Instead of suing for liability on the business loss, (which their own insurance should be covering anyway) there's nothing stopping the owners of the companies affected from suing the FBI and agents involved on 4th Amendment grounds, since the FBI seized their servers without a warrant. To be clear: A warrant existed, but it wasn't for the most of the items taken: It listed equipment belonging to a specific company. But they indiscriminately seized whole racks, so some of the servers in the rack (not to mention the rack itself, PDUs, switches, storage) were taken without a warrant.
No they won't engage in wholesale termination they will identify a few people they don't like for whatever reason that was not really good enough to justify firing them before, and make a lot of noise like "John Doe" was insubordinate and violated or policy. The rest of you are on notice!
And the rest of em will realize that the job market is still tough and getting caned
I didn't know employers still used corporal punishment at work!
I know, typo-jokes aren't funny... But I've worked with a few people I would have liked to beat with a cane. Or see beaten with a cane.
You've got a better chance of walking to Japan from California than you do of shoe-horning Microsoft out of 80% of their marketshare in our lifetime. Won't happen. Their entire business is built on lock-in... Nobody can just "transition out"--they've built every product for maximum lock-in and maximum cash-flow, and are building new products that you have to pay for in perpetuity.
This may yet be their undoing... Open Office has been "ready for prime time" for a few years and yet we rarely encounter anybody using it or willing to use it. I propose it all the time, but include pricing for MS Office in all proposals that include Open Office because it's the first thing clients want to know--EVEN IF THEY SIGN OFF ON OPEN OFFICE--is "Where's my Microsoft Office? My Outlook?"
Until you break that mental block, it's a pointless exercise.
The fact that your IT department will allow non-sanctioned servers in their environment and on their network means you've already won a very big battle. Don't get greedy: If you escalate up the you won't be in a better spot, because somebody higher in the IT chain will put their foot down for territorial reasons and you'll end up selling your server on eBay. At that point you'll also find the advocate who was willing to open the port for credentials will be forbidden to do anything for you.
Also, I'm not clear on how you expect somebody to evaluate your server's security without being able to login... If this was my network I'd shut-off whatever network port this device was plugged into, and ban it's MAC-adddress from all my switches until I either had a login I could use for auditing, or until you gave up.
Of course, now, it is only a matter of time before our enemies have ship-mounted lasers. Which means soon we'll get roped into paying for deflector shields.
I'm thinking it's time for a change if this doesn't' improve in the next 5 months.
To me, this is the travesty of mobile phone/data service in the U.S.: Our mobile-phone market has been divvied up between the big players, and we're all locked into contracts that cost more than a new car to escape from.
And now we have one fewer choice.
And unlike US Cellular, T-Mobile was a legit nationwide carrier.
Guess I better learn to accept the Verizon shaft or prepare to deal with the overall crappyness of AT&T.
I sometimes find it annoying when people refuse to use Reply-All in the situations that it is appropriate to. For example, if four people need an answer to the same question, I might copy them on the message I send to somebody else. In that situation a "Reply-All" can be appropriate, especially if the body of my message indicates the question is on behalf of the people asking.
it is actually a bit... well, sad, that Android Advocates constantly cite market wide android sales when the iPhone is restricted to just one carrier that, last time I checked, was only about 25% of the total market.
First, bullshit. Its only on one carrier in the U.S. Its on every carrier in England, and still getting demolished on sales over its INSANELY high price. Its just a smart phone--it doesn't split the fucking atom.
It would be a trivial exercise for Apple to begin selling open-iphones to any carrier that wants them. And the "simplicity" argument is bogus: The Brits already sell them this way. Put an obvious label of what network the phone is for ON THE BOX and setup separate skus in your online store, and its possibly the easiest thing to invent since pre-sliced bread.
Secondly, that "restriction" to one carrier was Apples choice, not mine. I think its sad that Apple miscalculated so heinously by going AT&T exclusive. Ultimately, that choice is what made Android viable. If T-Mobile and Sprint and Verizon had iPhones to sell, why would they even have talked to Google about Android? But now Android is out there, in the wild, with millions of people talking texting and emailing on it every day. Apple essentially made its own worst-nightmare come true: A phone that works just as well, in some cases better, than the iPhone that is on every single carrier, (not just their unusably-shitty "exclusive" carrier,) and costs 2/3 less to buy, and doesn't require a "premium" data-plan.
I know Slashdot is US oriented site, but come on! Even in countries where iPhone is available from everyone and their grandmother, Android devices(collectively) outsell iPhone.
I think you're underestimating just how crappy the AT&T network is. A friend of mine lives in lake-country in northern Indiana. In her living room I have 5-bars on T-Mobile (a second-tier U.S. operator) and she had barely 1 on AT&T, a "top-tier" U.S. carrier.
