Someday someone in a life-threatening situation with a VOIP phone is going to try to make a 911 call and not get through due to high bandwidth utilization on their IP connection. The person might die. If this is caused by zombification or DOS attack wouldn't that make the perpetrators responsible for manslaughter? Then wouldn't the FBI have to get involved?
Well, you are wrong in so many ways.
on
Should IT Unionize?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I linve in New York, a union strong state. Here the only place you can't hire non-union labor for SOME job is in NYC. Most other places in the state where licensing is required it is called for by the municipality (town, or city). No one up here requires a union to work.
I've met people who are in the Manhattan electricians union who got there by non-traditional methods. They are truly skilled professionals.
What I do want is a bunch of senior people telling the company management exactly how long my shift should be, exactly when it starts and ends, exactly how much overtime I get for which extra days and hours.
Around here, in the Hudson Valley we have carpenters schools, steamfitters schools, I don't know how many union schools we have, beautiful campuses where the union membership goes to get their training updated regularly. Paid training in skills they will then get to use.
You know what the Teamsters still have that IT workers at Enron didn't? Guess. I'll make it easy for you. The answer is a secure retirement.
How do you explain all the IT offshoring that already happened? The overwhelming presence of the union? What drove all those call centers offshore? It wasn't the union.
Look, I know your 4th grade teacher told you that someday you would be rich and the schoolyard bully would work for you. They told you that a lot, that someday you will be the boss by right of your superior intelligence. Ayn Rand is wrong, sure you can excel on your own and protect yourself and what you care about and all that. If you want to make real change, and not remain insignificant, you need to be part of a group that has influence.
Here's a list of people doing well in unions... Cops Teachers Truck Drivers Carpenters Plumbers Actors Screenwriters
Here's one more thing an IT union would be able to do. It could help define best practices. As in "Nope, that software is not union-spec. If you want our guys to use it you're going to have to pay for their training." Then the union membership (IT workers) would have some say over whether or not non-standard or poorly written software gets union support. As union members we would be protected from having the blame on us for every piece-o-shit software.
Don't focus on the abuses of power, that always happens. Can't not do something because someone might misuse it. Or do you not use filesharing?
I, Robot by Isaac Asimov (get the book of short stories not the movie adaptation)
The Wind From The Sun is a good collection of Arthur C. Clarke.
If you can find 'em, the Danny Dunn series of books were great, always had hard core science. Kinda like the Hardy Boys, but with a sci-fi influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Dunn
Does this apply to any website's terms of service? If it does that might give individuals a lot of legal power.
You might be able to create a Terms of Service policy that puts spammers in a position where you can sue them and file criminal charges for misusing the data you published. IIRC there was a case where a security expert had set up an email account to recieve emails and scan the originating domain for security problems. These particular spammers originated from a genuine url. The security expert had published the email address and its services on his website. He had billed the spammers for security services. When they did not pay he sued and won. BTW, IANAL.
So, publish your personal data BEFORE you start giving it out. Copyright it. Then sue anyone who misuses it.
Lori Drew is reprehensible. But we HAVE laws for harassment and disorderly conduct and libel. These can all be applied. There are even laws regarding prank phone calls (which might be best used as reference here). We DO NOT need new precedents that reduce the ability of the individual to access information anonymously.
See...we have the first amendment that guarantees the freedom of speech, press, and religion. What we don't have is a guarantee of unfettered access to information. Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught fucking someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam).
Damn...imagine the implications for 10minutemail.com
Granted, this is going to increase web traffic. Grisoft SHOULD start a whitelist/blacklist to ease the traffic on the net. The technique becomes more valid at that point.
"You managed to make an ends-justify-the-means argument" Yes, I'm justifying AVG's actions. Are you saying that I should sacrifice security so CNN has more accurate statistics? If you are...well tough. Do you realize that some of the affected services they are breaking steal your passwords?
From a user's point of view I want as much protection as possible. I don't care if it hurts MTV's bandwidth and processor usage. That's THEIR problem. Welcome to the wild and woolly world of the internet. I want to break AS MANY MALWARE APPS AS POSSIBLE. Really, security is my first concern. Usability is a close second. Your costs? WAYYYY down on the list.
Yes, this might break business models. That's called evolution.
Actually, I am sorry for the webmasters. They have to deal with this. OTOH it IS part of the job.
I don't know what you folks expected. The web is infested with all sorts of malicious code. Are users not supposed to protect themselves in the interests of the website? After we manage to make the browsing experience safe for "teh n00b" then this won't be a problem. So all we have to do is get all webpages standardized, sanitized, and secured. That includes all the people using IE.
