These are interesting points. I do see that you've made no mention of the huge tax breaks that companies are currently getting by outsourcing.
These same breaks are illegal for citizens.
The argument that this is 'just part of free trade' is only valid if you ignore the fact that laws are constantly being re-shaped to allow and encourage corporations to dump resources oversees. In addition, financial analasis is generally rotgut at best. Find me a noted economist who can prove numbers showing the benfits of outsourcing and I'll show you two who have just as much evidence of the opposite.
The basic premise is this: If the U.S. corporations are allowed to circumvent free trade, they will do so. This will result in lower wages across the board. Claiming that it's okay because the jobs lost are less skilled is ignoring the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of paychecks in the U.S. fall into that category, and all of those meager paychecks are used to purchase services from those of us who hold better jobs. I owe my job to Wal-Mart employees and truck drivers.
Step 1: Predict everything that can possibly happen. Nothing is too wild. Some examples:
* In the future, every home will have a robot that carries a machine gun. * Cars will not only drive themselves, they'll demand equal rights. * Computers will be made only of light and sound. * Computers will learn to upgrade theselves - not because of initial programming, but as a survival mechanism to prevent obsoletion. * IT outsourcing will be controlled in some sectors by organized crime and gangs. This will start in Las Vegas and move outward. * Email will be beamed directly into your brain. You will be able to type an answer in your head.
Step 2: Wait for at least one prediction to come true ( even slightly true ) and be declared a prophet.
The issue here is that tech guys often are terrible communicators, or worse, actually difficult to work with.
This is why so many tech guys complain constantly about how management is clueless as to their contribution, or does not give them adequate support, etc. It's caused in large part by the tech community being very territorial and often antagonistic. It makes it much easier for the business managers to sit in an isolated room and make decisions about the tech staff without actually discussing it with them.
Yes, most of us work in environments where isolation is the preferred method ( the foolishness of bullpens and pair programming notwithstanding ), but somebody (hey - maybe you, tech guy!) has to explain to the power-that-be how isolation is a requirement, or how having a redundant code repository isn't just a nice idea.
Who's going to explain it to them if the programmers and hardware guys can't? Who's going to explain to the new guy working on some of your old code those little nuances for deployment, freeing you up for that new codebase development?
That's where your 'ability to work with others' comes in handy, and that's why a smart company wants that skill in their tech staff.
I noted that the article stated that Aunt Tillie's Windows machine "blue screened" all the time. I think that statement pretty much sums up how ignorant many non-Windows users are at this point. Blue screens were prevelant in NT, but since Windows 2000, I rarely see one...matter of fact, since 2000 was released, I think I've only seen them on Win98 or NT...
I know it occurs, but not at the rate that Linux people would think. My Linux machines have actually given me more trouble in the same time frame.
I agree wholeheartedly with the article, and it's not just CUPS. It's pretty much everything open source. Guys like me are very open to pushing open source into the workplace, but until these problems are solved, it will not happen. Period.
An example of a good product made correctly is Mozilla.
Mozilla was easy to roll out, starting with the development teams. I just told them, "run the installer". Then I show them tabbed browsing, javascript debugging and error description, and better W3C support...and BANG...50% of the developers are now using some flavor of Mozilla and/or Firefox.
This is the ONE THING keeping OSS from real influence.
Having worked for a few large and small coporations, one of the biggest indicators of the corporate culture is how the meetings are conducted.
For one company, when I was in a management position, it was drilled into us not to come to a meeting without a specific agenda. If there was no agenda, there was no meeting. Period. Do not call a meeting unless you are actually attempting to do your job better.
For another company, meetings followed no timetable. They would drift in and out of discussions, and often the people invited to the meeting shouldn't have all been in the same meeting. You can't have the marketing people trying to hammer out strategy while the tech guys are trying to figure out how to make the products link up.
Some companies only have meetings to convey information. Sometimes these are large meetings designed to look like town meetings, but just as the article stated, only a few idiots believe that. I try to avoid these meetings. You want me to get some information about the company? Send me an email. I don't care if nobody else reads it, I do and I don't lose two hours out of my day.
My meeting rules, from my personal experience:
1. Don't go to any meetings unless you have an agenda. It doesn't have to be printed out, but you need to have some goal for the meeting beyond just sitting and talking.