Why does this matter? In the U.S. we're spread out more than you folks in Europe are: More of us live rurally, too, so network and signal strength issues can take on a life of their own if they aren't addressed. And AT&T has sunk money into network improvements, but they haven't done so fast enough to outpace the growth in subscribers. In other words, their expansions have just managed to keep new subscribers seeing the status quo (i.e. slow, dodgy in rural areas,) as opposed to the traditional definition of "improvements" which is to make things better.
Of course, the other problem is that the iPhone just costs too much, and the "premium" data plan you have to eat just adds insult to injury. Is the iPhone cool? Yeah, kinda, though getting less-so by the day as Android advances further and further.
Is it "cool-enough" to overcome price difference, shoddy network, or insanely tight controls Apple has on what I do with the device?
I think the concern isn't so much that people "have things they want to hide" as they just don't want to be "pre-screened" from jobs, education opportunities, and/or political office because the "wrong" person sees the Facebook photo of them with their arm around a person of the "wrong" gender.
Its not right, and its not fair, but that's life.
I'm on FB to control my company's FB page. But I post nothing--and my pictures are all bland and inoffensive. None of them show me drinking a beer, making out with my girlfriend, or firing an assault-rifle with my shirt-off. None of those things are "immoral" in my opinion, but I live in Indiana, at the northern edge of the "bible belt" and its something I worry about. I also don't advertise my atheism on FB, either. They've also got a fake birthday for me, too. Basically, I use FB "all-wrong." And so should you.
A lot of people simply plunged headlong into "social media" without considering the consequences of leading a "public" private-life. If you did, you need to pull-back as much as you can and do some damage-control ASAP... Once that crap is cached with Google, good luck getting rid of it.
One of our customers took their email to Google Apps... Nightmare. Big enough company that they had to have SSO or their support costs would sky-rocket (what? I have a different password for email? But its the same username...) So flash forward 8 weeks and endless troubleshooting with the vendor... Guess what? There's a bug in Google Apps API that made the vendor's SSo product not work. (They were a google recommended "SSO partner" for Google Apps...) Implementation was WEEKS late because of the fact that there is no public disclosure of the bugs, flaws, or anything else. AND there is no meaningful support. Whoever posted that "there is support if you're paying" has obviously never actually tried GETTING any help through that support-group. Its terrible, a complete farce. They run through a script and shutdown. "Sorry, you must have aconfiguration problem..." So we prove after copious hours of troubleshooting its a bug. "Oh, that's a known bug, our developers are working on it." ]click
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of suing for liability on the business loss, (which their own insurance should be covering anyway) there's nothing stopping the owners of the companies affected from suing the FBI and agents involved on 4th Amendment grounds, since the FBI seized their servers without a warrant. To be clear: A warrant existed, but it wasn't for the most of the items taken: It listed equipment belonging to a specific company. But they indiscriminately seized whole racks, so some of the servers in the rack (not to mention the rack itself, PDUs, switches, storage) were taken without a warrant.
That's a shame--it would have stopped the flow of Texans into the rest of the country. Would it have kept any of the retrograde ideas there too?
No they won't engage in wholesale termination they will identify a few people they don't like for whatever reason that was not really good enough to justify firing them before, and make a lot of noise like "John Doe" was insubordinate and violated or policy. The rest of you are on notice!
And the rest of em will realize that the job market is still tough and getting caned
I didn't know employers still used corporal punishment at work!
I know, typo-jokes aren't funny... But I've worked with a few people I would have liked to beat with a cane. Or see beaten with a cane.
You've got a better chance of walking to Japan from California than you do of shoe-horning Microsoft out of 80% of their marketshare in our lifetime. Won't happen. Their entire business is built on lock-in... Nobody can just "transition out"--they've built every product for maximum lock-in and maximum cash-flow, and are building new products that you have to pay for in perpetuity.
This may yet be their undoing... Open Office has been "ready for prime time" for a few years and yet we rarely encounter anybody using it or willing to use it. I propose it all the time, but include pricing for MS Office in all proposals that include Open Office because it's the first thing clients want to know--EVEN IF THEY SIGN OFF ON OPEN OFFICE--is "Where's my Microsoft Office? My Outlook?"
Until you break that mental block, it's a pointless exercise.
The fact that your IT department will allow non-sanctioned servers in their environment and on their network means you've already won a very big battle. Don't get greedy: If you escalate up the you won't be in a better spot, because somebody higher in the IT chain will put their foot down for territorial reasons and you'll end up selling your server on eBay. At that point you'll also find the advocate who was willing to open the port for credentials will be forbidden to do anything for you.
Also, I'm not clear on how you expect somebody to evaluate your server's security without being able to login... If this was my network I'd shut-off whatever network port this device was plugged into, and ban it's MAC-adddress from all my switches until I either had a login I could use for auditing, or until you gave up.