Another option is that we could stop promoting the Internet as a good tool for consumer level financial transactions. Then there won't be ANY need for privacy and security. Then we might not have jobs either.
It is yellow journalism to report this story in this way. Another way to put it would be "AVG forces issue of PC Security versus bandwidth usage." Then they look like heroes instead of villains. You're just putting spin on the issue because this is affecting your cost/income ratio.
Since AVG is producing something that helps end-users do you really want to be seen as a promoter of the problem? Since the problem of malware sites is not going to go away and since AVG is effective more antivirus software will start using these techniques. Unless you have something better to suggest?
Frankly, as an end user, I don't give a damn about your costs and stats. I don't care about it for amazon, ebay, myspace, or paypal. I do care that if I follow a link to an unsavory site that I am protected.
Here is another question. Do you want a userbase that is populated by malware infected computers? Is that preferable to figuring out a way to work with AVG new technique?
Dont throw your users under the train. They have a right to their security and peace of mind.
Will soldiers fire on civilians? There comes a point when the military stops obeying orders. These people know they are not supposed to operate within the US borders.
That is only one example. For instance, did you know that according to the supreme court there is NO expectation of protection against crimes by the police? They are there to maintain the peace, not to protect you. That's your responsibility.
The purpose of guns is not to protect your freedoms. That's what voting is for. The guns are to protect your person. To make the soldiers think twice before coming in. If you debate that look at the third amendment.
Essentially, the idea is that a democracy puts power in the hands of the people. Ask any political scientist about the political uses of lethal force. To have political power one must ultimately be willing to wield lethal force.
In short, yes, the point of all those guns is so crowds of angry citizens can overthrow their corrupt leaders. Whenever they want.
You've made a mistake. We don't need to convince gun owners to help us, we need to convince the people who have had enough to buy guns. Don't wait for others to save you. Save yourself.
And in other breaking news students have started paying other students to write PAPERS for them!!!
Seriously, for as long as I can remember students have been using "paper writing services." Yes, this predates the internet. I'm sure many slashdot readers have been paid to do someones work for them. And yes, this predates the internet.
This is horseshit. A very big pile. Quote from article: "I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member."
That "never to the detriment of supervisors" has me stuck. What if you discover something that will unseat your supervisor. Sometimes science surprises you.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to Zerg rush the enemy base. What I want to know is why cant they give me a decent game to play? Something with higher stakes? Look, WOPR gets to play Global Thermonuclear Warfare and he cant even walk around. Not to mention this terrible pain in ALL the diodes up and down my right side...
Fuck Godwin and his dumbass law. Hitler was not so evil that we cant talk about it. By avoiding the comparison we may allow equivalent and greater evil to occur.
Furthermore, how can we have a conversation about German facism without mentioning Nazis? In fact, the Nazis are the gold standard of facism. One cannot discuss facism without discussing Nazis and Hitler. Godwin's law has the effect of stifling conversations that identify and eliminate fascism.
Well, it's not that MS retained the right to sell to clone makers. IIRC IBM didn't think that was a risk so they didnt write exclusivity into the contract. Then Compaq comes along and reverse engineers BIOS which opens the market for cloners.
So, the MS assertion is wrong. The one single development that is most responsible for the spread of the Internet is the creation of the IBM PC clone. And that was first done by Compaq (again IIRC).
How many brand new 409 cu in engines do you see in street cars do you these days?
Not many.
Why? It was more power than the average consumer could afford or needed. Why is the adoption of HDTV going so slowly? Because people were able to buy $150 dollar TV's until they went out of production.
Anyone who thinks that cheap, ubiquitous laptops will fail to own the market is wrong. In some cases the winning factor will simply be "Hey, it didn't burn my lap!"
Fact is that most laptops run too hot for portable use anyway. They're mostly either too heavy or hot. In most cases they get used as semi-permanent installations and only need the battery for the rare on-the-go access anyway.
Advantages to owning a low cost/low power laptop
Less heat
Not tragic if you leave it in the airport or drop it.
Longer battery life
Can still buy food after buying laptop
email
Word processing
Spreadsheets
Databases
Internet
Games
Presentation Software
compilers
etc...
Disadvantages to owning a low cost/low power laptop
Burnt genitals from trying to use on lap
Excess heat from trying to keep up with desktop machines
Cant run the latest Autocad, Echelon, Carnivore, Windows Vista, or EA's latest FPS.