2. Do not have mixed dept meetings unless it's a getting-to-know-you meeting. If it's a meet-and-greet, then say so up front. Every time someone tries to divert the meeting, just say "Let's table that discussion for a more focused meeting". You don't want the sales people talking shop while the tech guys are staring into space and vice versa.
3. Some people work by talking, some work by doing. This isn't a statement of laziness; it's just that different jobs require different interactions. Programmers work by sitting at their desktop writing code. Marketers work by grouping together and talking through their concepts. Don't confuse meetings with work when it isn't,but also don't assume meetings accomplish nothing.
Some groups DO have meetings all day and they DO accomplish something. For most tech guys, any time away from networking or hacking is time lost. But if you're a tech and you call a tech meeting to brainstorm architecture for a new project, that's still worthwhile work. It goes both ways.
Not to be nit picking, but profit margin of any type is still profit. The sales of iTunes music might not produce billions in profit revenue, but in the grand scheme, it makes money -- after operating costs and advertising, and even without hardware sales. A 'loss leader' is one where money is actually lost on each sale. Steve Jobs is downplaying music sales to discourage others from doing it.
Big companies, those not in technology especially, often make money with a lot of profitable divisions that make a profit, not single cash cows. Dell, Microsoft and Apple do not follow the atypical business structure due to the nature of their explosive early growth ( and the boom of tech ).
Interjection on this-- There is a difference between changing careers to a self-supported trade and just giving up tech to work for someone else in a trade.
The grass is not always greener. I worked trades prior to becoming a developer, and I hated it. The pay was low, and you often have to work in very cold or very hot temperatures. You can get injured on the job, and the work is dirty. You need to be able to physically protect yourself on some work crews, because some of the guys you work beside are either one step away from jail or looking to get in. Unless you own the business ( just like the office ), expect to do a lot of the grunt work, little or no health insurance, and you can't expect to lug bricks around when you're 55 years old.
I paid for my tech career with blood and sweat from blue collar jobs; my knees are already bad, my back is shot and there are numurous other ailments that will stick with me until I die. If you think it won't catch up to you, it will.
If you like the work, give it a shot. But don't be disillusioned.
If you are seriously contemplating a career switch from medicine to technology, please consider the following:
1. Are you looking to actually write code, set up networks, or, rather be more of IT management? It makes a diference. It shouldn't, but it does. Just being able to write great code isn't enough to communicate and organize in a management position. Conversely, being in management is greatly benefited by some serious technical skills. You don't want to have to rely on others to 'give you the gist' of what is going on.
2. Just as, I assume with medicine, you better LOVE technology if you want to do it. The reason is twofold: first, you must be able to produce enterprise level work. Secondly, IT is already loaded with tech guys who DO love what they do and many of them are extermely territorial. Often, you have to be really damn good at what you do just to shut someone up. And, even if you love tech, there will be bad days -- really bad days where you wonder if technology is for you. It can be tedious, mentally challenging and often the massive amounts of work will never even be seen by the users. So, get used to it.
3. Work to get a fundamental understanding of whatever technology you work in - not just a level of 'I can make it work'. For example, don't just use SQL Server because it's easy...you need to really learn the differences between Oracle, MySQL and SQL Server. If you understand the WHY of a system or application behaves a certain way, then the individual problems start to make a lot more sense. And just because someone on Slashdot likes MySQL and PHP doesn't mean it's the best. This goes back to the arrogance of many guys in IT.
4. Learn to communicate to people who don't understand technology as well as you do. Period.
The unemployment rate is probably not the best indicator of what the job market really looks like.
If you pick up the newspaper and read that there's only 6% unemployment, knowing that anything under 5% is considered inconsequential, you might wonder why jobs seem so scarce.
But if you look at the layoff numbers, those are currently double what they were in 1999. Then you look at new job creation. In 1999, when the economy was full steam, new jobs were being created at around 200,000 plus per month, often exceeding 250,000. It's closer to 42,000 new jobs per month today.
Now add in the fact that it takes 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with new workers entering the workforce.
Even if IT unemployment was listed at 10%, you would need to review the IT layoff numbers and new job creation to create an accurate IT picture.
If the US as a whole is losing 100,000+ jobs per month, and it's worse in IT ( or manufacturing ), then you can see that even the unemployment number may not show the seriousness of the specific job market.
