from bothering them. You didn't really think your privacy mattered when stood up against corporate interests, did you? Wake up.
You are ignoring (again) the value gained by the telco's in being granted a virtual monopoly, given rights of way, etc. That was part of the deal too. And let's not forget the windfall the telco's were given when the very first round of regulation covering broadband services came into being. That money was pocketed and never seen again. No, what we need is real regulation, with real teeth. Not that we're likely to see it in our lifetimes. The combination of the most powerful lobby on the hill, legislator ignorance of the issues, and consumer indifference will see to that.
Intelligence doesn't really seem to be a factor for getting into power anywhere, so I'm not quite sure why you singled out any one area of the world in particular.
It seems to me that charisma is much more important for getting ahead in politics and business.
You are confusing politics with "rational behavior" (defined as that which will bring the most benefit to the electorate). Congressmen and senators represent those who paid to get them elected. The voters are a distant second. Still, you have to get the votes in order to advance your patrons' interests, so pandering to superstitious yokels who fear that granting equal rights to homosexuals threatens "the sanctity of marriage" is a given. Nothing solidifies that block like fear. Fortunately, we still have a Constitution that limits the actual power that can be wielded by superstitious yokels and those they represent. Without that, we'd be Iran, only with crosses. Oh, wait... http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/dispatch/everything-will-fall-into-place/
Watching what are essentially glorified milk cars whizzing around quietly just doesn't stir my soul.
Maybe there are people who will like watching this. I will give it a go if it ever begins, but I'm not holding my breath.
Until this season, I would have agreed with you, but this was the most interesting season in F1 that I can remember. A battle for the championship that went down to the last race of the season, cars that, within the rules of the formula were continually tweaked and refined to eke out every possible advantage, and gobs of good close racing. Yes, there are only a handful of teams that have a realistic shot at the podium, but that handful all made regular appearances. It was not (quite) the Red Bull then everyone else show this year.
And anyone with any athletic ability should just head straight for the pro's. I mean, the odds against becoming a basketball star or the next Zuckerberg can't be that long, right? Right?
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure about the union part but it absolutely should have engineer type signoffs.
Most engineers in charge of building things that can hurt people of those things fail are required to prove their expertise and conform to both a professional code of conduct and civil codes that define a framework within which the engineer's must be done. Information technology has no such thing, and as others have already observed, this allows bean-counters, PHB's, and frankly, IT "engineers" who lack the requisite expertise, to put systems in place that have nowhere near the proper level of security measures around those systems. We've seen a few attempts from various sectors (HIPAA, PCI, SOX) to force some standards and accountability on entities in those sectors, but it's a patchwork of bureaucratic noise that, most often, doesn't result in the desired level of security. The one partial exception is PCI. If you are a vendor large enough to fall into the "Level 1" category, your stuff must be reviewed regularly by a third party. That rule is enforced by the banks, whose money is at risk. They really don't give a rat's ass about card-holders.
And that is the problem. The SC Dept. of Revenue didn't have enough skin in the game to give a shit about, so they didn't. That needs to change. If you're going to build things that can hurt people when they fail, be those things skyscrapers, bridges, airplanes, or information security systems, you should have to prove that you know what you are doing and have your work reviewed by someone else who knows what they're doing.
Sounds fair, since all over the world it is well known that Americans are prone to over-generalizing when it comes to non-Americans...
(Wait, were we going for sarcasm, irony, or serious?)
Yes. :)
I don't know. From my point of view, both pairs of groups have more in common than not.
I hate to tell you this, but all over Europe it is well known that Americans don't understand irony.
No, it isn't anything like silvery or coppery....
I hate to tell you this, but all over the U.S.A. it is well known that Europeans are prone to over-generalizing when it comes to Americans.
Bon joor!
And lots of Christian, Jewish, and other religious leaders do not kill their people either, so when Atheists condemn all religions on the actions of a few, it is completely disingenuous double set of rules, one for evaluating Atheism and one evaluating Religions.