Of course, now, it is only a matter of time before our enemies have ship-mounted lasers. Which means soon we'll get roped into paying for deflector shields.
Shit! They always get you with the add-ons...
Wasn't one of the sideshow arguments promulgated by the right-wing that "Obamacare would lead to Democrats imposing extra taxes on fat people!!!!"
Pretty funny, actually.
I'm sure your account will be disabled with no appeal or explanation after putting your first transaction through.
To me, this is the travesty of mobile phone/data service in the U.S.: Our mobile-phone market has been divvied up between the big players, and we're all locked into contracts that cost more than a new car to escape from.
And now we have one fewer choice.
And unlike US Cellular, T-Mobile was a legit nationwide carrier.
Guess I better learn to accept the Verizon shaft or prepare to deal with the overall crappyness of AT&T.
Ah Twitter. Once seemed so promising, now in decline as they try to jam sponsored tweets (i.e. spam) in front of their users eyeballs.
Nighty night.
I sometimes find it annoying when people refuse to use Reply-All in the situations that it is appropriate to. For example, if four people need an answer to the same question, I might copy them on the message I send to somebody else. In that situation a "Reply-All" can be appropriate, especially if the body of my message indicates the question is on behalf of the people asking.
Seriously! "Our family is so much cloud visionaries that we MADE IT OUR NAME."
Really, it's not the most complicated solution ever, but sometimes the best ones are the most simple.
it is actually a bit... well, sad, that Android Advocates constantly cite market wide android sales when the iPhone is restricted to just one carrier that, last time I checked, was only about 25% of the total market.
First, bullshit. Its only on one carrier in the U.S. Its on every carrier in England, and still getting demolished on sales over its INSANELY high price. Its just a smart phone--it doesn't split the fucking atom.
It would be a trivial exercise for Apple to begin selling open-iphones to any carrier that wants them. And the "simplicity" argument is bogus: The Brits already sell them this way. Put an obvious label of what network the phone is for ON THE BOX and setup separate skus in your online store, and its possibly the easiest thing to invent since pre-sliced bread.
Secondly, that "restriction" to one carrier was Apples choice, not mine. I think its sad that Apple miscalculated so heinously by going AT&T exclusive. Ultimately, that choice is what made Android viable. If T-Mobile and Sprint and Verizon had iPhones to sell, why would they even have talked to Google about Android? But now Android is out there, in the wild, with millions of people talking texting and emailing on it every day. Apple essentially made its own worst-nightmare come true: A phone that works just as well, in some cases better, than the iPhone that is on every single carrier, (not just their unusably-shitty "exclusive" carrier,) and costs 2/3 less to buy, and doesn't require a "premium" data-plan.
I know Slashdot is US oriented site, but come on! Even in countries where iPhone is available from everyone and their grandmother, Android devices(collectively) outsell iPhone.
I think you're underestimating just how crappy the AT&T network is. A friend of mine lives in lake-country in northern Indiana. In her living room I have 5-bars on T-Mobile (a second-tier U.S. operator) and she had barely 1 on AT&T, a "top-tier" U.S. carrier.
Why does this matter? In the U.S. we're spread out more than you folks in Europe are: More of us live rurally, too, so network and signal strength issues can take on a life of their own if they aren't addressed. And AT&T has sunk money into network improvements, but they haven't done so fast enough to outpace the growth in subscribers. In other words, their expansions have just managed to keep new subscribers seeing the status quo (i.e. slow, dodgy in rural areas,) as opposed to the traditional definition of "improvements" which is to make things better.
Of course, the other problem is that the iPhone just costs too much, and the "premium" data plan you have to eat just adds insult to injury. Is the iPhone cool? Yeah, kinda, though getting less-so by the day as Android advances further and further.
Is it "cool-enough" to overcome price difference, shoddy network, or insanely tight controls Apple has on what I do with the device?
Nope.
OMG, +1 Pants-Peeing Hysterical man...
I think the concern isn't so much that people "have things they want to hide" as they just don't want to be "pre-screened" from jobs, education opportunities, and/or political office because the "wrong" person sees the Facebook photo of them with their arm around a person of the "wrong" gender.
Its not right, and its not fair, but that's life.
I'm on FB to control my company's FB page. But I post nothing--and my pictures are all bland and inoffensive. None of them show me drinking a beer, making out with my girlfriend, or firing an assault-rifle with my shirt-off. None of those things are "immoral" in my opinion, but I live in Indiana, at the northern edge of the "bible belt" and its something I worry about. I also don't advertise my atheism on FB, either. They've also got a fake birthday for me, too. Basically, I use FB "all-wrong." And so should you.
A lot of people simply plunged headlong into "social media" without considering the consequences of leading a "public" private-life. If you did, you need to pull-back as much as you can and do some damage-control ASAP... Once that crap is cached with Google, good luck getting rid of it.