No. Because you, if your name was Keanu Reeves, would have a legitimate claim to the domain.
It doesn't matter if one of the Keanu Reeves is famous, it's a matter of having any legitimate claim to the domain name. If your name is Keanu Reeves and you go out and nab "johncleese.com", you would lose that battle in a court of law, because you have no ties to John Cleese nor are you named John Cleese.
I think I need to add something here. I have already done this several times without fear of prosecution. Prosecution? Please. There are buildings full of attorneys that would LOVE to get my case if somebody came after me for making a legitmate consumer complaint. Me, a small customer, tries to place an order on Big Company's website and, being a computer professional, notice it's insecure; I notify the company and they would try to prosecute me? That's not only silly, it's incredibly bad business. That just takes a non-issue and puts it on CNN or 60 Minutes. This isn't like cracking the encryption on a DVD or hacking through a firewall. This is a legitimate consumer complaint. Believing that Big Company is going to try and pin me as a cracker would take more resources ( and more problems when people actually DO get hacked ) than trying to extinguish me. I'm much more concerned they'll just ignore the problem.
The reason I have no fear is documentation. I have full records of everything I've done and did not do. I have every email I've sent. Other organizations also have records. I've told them ( the company) how to contact me if needed. What kind of 'cracker' prosecution is going to hold up against that? I've worked in corporate management before, and documentation is the most difficult thing to combat. Look at the case with SCO. If SCO can't produce evidence against IBM, their case is done. Period. That's documentation in action ( or lack of it in action, more than likely. )
Don't give me a bunch of case histories about companies crushing the individual. It happens, but I'm pretty confident that those individuals were fighting the company in some form. I'm not, and as I said, I turn the information over to other organizations ( FBI, SBI, whatever. ). You can toss out paranoid ideas all you want. I'm speaking from experience. I've done this at least a dozen times.
Most companies are aware there are "white hats" as well as "black hats", because most companies have tech people on their own staffs. What terrifies big companies is NOT that someone is going to blackmail them. Anyone who tries that WILL GET CAUGHT. What actually scares the heck out of big companies is that someone will start stealing identities and credit card numbers from their warehouse AND IT WILL MAKE THE NEWS. That's their motivation, not crushing me for complaining. When you return something to Best Buy, is it their policy to hit you with a baseball bat and yell at you with a megaphone until you leave?
I've actually run into this issue a few times. The action I've taken in the past pretty much directly relates to the severity of the security flaw. For example, I've seen URL hacks which allow you to grab another customer's credit card information, and then some which allow only address information.
My rule of thumb is that if a piece of information can be obtained and tracked to a specific individual, it's dangerous. That's the rule I use in my work as well.
When I decide the situation warrants it, I send a professional, formal email to the company ( also the web admin if there is one ), stating what I found, screenshots and leave it at that. Sometimes I will point out that I intended to place an order, but halted when I saw the issue. I also let the company know they may contact me if more information is needed.
This is what has happened in the past following these emails:
1. Almost all companies send me an email thanking me and letting me know the problem has been corrected, and it has been. Case closed.
2. I get a nasty email from the company ( usually this is with SMALL operations) telling me to take my business elsewhere. At first I would attempt to politely explain the risk, but soon realized that some sites have no intention of listening to me, and gave up. In that case, I may notify the BBB or other organization just to get someone else on their tail. I don't have time to chase down other people's security holes, so the best I can hope for is to let others know.
In any case, I always use the Enron rule: What if I later had to explain my actions to a grand jury?
I'm not sure how Linux is easier for a novice PC user, or non technical user. There's a ton of attacks on a Linux box, and the vast majority of PC users don't know about THEM either.
I appreciate the answer. But to me, this is still theoretical. The negligible factor of.999998 is theoretical, not actual. There's no way to prove the theory without polling every single individual in a demographic every single time. So projection is somewhat based on either smaller previous statistic pools or just faith. This is sort of like trying to predict the stock market or college basketball. Predictions for weather, stock markets or sports generally hover about 50% accuracy...which means ( in my opinion, of course ), that despite all the statistical and analytical evidence, it's all guesswork at best. I can guess 50% accuracy on pretty much anything by flipping a coin.
Again, I understand the quality of samples, but even those are based on projections. Population of the United States is estimated, not actually known. So demographics samples gathered by Gallup might be thought to be accurate, but may still be guesses. But I digress...