Cheap wireless laptops will come packaged with wireless-anywhere deals and they will be given to kids and purchased by mid and low income individuals. If you think I'm wrong go explain it to wal-mart. They sell 300 dollar desktops. The only people who will have expensive laptops are rich hackers, poor hackers, or people whose companies bought them one. Most people are going to say oo, look, it does what I need and I won't hate myself if it gets broken. AND it's cool.
You are wrong to grant this administration the benefit of the doubt. This headline is right to assume the worst.
It's just that simple. IF this administration had been fairhanded and honest to this point then you would be right to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Here is an example by way of metaphor. If your girlfriend gets pregnant and you're not the father how long do you trust her claims of monogamy?
So. This administration HAS lied to us; HAS practiced partisan, confrontational politics; HAS used legitimate crises and public outcry to manipulate us into questionable wars; HAS abused the laws they said they would not abuse.
With all that said why should I give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should I trust them to practice self restraint or honesty? WHY SHOULDN'T I ASSUME THE WORST? (caps for emphasis)
If we were willing to give the benefit of the doubt we have the choice to take it away and use the burden of guilt instead. I no longer give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I assume they will misbehave and abuse their power.
They have established a pattern of lies and deceit. I see no evidence of this pattern changing. So I will predict that this executive order (it's not law, it was never voted on) will also be abused. Based on this prediction I will feel correct in my outrage and watch carefully for how the government will try to abuse the power they have granted themselves without a vote.
And to all those who would join in revolution I remind you that the only rights you have are those that you take.
I imagine that requiring the digital broadcasters to enact protections that the analog broadcasters cant would qualify as an anti-competitive practice. Particularly if it effects pricing of music at the wholesale level.
This could be good if it means web sites and advertising suppliers become responsible for the veracity of their advertisers. Most advertisers already function as a type of censor, not willing to represent viewpoints in opposition to the status quo (for instance when was the last time you saw a TV or banner ad advocating marijuana legalization, paper trails at voting machines, or encouraging people to go out and protest at the local park?) Instead of making moral judgements maybe they could make factual ones instead.
I'm a yank and dont know about Aus law. maybe I'm assuming free speech that does not exist there. It shouldnt be a big deal to ask people to evrify the facts before they represent someone.
PS-if you're found guilty of a crime in Australia do they ship you off ot the UK?
Got a traumatic memory? Take this drug for ten years or so. Really. Nothing sinister or societally altering here. And if you OD we can just change your blood.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an alarmist tag, yes, but...
Someday someone in a life-threatening situation with a VOIP phone is going to try to make a 911 call and not get through due to high bandwidth utilization on their IP connection. The person might die. If this is caused by zombification or DOS attack wouldn't that make the perpetrators responsible for manslaughter? Then wouldn't the FBI have to get involved?
I linve in New York, a union strong state. Here the only place you can't hire non-union labor for SOME job is in NYC. Most other places in the state where licensing is required it is called for by the municipality (town, or city). No one up here requires a union to work.
I've met people who are in the Manhattan electricians union who got there by non-traditional methods. They are truly skilled professionals.
What I do want is a bunch of senior people telling the company management exactly how long my shift should be, exactly when it starts and ends, exactly how much overtime I get for which extra days and hours.
Around here, in the Hudson Valley we have carpenters schools, steamfitters schools, I don't know how many union schools we have, beautiful campuses where the union membership goes to get their training updated regularly. Paid training in skills they will then get to use.
You know what the Teamsters still have that IT workers at Enron didn't? Guess. I'll make it easy for you. The answer is a secure retirement.
How do you explain all the IT offshoring that already happened? The overwhelming presence of the union? What drove all those call centers offshore? It wasn't the union.
Look, I know your 4th grade teacher told you that someday you would be rich and the schoolyard bully would work for you. They told you that a lot, that someday you will be the boss by right of your superior intelligence. Ayn Rand is wrong, sure you can excel on your own and protect yourself and what you care about and all that. If you want to make real change, and not remain insignificant, you need to be part of a group that has influence.
Here's a list of people doing well in unions...
Cops
Teachers
Truck Drivers
Carpenters
Plumbers
Actors
Screenwriters
Here's one more thing an IT union would be able to do. It could help define best practices. As in "Nope, that software is not union-spec. If you want our guys to use it you're going to have to pay for their training." Then the union membership (IT workers) would have some say over whether or not non-standard or poorly written software gets union support. As union members we would be protected from having the blame on us for every piece-o-shit software.
Don't focus on the abuses of power, that always happens. Can't not do something because someone might misuse it. Or do you not use filesharing?
I loved sci-fi short stories as a kid.
I, Robot by Isaac Asimov (get the book of short stories not the movie adaptation)
The Wind From The Sun is a good collection of Arthur C. Clarke.