Yeah, we've had similar experiences...
One of our customers took their email to Google Apps... Nightmare. Big enough company that they had to have SSO or their support costs would sky-rocket (what? I have a different password for email? But its the same username...) So flash forward 8 weeks and endless troubleshooting with the vendor... Guess what? There's a bug in Google Apps API that made the vendor's SSo product not work. (They were a google recommended "SSO partner" for Google Apps...) Implementation was WEEKS late because of the fact that there is no public disclosure of the bugs, flaws, or anything else. AND there is no meaningful support. Whoever posted that "there is support if you're paying" has obviously never actually tried GETTING any help through that support-group. Its terrible, a complete farce. They run through a script and shutdown. "Sorry, you must have aconfiguration problem..." So we prove after copious hours of troubleshooting its a bug. "Oh, that's a known bug, our developers are working on it." ]click![
Second story: We tried out google checkout. Within the first week we get an email saying our "account has been flagged" and our first transaction refunded to the customer. Very embarassing. Our account was summarily closed, and "for security reasons" they couldn't tell us why. We were offered the option of a proctological exam to have it re-opened. So we went through it.. sent them copies of business licenses, our drivers licenses, social security, and verified our business address, email, phone numbers. Everything. Two days later we get another email "Your request to reopen your account has been denied, but we can't tell you why for security reasons."
We switched to Paypal.
Google is good at search and related things... Webmaster Tules rock... But I'd run for my life before paying them for ANYTHING.
That's what Facebook's TOS read today... But since they change weekly (usually in the direction of exposing more and more of your "private" information to the search engines and public) you'd have to re-read them on almost daily basis to know if they'd slipped anything new in there.
You can't really "satire" your high school principle; they're unlikely to meet the "public figure" criteria that would protect the person who is making fun of them from legal repercussions if anything strayed over the line.
Really? A public-school principal works for the government, in a position of authority, and has broad discretionary power over the students under their charge. They are well-known in their community and frequently act as the public-face of their organization. Certainly, a high-school principal is not as famous as, say, Barrack Obama but it is quite arguable that he is a bona fide public figure for the purposes of satire.
I am glad they've owned up to the mistake, but remember back in the day when Seagate was a trusted brand? Man, I feel reaaaally old right now...
Informal personality tests are often administered by women to gauge males' employability as a boyfriend/husband.
This often doesn't go well for those in "an IT or more technical context"
...Also because a lot of guys in our thing don't get that you need to be interviewing them to figure out their flaws, too. Yeah, she's got boobies... Yay.
Real question is: Would a psychiatrist refer to her as "a complete whack-job" or not?
Getting harder to find a "Regular-Definition" TV set new these days. I haven't seen any on display at the electronics shops since... last year sometime. And there weren't many then. I think blu-ray will take off once the regular TVs people already own start breaking down... That's why I went HD--my old TV decided to run in Black&White only mode at some point... The replacement unit was HD. PRobably how most people will get an HD set--because its their only option left for purchase. ...and then why not get a device supporting blu-ray?
Ellipctical! It thoroughly rocks--very low/no impact on the joints (good if you're a bigger guy or have knee problems) but it still kicks your butt 9-ways from Sunday--works your heart, and your legs, arms, and chest at the same time... Efficient! And it'll tickle your geek-gadget-gene to put it together. (Here's a hint, though... Pay for "inside delivery" as this device will come on the back of a truck--not a UPS truck but an LTL freight arrangement. Trust me, they're REALLY heavy and, while in the box, difficult to move solo.)
My elliptical is a schwinn and I paid just over US$600 for it, but its been a great investment. I've lost weight and have more energy, and my waist is smaller which has made buying clothes for my "Dress-formal" office a lot easier and cheaper.
The bicycle is more for recreation than for aerobic exercise... I just like tooling around the neighborhood, or maybe doing a little paved trail riding... I'm not into the "extreme" bicycling that some of my friends do, I just like it as an option... "So do you want to get some dinner and then go for a bike ride?" sounds way friendlier and less... loaded... than "Let's get some drinks and go back to your place."
Please tell me where a "free" market exists in the land of internet and telephone service? You can "choose" to either buy from the telco monopoly, or the cable monopoly... Your only other choice is to not have service... which isn't a real option in this day and age. If I can't email future employers my resume` or
And if you don't like either of these non-competitors products, you're simply out of luck. Sure, you can buy "third-party" DSL but that still requires you to have a phone-line from the telco, or live on the (tiny) part of the network they've upgraded to allow "no-phone-service" DSL. Any way you slice it, you either do business with the monopoly, or you get bent. ...and even if you're using one of those third-parties on a "no-phone-service" DSL, the 3rd-Party is paying the telco on your behalf... You are a customer by proxy.