If you look over most Gallup polls, the average poll sample is usually 600-1200 people. That's less than 1/100th of 1% of the United States population.
How could it possibly be accurate? Short answer: It isn't remotely accurate. Gallup had Bush winning the 2000 election by as much as 7-10 percentage points. He lost the popular vote by 1-2%. That's a 8-11% inaccuracy, roughly. Not to spark debate by using this particular election for an example, but just referring to one most people would remember. Polls come out on a wide variety of subjects daily...some of which are commissioned by specific groups. You want a poll that says more people use Linux? Just buy it. You want one that says more people prefer death to ice cream? Buy it. If you can find 160,000 people who would buy Justin Gaurini's CD, you can be damn sure you can find a couple hundred who will say pretty much anything.
Then, release the poll to try and start some viral marketing. "More people love Linux? I gotta get in on this!"
Of course, if you read Gallup's disclaimers, they pretty musch say two things:
1. These polls are not really accurate. 2. Any poll can be skewed.
But, Gallup never explains what steps they take to prevent skewing, only that they are aware skewing can occur. Well, duh!
Putting up a few threads of cheap, fisherman's grade monofilament thread will prevent birds from flying into a given area. I realize even this would be a major undertaking, due to the size of the windfarm.
What I'm waiting for is the 'Do Not Spam' list so the spammers can complain that people who desperatly want their products might not get the spam they need.
I think the point is that the vast majority of the world is NOT in an urban center. The vast majority of people in the world ( and in the U.S. ) live in rural areas, despite what the popular perception is. So yes, people who live in rural areas are biased as well...it's just their bias is based on the world situation, not the situation in New York City or Sacramento.
Slashdot Mirror
These cars have been around for awhile, back in the 60's they were called 'Amphicars'.
Oh, and lest I forget the tax code you requested. It's called "unrepatriated earnings":
r ea ks_for_.html
http://techpolicy.typepad.com/tpp/2004/03/tax_b
Wait no longer. Here are three.
o ct 2003/tc20031027_9655_tc119.htm
_ 34 /b3846027.htm
Businesss Week:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/
CIO:
http://www.cio.com/archive/090103/money.html
Business Week ( pros and cons ):
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03
These are interesting points. I do see that you've made no mention of the huge tax breaks that companies are currently getting by outsourcing.
These same breaks are illegal for citizens.
The argument that this is 'just part of free trade' is only valid if you ignore the fact that laws are constantly being re-shaped to allow and encourage corporations to dump resources oversees. In addition, financial analasis is generally rotgut at best. Find me a noted economist who can prove numbers showing the benfits of outsourcing and I'll show you two who have just as much evidence of the opposite.
The basic premise is this: If the U.S. corporations are allowed to circumvent free trade, they will do so. This will result in lower wages across the board. Claiming that it's okay because the jobs lost are less skilled is ignoring the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of paychecks in the U.S. fall into that category, and all of those meager paychecks are used to purchase services from those of us who hold better jobs. I owe my job to Wal-Mart employees and truck drivers.
Step 1: Predict everything that can possibly happen. Nothing is too wild. Some examples:
* In the future, every home will have a robot that carries a machine gun.
* Cars will not only drive themselves, they'll demand equal rights.
* Computers will be made only of light and sound.
* Computers will learn to upgrade theselves - not because of initial programming, but as a survival mechanism to prevent obsoletion.
* IT outsourcing will be controlled in some sectors by organized crime and gangs. This will start in Las Vegas and move outward.
* Email will be beamed directly into your brain. You will be able to type an answer in your head.
Step 2: Wait for at least one prediction to come true ( even slightly true ) and be declared a prophet.
The issue here is that tech guys often are terrible communicators, or worse, actually difficult to work with.
This is why so many tech guys complain constantly about how management is clueless as to their contribution, or does not give them adequate support, etc. It's caused in large part by the tech community being very territorial and often antagonistic. It makes it much easier for the business managers to sit in an isolated room and make decisions about the tech staff without actually discussing it with them.
Yes, most of us work in environments where isolation is the preferred method ( the foolishness of bullpens and pair programming notwithstanding ), but somebody (hey - maybe you, tech guy!) has to explain to the power-that-be how isolation is a requirement, or how having a redundant code repository isn't just a nice idea.
