You make a valid point about too much school work, but that is a whole other conversation. If there is some credible evidence to suggest that a different schedule puts kids into a better rhythm for the day, then fine. But if all we do is time-shift their day, then I see no point to changing anything.
Let me start by saying that I am not opposed to changing start times. I am interested in these pilot schools and how they fare in the long run. A change like this will have an impact the whole community, disturbing its natural cycles. I feel that it is best to know what we are doing before we implement changes on a wider scale.
In my own personal experience, when my children go to bed on time, they wake up ready for the school day. This has become a big issue in my school district, but I have noted that the parents who complain the most, have kids out late at night, or lights on in their bedroom past 10pm.
I am skeptical of results like these in the UK. I want to see long term positive results.
The simple solution is to just make your kids go to bed earlier. The same irresponsible parents that let their high schoolers stay up too late will likely let them stay up even later after the school schedule is adjusted. The study has some merit, but I doubt that the trends for this school will hold. I suspect the drop in absenteeism is only temporary, and that the rate will go back up in a few short years.
Don't overlook the knowledge to be gained by working with someone who's already been there. Try to find someone who does (or did) the same kind of programming that you do and open a dialog with them. Swapping war stories with someone who has 10 or 15 years more experience can help you decide what kind of things you still need to learn, and what direction you want your career to take.
This is a good option if the coax is a relatively straight run, such as up the wall into the attic. It is very difficult if the coax was run through several studs, possibly making a turn or two in the wall cavity. You also want to be careful if the coax was run parallel to a power line. I know this is not code in most areas, but you never know if a contractor or previous homeowner got lazy and used the existing holes in a row of studs or joists. My advise, if the coax does not easily slide when you pull on either end, leave it alone and run the Cat5 by itself.
I think there is a difference between one login/interface to your bank to pay all your bills, and having to login to the websites of 10+ bill payers to collect all the information I need to pay them. Some of my bills are paid only once or twice per year. I would rather not have to remember all the different logons and passwords for every company who wants to send me an electronic bill.
I use banking software, however I rely on those paper statements to tell me when exactly the bill is due, and how much. In the past I have opted into electronic statements, but there is no uniformity in how the statements are delivered. Sometimes I get a PDF emailed to me, but often just an email saying the bill is due, then I must login to find the date and amount. This is too inconsistent. I am waiting for the day when I can use my banking software to download a detailed statement from a single application, and then mark it for payment.
One of the craziest rules of them all is 'you have to change your password and it cannot be one of your last x passwords', I really can't wrap my head around that one, how it should improve password security, anyone care to explain the rationale behind that?
The general principal is to make users choose and keep a new password. Forcing a password change every n days does no good if the users immediatly change it back, or if they just alternate between two. Our system keeps our last 25 passwords. I once had a coworker that on password change day would loop though a list of 25 passwords, so they could reset it to their original password, in effect, never change it. They stopped once a minimum password age was set, but I think this highlites the rationale of such a policy.
I mangled my thoughs a bit when I said an audit is not a single point in time. It is. My thinking is that auditors should be taking a "wholelistic" approach, helping the organization look into the future, and making sure their procedures will protect them to the extent possible. For example, patch your operating system regurarly. I think this is what the author meant when he said an audit should "focus more on processes rather than implementation."
The article was light on details, but Merrick Bank hired auditors, Savvis, to certify that were compliant with the CISP standard. If Savvis was negligent, as Merrick charges, and they were not compliant, then why shouldn't they be held liable? If the breach occured via a security hole that the audit should have caught, then I say let the suit go forward.
You are correct that malware running on the network is a serious threat. The point I was trying to make is that if an auditor certifies that your network is protected from various type of malware attacks, then they could be held liable if you hacked in this manner.
I will admit that this is a very gray area, but if you offer your services as a network auditor, then expect to be held liable for failing to anticipate common threats. You should not just be auditing a static network at a single point in time, but also the policies and procedures for maintaing the system.
Comparing mechanical devices like a car, that have parts that wear down to a network which is not susceptible to the same pressures is not completely fair. If my mechanic certifies that my car passes the state safety inspection (which we do have in the US) on Monday, and I suffer a catastrophic failure of one of the inspected parts on Friday, then I might have a case. In six months, I probably don't.