If you can find 'em, the Danny Dunn series of books were great, always had hard core science. Kinda like the Hardy Boys, but with a sci-fi influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Dunn
Sherlock Holmes!
HEY! I'll worry about MY interests first, thank you very much.
Does this apply to any website's terms of service? If it does that might give individuals a lot of legal power.
You might be able to create a Terms of Service policy that puts spammers in a position where you can sue them and file criminal charges for misusing the data you published. IIRC there was a case where a security expert had set up an email account to recieve emails and scan the originating domain for security problems. These particular spammers originated from a genuine url. The security expert had published the email address and its services on his website. He had billed the spammers for security services. When they did not pay he sued and won. BTW, IANAL.
So, publish your personal data BEFORE you start giving it out. Copyright it. Then sue anyone who misuses it.
I dont think I'm the first to suggest it.
I should post this as AC...
Lori Drew is reprehensible. But we HAVE laws for harassment and disorderly conduct and libel. These can all be applied. There are even laws regarding prank phone calls (which might be best used as reference here). We DO NOT need new precedents that reduce the ability of the individual to access information anonymously.
See...we have the first amendment that guarantees the freedom of speech, press, and religion. What we don't have is a guarantee of unfettered access to information. Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught fucking someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam).
Damn...imagine the implications for 10minutemail.com
Not trolling, not intentionally.
Granted, this is going to increase web traffic. Grisoft SHOULD start a whitelist/blacklist to ease the traffic on the net. The technique becomes more valid at that point.
"You managed to make an ends-justify-the-means argument"
Yes, I'm justifying AVG's actions. Are you saying that I should sacrifice security so CNN has more accurate statistics? If you are...well tough. Do you realize that some of the affected services they are breaking steal your passwords?
From a user's point of view I want as much protection as possible. I don't care if it hurts MTV's bandwidth and processor usage. That's THEIR problem. Welcome to the wild and woolly world of the internet. I want to break AS MANY MALWARE APPS AS POSSIBLE. Really, security is my first concern. Usability is a close second. Your costs? WAYYYY down on the list.
Yes, this might break business models. That's called evolution.
Actually, I am sorry for the webmasters. They have to deal with this. OTOH it IS part of the job.
I don't know what you folks expected. The web is infested with all sorts of malicious code. Are users not supposed to protect themselves in the interests of the website? After we manage to make the browsing experience safe for "teh n00b" then this won't be a problem. So all we have to do is get all webpages standardized, sanitized, and secured. That includes all the people using IE.
Another option is that we could stop promoting the Internet as a good tool for consumer level financial transactions. Then there won't be ANY need for privacy and security. Then we might not have jobs either.
It is yellow journalism to report this story in this way. Another way to put it would be "AVG forces issue of PC Security versus bandwidth usage." Then they look like heroes instead of villains. You're just putting spin on the issue because this is affecting your cost/income ratio.
Since AVG is producing something that helps end-users do you really want to be seen as a promoter of the problem? Since the problem of malware sites is not going to go away and since AVG is effective more antivirus software will start using these techniques. Unless you have something better to suggest?
Frankly, as an end user, I don't give a damn about your costs and stats. I don't care about it for amazon, ebay, myspace, or paypal. I do care that if I follow a link to an unsavory site that I am protected.
Here is another question. Do you want a userbase that is populated by malware infected computers? Is that preferable to figuring out a way to work with AVG new technique?
Dont throw your users under the train. They have a right to their security and peace of mind.
Something else to consider.
Will soldiers fire on civilians? There comes a point when the military stops obeying orders. These people know they are not supposed to operate within the US borders.
Right, sure.
Angry rebels could never hold off the combined might of the US Army. Unless it's in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Lebanon...
Not all soldiers are highly trained commandos.
March on the White House to storm it eh?
Look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
That is only one example.
For instance, did you know that according to the supreme court there is NO expectation of protection against crimes by the police? They are there to maintain the peace, not to protect you. That's your responsibility.
The purpose of guns is not to protect your freedoms. That's what voting is for. The guns are to protect your person. To make the soldiers think twice before coming in. If you debate that look at the third amendment.
Essentially, the idea is that a democracy puts power in the hands of the people. Ask any political scientist about the political uses of lethal force. To have political power one must ultimately be willing to wield lethal force.
In short, yes, the point of all those guns is so crowds of angry citizens can overthrow their corrupt leaders. Whenever they want.
You've made a mistake. We don't need to convince gun owners to help us, we need to convince the people who have had enough to buy guns. Don't wait for others to save you. Save yourself.