Who's going to explain it to them if the programmers and hardware guys can't? Who's going to explain to the new guy working on some of your old code those little nuances for deployment, freeing you up for that new codebase development?
That's where your 'ability to work with others' comes in handy, and that's why a smart company wants that skill in their tech staff.
I noted that the article stated that Aunt Tillie's Windows machine "blue screened" all the time. I think that statement pretty much sums up how ignorant many non-Windows users are at this point. Blue screens were prevelant in NT, but since Windows 2000, I rarely see one...matter of fact, since 2000 was released, I think I've only seen them on Win98 or NT...
I know it occurs, but not at the rate that Linux people would think. My Linux machines have actually given me more trouble in the same time frame.
I agree wholeheartedly with the article, and it's not just CUPS. It's pretty much everything open source. Guys like me are very open to pushing open source into the workplace, but until these problems are solved, it will not happen. Period.
An example of a good product made correctly is Mozilla.
Mozilla was easy to roll out, starting with the development teams. I just told them, "run the installer". Then I show them tabbed browsing, javascript debugging and error description, and better W3C support...and BANG...50% of the developers are now using some flavor of Mozilla and/or Firefox.
This is the ONE THING keeping OSS from real influence.
How are they not taking money? Did they pay him his endorsement money? They are using the notoriety of the song to sell their product.
Having worked for a few large and small coporations, one of the biggest indicators of the corporate culture is how the meetings are conducted.
For one company, when I was in a management position, it was drilled into us not to come to a meeting without a specific agenda. If there was no agenda, there was no meeting. Period. Do not call a meeting unless you are actually attempting to do your job better.
For another company, meetings followed no timetable. They would drift in and out of discussions, and often the people invited to the meeting shouldn't have all been in the same meeting. You can't have the marketing people trying to hammer out strategy while the tech guys are trying to figure out how to make the products link up.
Some companies only have meetings to convey information. Sometimes these are large meetings designed to look like town meetings, but just as the article stated, only a few idiots believe that. I try to avoid these meetings. You want me to get some information about the company? Send me an email. I don't care if nobody else reads it, I do and I don't lose two hours out of my day.
My meeting rules, from my personal experience:
1. Don't go to any meetings unless you have an agenda. It doesn't have to be printed out, but you need to have some goal for the meeting beyond just sitting and talking.
2. Do not have mixed dept meetings unless it's a getting-to-know-you meeting. If it's a meet-and-greet, then say so up front. Every time someone tries to divert the meeting, just say "Let's table that discussion for a more focused meeting". You don't want the sales people talking shop while the tech guys are staring into space and vice versa.
3. Some people work by talking, some work by doing. This isn't a statement of laziness; it's just that different jobs require different interactions. Programmers work by sitting at their desktop writing code. Marketers work by grouping together and talking through their concepts. Don't confuse meetings with work when it isn't,but also don't assume meetings accomplish nothing.
Some groups DO have meetings all day and they DO accomplish something. For most tech guys, any time away from networking or hacking is time lost.
But if you're a tech and you call a tech meeting to brainstorm architecture for a new project, that's still worthwhile work. It goes both ways.
Not to be nit picking, but profit margin of any type is still profit. The sales of iTunes music might not produce billions in profit revenue, but in the grand scheme, it makes money -- after operating costs and advertising, and even without hardware sales. A 'loss leader' is one where money is actually lost on each sale. Steve Jobs is downplaying music sales to discourage others from doing it.
Big companies, those not in technology especially, often make money with a lot of profitable divisions that make a profit, not single cash cows. Dell, Microsoft and Apple do not follow the atypical business structure due to the nature of their explosive early growth ( and the boom of tech ).
Interjection on this--
There is a difference between changing careers to a self-supported trade and just giving up tech to work for someone else in a trade.
The grass is not always greener. I worked trades prior to becoming a developer, and I hated it. The pay was low, and you often have to work in very cold or very hot temperatures. You can get injured on the job, and the work is dirty. You need to be able to physically protect yourself on some work crews, because some of the guys you work beside are either one step away from jail or looking to get in. Unless you own the business ( just like the office ), expect to do a lot of the grunt work, little or no health insurance, and you can't expect to lug bricks around when you're 55 years old.