Nice try. It's not the religion, or it's followers that draws the ire of thinking persons everywhere. It's the idea that anyone should come to harm over superstitious bullshit. Millions have been killed in the name of {insert religion here}. Which holy wars and genocidal campaigns have been fought by atheists again? Not that I am apologizing for the fanatical atheists who fail to recognize that their beliefs are still nothing more than beliefs, but to suggest that they're the same as the fanatical Christians or Muslims is just plain stupid. It's time for everyone to wake the hell up and realize the utter insanity of fucking with other people over the things they believe ...or don't believe.
How many people reading this intentionally pay more tax than they are strictly required to?
Only the most benevolent, and arguably, foolish, would do so, but that's really quite beside the point, isn't it. This is all about the myopic "privatize the profits and socialize the expense" mindset that is well on it's way to ruining this once great country.
Oil money touches everything in the Great State of Texas. What we can't get by scaring superstitious yokels into voting for it, we just buy. That's the way it's always been done. Always will be. So just relax and go for a drive in yer Hummer. We'll tell you what's good for the environment and what isn't. And if we're wrong, we've got money to buy back the public's good will too. Just ask BP.
Their proposal has been withdrawn without explanation, an ITU spokesperson confirmed.
I'd guess that they've decided to sub it out to the major U.S. telco's, who will perform any act or service for the right price, no questions asked.
True, they don't need it, but quite for the reasons you suggest, though your statement that it's "bad for business" is spot on. Business, in particular the telecom industry and to a lesser extent the legacy "content providers" RIAA and MPIAA, dictates the rules to our government. Paid toadies (congressmen and senators whose elections were paid for by "business", simply rubber stamp those policies. Want proof? Look no further than the retroactive immunity granted to all the telecom players for the blatant civil rights violations those companies perpetrated at the behest of a run-away administration. Why tie your hands with international treaties when all you have to do is make a few phone calls and get the rules changed so that your position remains protected?
That Facebook is so brazenly whoring out their bitches (their users) to the johns (aka "third-party app makers"), or that so many users so willingly lay down and take it. I'm all for legalizing prostitution, so I am a bit torn, but the metaphor kinda breaks down when "the bitches" are unaware of what's being done to them.
"Do you not want to not be tracked by sonar analysis of your living room, which you don't not want scanning turned offedly? Click no to disapprove."
Umm, "No"?
Again, if you expect that question to be presented to you in those or similarly plain terms, you are a fool.
Exactly. More work done per dollar paid on hardware, per unit of rack space, and per virtualization license. Win, win, win.
I am surprised that it has take the world so long to realise that IT salaries are overpriced. Because the hardware used to be so rare and expensive the people who used it and looked after it were also rare and expensive.Now that the hardware is cheap as chips, and the labor market is approaching truly global is it a big surprise that salaries are flat?
If a bad patch breaks my two year old $500 company laptop or a $200 tablet I am not going to pay somebody to fix it. I replace it and move my data over. There was a time when PCs cost thousands, and servers cost tens of thousands. People won't pay people $100/hr to fix a $200 devices.
I also imagine that it is a heck of a lot cheaper to engage off-shore programmers than using local resources (you can't do that for a truck driver...) - supply and demand in a free market in action.
You have a seriously short-sighted view of what constitutes "IT". That $200 tablet relies almost entirely on things developed, managed and maintained by people you never see. Just because you have the impressive tech savvy to copy your data from such device to another doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. The services and applications you depend on run on servers that cost tens of thousands of dollars, on complex networks that are equally expensive. Those services and applications are written, deployed and managed by people with skill sets the average user (like you) can scarcely comprehend. And while it's true that one can hire impressive talent overseas for a fraction of what that talent would cost if hired locally, there are other costs associated with using off-shore talent. Substantial, sometimes even ruinous, costs.
Your sister sounds like someone that's never actually been in Texas. It's a little more diverse than Hollywood stereotypes (which you happen to be repeating) would lead you to believe.
I have lived in Texas for many years. While it is true that the state is "a little more diverse...", it is only barely so, and usually not in a good way. The predominant "culture" is ignorant, redneck, WASP. The state school board insists that creationism be taught as science and most of the populace has no problem with that. While there are exceptions (Austin, Galveston, and the very diverse international communities in Houston), there's very, very little that would hold a candle to the cultural diversity found in SF. Oh sure, the folks in the tonier areas around Houston and Dallas like to pretend they're right up there with NYC snobbery, but you can still smell the cow shit on their boots.