And in other breaking news students have started paying other students to write PAPERS for them!!!
Seriously, for as long as I can remember students have been using "paper writing services." Yes, this predates the internet. I'm sure many slashdot readers have been paid to do someones work for them. And yes, this predates the internet.
This is horseshit. A very big pile.
Quote from article: "I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member."
That "never to the detriment of supervisors" has me stuck. What if you discover something that will unseat your supervisor. Sometimes science surprises you.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to Zerg rush the enemy base. What I want to know is why cant they give me a decent game to play? Something with higher stakes? Look, WOPR gets to play Global Thermonuclear Warfare and he cant even walk around. Not to mention this terrible pain in ALL the diodes up and down my right side...
Fuck Godwin and his dumbass law. Hitler was not so evil that we cant talk about it. By avoiding the comparison we may allow equivalent and greater evil to occur.
Furthermore, how can we have a conversation about German facism without mentioning Nazis? In fact, the Nazis are the gold standard of facism. One cannot discuss facism without discussing Nazis and Hitler. Godwin's law has the effect of stifling conversations that identify and eliminate fascism.
Well, it's not that MS retained the right to sell to clone makers. IIRC IBM didn't think that was a risk so they didnt write exclusivity into the contract. Then Compaq comes along and reverse engineers BIOS which opens the market for cloners.
So, the MS assertion is wrong. The one single development that is most responsible for the spread of the Internet is the creation of the IBM PC clone. And that was first done by Compaq (again IIRC).
Ugh....imagine my distress upon discovering that I am, indeed, calendar illiterate.
There is no August 31st.
Advantages to owning a low cost/low power laptop
- Less heat
- Not tragic if you leave it in the airport or drop it.
- Longer battery life
- Can still buy food after buying laptop
- email
- Word processing
- Spreadsheets
- Databases
- Internet
- Games
- Presentation Software
- compilers
- etc...
Disadvantages to owning a low cost/low power laptop- Burnt genitals from trying to use on lap
- Excess heat from trying to keep up with desktop machines
- Cant run the latest Autocad, Echelon, Carnivore, Windows Vista, or EA's latest FPS.
Cheap wireless laptops will come packaged with wireless-anywhere deals and they will be given to kids and purchased by mid and low income individuals. If you think I'm wrong go explain it to wal-mart. They sell 300 dollar desktops. The only people who will have expensive laptops are rich hackers, poor hackers, or people whose companies bought them one. Most people are going to say oo, look, it does what I need and I won't hate myself if it gets broken. AND it's cool.You are wrong to grant this administration the benefit of the doubt. This headline is right to assume the worst.
It's just that simple. IF this administration had been fairhanded and honest to this point then you would be right to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Here is an example by way of metaphor. If your girlfriend gets pregnant and you're not the father how long do you trust her claims of monogamy?
So. This administration HAS lied to us; HAS practiced partisan, confrontational politics; HAS used legitimate crises and public outcry to manipulate us into questionable wars; HAS abused the laws they said they would not abuse.
With all that said why should I give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should I trust them to practice self restraint or honesty? WHY SHOULDN'T I ASSUME THE WORST? (caps for emphasis)
If we were willing to give the benefit of the doubt we have the choice to take it away and use the burden of guilt instead. I no longer give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I assume they will misbehave and abuse their power.
They have established a pattern of lies and deceit. I see no evidence of this pattern changing. So I will predict that this executive order (it's not law, it was never voted on) will also be abused. Based on this prediction I will feel correct in my outrage and watch carefully for how the government will try to abuse the power they have granted themselves without a vote.
And to all those who would join in revolution I remind you that the only rights you have are those that you take.
Intersting comment about the analog hole.
I imagine that requiring the digital broadcasters to enact protections that the analog broadcasters cant would qualify as an anti-competitive practice. Particularly if it effects pricing of music at the wholesale level.
This could be good if it means web sites and advertising suppliers become responsible for the veracity of their advertisers. Most advertisers already function as a type of censor, not willing to represent viewpoints in opposition to the status quo (for instance when was the last time you saw a TV or banner ad advocating marijuana legalization, paper trails at voting machines, or encouraging people to go out and protest at the local park?) Instead of making moral judgements maybe they could make factual ones instead.
I'm a yank and dont know about Aus law. maybe I'm assuming free speech that does not exist there. It shouldnt be a big deal to ask people to evrify the facts before they represent someone.
PS-if you're found guilty of a crime in Australia do they ship you off ot the UK?
Got a traumatic memory? Take this drug for ten years or so. Really. Nothing sinister or societally altering here. And if you OD we can just change your blood.