I paid for my tech career with blood and sweat from blue collar jobs; my knees are already bad, my back is shot and there are numurous other ailments that will stick with me until I die. If you think it won't catch up to you, it will.
If you like the work, give it a shot. But don't be disillusioned.
Don't you only pay taxes when you maintain residence in the U.S.?
If you are seriously contemplating a career switch from medicine to technology, please consider the following:
1. Are you looking to actually write code, set up networks, or, rather be more of IT management? It makes a diference. It shouldn't, but it does. Just being able to write great code isn't enough to communicate and organize in a management position. Conversely, being in management is greatly benefited by some serious technical skills. You don't want to have to rely on others to 'give you the gist' of what is going on.
2. Just as, I assume with medicine, you better LOVE technology if you want to do it. The reason is twofold: first, you must be able to produce enterprise level work. Secondly, IT is already loaded with tech guys who DO love what they do and many of them are extermely territorial. Often, you have to be really damn good at what you do just to shut someone up. And, even if you love tech, there will be bad days -- really bad days where you wonder if technology is for you. It can be tedious, mentally challenging and often the massive amounts of work will never even be seen by the users. So, get used to it.
3. Work to get a fundamental understanding of whatever technology you work in - not just a level of 'I can make it work'. For example, don't just use SQL Server because it's easy...you need to really learn the differences between Oracle, MySQL and SQL Server. If you understand the WHY of a system or application behaves a certain way, then the individual problems start to make a lot more sense. And just because someone on Slashdot likes MySQL and PHP doesn't mean it's the best. This goes back to the arrogance of many guys in IT.
4. Learn to communicate to people who don't understand technology as well as you do. Period.
Are you saying Bill O'Reilly is the 'real' news? And that Bush is helping capitalism?
I love this country, and I love capitalism. That's why I find your comment so naive and funny...
The unemployment rate is probably not the best indicator of what the job market really looks like.
If you pick up the newspaper and read that there's only 6% unemployment, knowing that anything under 5% is considered inconsequential, you might wonder why jobs seem so scarce.
But if you look at the layoff numbers, those are currently double what they were in 1999. Then you look at new job creation. In 1999, when the economy was full steam, new jobs were being created at around 200,000 plus per month, often exceeding 250,000. It's closer to 42,000 new jobs per month today.
Now add in the fact that it takes 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with new workers entering the workforce.
Even if IT unemployment was listed at 10%, you would need to review the IT layoff numbers and new job creation to create an accurate IT picture.
If the US as a whole is losing 100,000+ jobs per month, and it's worse in IT ( or manufacturing ), then you can see that even the unemployment number may not show the seriousness of the specific job market.
No. Because you, if your name was Keanu Reeves, would have a legitimate claim to the domain.
It doesn't matter if one of the Keanu Reeves is famous, it's a matter of having any legitimate claim to the domain name. If your name is Keanu Reeves and you go out and nab "johncleese.com", you would lose that battle in a court of law, because you have no ties to John Cleese nor are you named John Cleese.
I think I need to add something here. I have already done this several times without fear of prosecution. Prosecution? Please. There are buildings full of attorneys that would LOVE to get my case if somebody came after me for making a legitmate consumer complaint. Me, a small customer, tries to place an order on Big Company's website and, being a computer professional, notice it's insecure; I notify the company and they would try to prosecute me? That's not only silly, it's incredibly bad business. That just takes a non-issue and puts it on CNN or 60 Minutes. This isn't like cracking the encryption on a DVD or hacking through a firewall. This is a legitimate consumer complaint. Believing that Big Company is going to try and pin me as a cracker would take more resources ( and more problems when people actually DO get hacked ) than trying to extinguish me. I'm much more concerned they'll just ignore the problem.
The reason I have no fear is documentation. I have full records of everything I've done and did not do. I have every email I've sent. Other organizations also have records. I've told them ( the company) how to contact me if needed. What kind of 'cracker' prosecution is going to hold up against that? I've worked in corporate management before, and documentation is the most difficult thing to combat. Look at the case with SCO. If SCO can't produce evidence against IBM, their case is done. Period. That's documentation in action ( or lack of it in action, more than likely. )
Don't give me a bunch of case histories about companies crushing the individual. It happens, but I'm pretty confident that those individuals were fighting the company in some form. I'm not, and as I said, I turn the information over to other organizations ( FBI, SBI, whatever. ). You can toss out paranoid ideas all you want. I'm speaking from experience. I've done this at least a dozen times.