If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips?
Simple. Because Barnum was right.
...I consider my VOIP soft-phone as something apart from a traditional base-and-handset phone. Setting aside that difference, I still need a "phone". First of all, my position requires that people (vendors, customers, etc.) be able to reach me via the PSTN, and I, them. Second, I need the features afforded by our PBX. Other people in my office need those features even more. Yes, Skype is superior for a certain subset of telephony tasks, and I use that too, but it is not a phone system, and it's too expensive as a PSTN gateway, compared to other VOIP-PSTN gateway services. Corporate IM? Same thing. It offloads a LOT of communication that used to require a phone call, but there are times when the nature of the conversation is impeded by the need to type.
Campaign contributions do not influence the Supreme Court, which would be the logical place to argue against a violation of anti-wiretapping laws or the right to privacy. However, IANAL, but nobody is placing this device in your house without your knowledge so I am not sure this would be considered wiretapping so much as a "service" you requested.
It is more than a little disingenuous to suggest that every consumer who buys devices containing this technology will:
In other words, it is entirely unreasonable to expect fully informed consumers in this market place, so spare us your libertarian rant. About redress via the courts. This is an entirely appropriate place for government regulation.
Until recently, I've been buying 100% AMD for 15 years... but AMD is so far behind that for the first time, I bought several Intel-based servers.
Not sure what advantages you think AMD has over Intel... I would love to see a list. because frankly, it's sad to see AMD where it is.
That's easy. Core density per dollar in the same n rack units.
For the same number of dollars I can buy more real estate on which to run my virtualization stacks with AMD processors than Intel processors. And the savings extend beyond the hardware too. With more cores per socket, my VMWare licensing costs (per core or per VM, however you want to break it out) can be much lower with AMD processors in those sockets. So cheaper CAPEX (hardware and license costs) and cheaper OPEX (support subscription costs) makes AMD hardware a very attractive choice.
Simple. Verizon (or whoever licenses their technology) will have made more than enough "campaign contributions" to keep the regulators from bothering them. You didn't really think your privacy mattered when stood up against corporate interests, did you? Wake up.
" The more I think about it, Old Billy was right ...
-- The Eagles
You are ignoring (again) the value gained by the telco's in being granted a virtual monopoly, given rights of way, etc. That was part of the deal too. And let's not forget the windfall the telco's were given when the very first round of regulation covering broadband services came into being. That money was pocketed and never seen again. No, what we need is real regulation, with real teeth. Not that we're likely to see it in our lifetimes. The combination of the most powerful lobby on the hill, legislator ignorance of the issues, and consumer indifference will see to that.
Intelligence doesn't really seem to be a factor for getting into power anywhere, so I'm not quite sure why you singled out any one area of the world in particular.
It seems to me that charisma is much more important for getting ahead in politics and business.
You are confusing politics with "rational behavior" (defined as that which will bring the most benefit to the electorate). Congressmen and senators represent those who paid to get them elected. The voters are a distant second. Still, you have to get the votes in order to advance your patrons' interests, so pandering to superstitious yokels who fear that granting equal rights to homosexuals threatens "the sanctity of marriage" is a given. Nothing solidifies that block like fear. Fortunately, we still have a Constitution that limits the actual power that can be wielded by superstitious yokels and those they represent. Without that, we'd be Iran, only with crosses. Oh, wait... http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/dispatch/everything-will-fall-into-place/
Watching what are essentially glorified milk cars whizzing around quietly just doesn't stir my soul.
Maybe there are people who will like watching this. I will give it a go if it ever begins, but I'm not holding my breath.
Until this season, I would have agreed with you, but this was the most interesting season in F1 that I can remember. A battle for the championship that went down to the last race of the season, cars that, within the rules of the formula were continually tweaked and refined to eke out every possible advantage, and gobs of good close racing. Yes, there are only a handful of teams that have a realistic shot at the podium, but that handful all made regular appearances. It was not (quite) the Red Bull then everyone else show this year.
And anyone with any athletic ability should just head straight for the pro's. I mean, the odds against becoming a basketball star or the next Zuckerberg can't be that long, right? Right?