Most companies are aware there are "white hats" as well as "black hats", because most companies have tech people on their own staffs. What terrifies big companies is NOT that someone is going to blackmail them. Anyone who tries that WILL GET CAUGHT. What actually scares the heck out of big companies is that someone will start stealing identities and credit card numbers from their warehouse AND IT WILL MAKE THE NEWS. That's their motivation, not crushing me for complaining. When you return something to Best Buy, is it their policy to hit you with a baseball bat and yell at you with a megaphone until you leave?
I've actually run into this issue a few times. The action I've taken in the past pretty much directly relates to the severity of the security flaw. For example, I've seen URL hacks which allow you to grab another customer's credit card information, and then some which allow only address information.
My rule of thumb is that if a piece of information can be obtained and tracked to a specific individual, it's dangerous. That's the rule I use in my work as well.
When I decide the situation warrants it, I send a professional, formal email to the company ( also the web admin if there is one ), stating what I found, screenshots and leave it at that. Sometimes I will point out that I intended to place an order, but halted when I saw the issue. I also let the company know they may contact me if more information is needed.
This is what has happened in the past following these emails:
1. Almost all companies send me an email thanking me and letting me know the problem has been corrected, and it has been. Case closed.
2. I get a nasty email from the company ( usually this is with SMALL operations) telling me to take my business elsewhere. At first I would attempt to politely explain the risk, but soon realized that some sites have no intention of listening to me, and gave up. In that case, I may notify the BBB or other organization just to get someone else on their tail. I don't have time to chase down other people's security holes, so the best I can hope for is to let others know.
In any case, I always use the Enron rule: What if I later had to explain my actions to a grand jury?
I'm not sure how Linux is easier for a novice PC user, or non technical user. There's a ton of attacks on a Linux box, and the vast majority of PC users don't know about THEM either.
I appreciate the answer. But to me, this is still theoretical. The negligible factor of .999998 is theoretical, not actual. There's no way to prove the theory without polling every single individual in a demographic every single time. So projection is somewhat based on either smaller previous statistic pools or just faith. This is sort of like trying to predict the stock market or college basketball. Predictions for weather, stock markets or sports generally hover about 50% accuracy...which means ( in my opinion, of course ), that despite all the statistical and analytical evidence, it's all guesswork at best. I can guess 50% accuracy on pretty much anything by flipping a coin.
Again, I understand the quality of samples, but even those are based on projections. Population of the United States is estimated, not actually known. So demographics samples gathered by Gallup might be thought to be accurate, but may still be guesses. But I digress...
If you look over most Gallup polls, the average poll sample is usually 600-1200 people. That's less than 1/100th of 1% of the United States population.
How could it possibly be accurate? Short answer: It isn't remotely accurate. Gallup had Bush winning the 2000 election by as much as 7-10 percentage points. He lost the popular vote by 1-2%. That's a 8-11% inaccuracy, roughly. Not to spark debate by using this particular election for an example, but just referring to one most people would remember. Polls come out on a wide variety of subjects daily...some of which are commissioned by specific groups. You want a poll that says more people use Linux? Just buy it. You want one that says more people prefer death to ice cream? Buy it. If you can find 160,000 people who would buy Justin Gaurini's CD, you can be damn sure you can find a couple hundred who will say pretty much anything.
Then, release the poll to try and start some viral marketing. "More people love Linux? I gotta get in on this!"
Of course, if you read Gallup's disclaimers, they pretty musch say two things:
1. These polls are not really accurate.
2. Any poll can be skewed.
But, Gallup never explains what steps they take to prevent skewing, only that they are aware skewing can occur. Well, duh!
Putting up a few threads of cheap, fisherman's grade monofilament thread will prevent birds from flying into a given area. I realize even this would be a major undertaking, due to the size of the windfarm.
What I'm waiting for is the 'Do Not Spam' list so the spammers can complain that people who desperatly want their products might not get the spam they need.
I think the point is that the vast majority of the world is NOT in an urban center. The vast majority of people in the world ( and in the U.S. ) live in rural areas, despite what the popular perception is. So yes, people who live in rural areas are biased as well...it's just their bias is based on the world situation, not the situation in New York City or Sacramento.