I see inspecting/certifying a network as being a little different. If I certify that your network meets a certain standard, protecting you from X, Y, and Z types of attacks, then baring a change to the network's configuration (thereby voiding the certification) you should always be protected. If in the future you are attacked using one of these methods, then shame on me for not being thorough. However, this does not let you off the hook for protecting yourself against new types of attacks.
I am not sure the comment was directed at the manager's log term outlook, but rather the student's. Put differently are you going to be better off in 10 years with a Masters degree, or two extra years of experience?
I say go to work immediately, and work on a Master's part time, then you get the best of both. You also get additional time to find a MS program that fits your career path and interests, which will make the program all the more rewarding.
Secondly, since it is started and run by the Government, wouldn't this be considered a public service instead?
I find this an interesting argument. Where is the line between an essential public service, like water and electricity, and something that is less essential like an Internet connection? The electric company in my area is a non-profit electric cooperative. It was started in the 1930's to supply power to what was then a very rural area. Electricity at that time was about the same as the internet is today, can you get by with out it? Yes. It is a boost to your standard of living? Yes.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the citizens of a community getting together, through their local government, to provide a service they they want. It probably would be best if Greenlight was spun off into a separate non-profit, but I am not sure if that changes much for companies like TWC. They got beat because they (allegedly) ignored the demands of a segment of customers. I really don't blame them for ignoring these smaller communities. TWC only has so much money to spend. I probably would have made the same decision, to focus on larger markets first. The even bigger shame is that the NC legislature is seriously considering this bill.
I think these books are a great starting place to learn how a good manager operates.
The Career Programmer is written mostly from the programmer's perspective, but gives a lot of advice on how managers and programmers can work together to achieve the project's goals.
I believe the same goes for the Earth's revolution question. If I respond with 365 days, am I wrong? If I respond 365.25 am I correct, or do need to be more precise? What if I am a smart ass and said one tenth of a decade (I did not hear them ask for unit of measure)?
This blog feels more like a rant than a scientific analysis of a survey. I would like to see the original questions and responses (I did not see them linked in the article). I suspect they were not carefully worded, and the responses leave a lot of room for interpretation.
I recognize your point that an IP address is not always fixed to one user or machine, but I think the analogy works for this situation. If the police found a phone number logged on a caller ID near the scene of a crime, I would expect them to request the owner's name from the phone company. The same goes for an IP address discovered. I would expect them to follow the evidence. Now if the police attempted to prosecute using this IP evidence, then all of your other arguments apply.
The question before the judge was "can we solicit this information without a warrant" not "does this evidence support our case". From the summary it appears that the police used this evidence, to request other warrants, to collect information from the suspect's computer. This is raises much tougher legal issues that I do not feel qualified to debate.
You are correct. My analogy was an attempt to point out my perceived contradiction that it is OK to pirate software if it is for personal use, but not OK when used for profit.
The original post claimed, in a nutshell, that it is OK to use pirated material as long as you don't profit from it, which was the basis for my analogy. I wholeheartedly believe, as I suspect you do, that current copyright laws and EULAs are f'ed up. However, you should not justify the unauthorized use of a product because the owner does not know, or cannot show, that they sustained loss. You should either agree to the terms of use or walk away.
By your logic I should be able to walk into a grocery store and take what I want as long as I don't open a restaurant. It would be nice if I paid for what I took, but I might want to spend that money on a dinner cruise at some point in the future.
Hang on, what were you afraid they might do with it?
This organization stated all the possible benefits of the research that could be done on cord blood, but provided no specific information on what they plan to do with the donation. Their contract required us to give up all rights to the blood, but put no restrictions on its use. They could use the blood to conduct research we find objectionable. The more I reflect on this, the more I realize this was just a bad sales job. This organization did not give us all the information or assurances we felt were required to make a commitment to them.
I am not trying to persuade people from making donations of this kind. I am reporting our personal experience so others can make an informed decision if presented with the same opportunity.
That could work for some families. In my family we split the drop off at school and daycare. Mom drops off in the AM and dad picks up in the PM. There is no one best fit for all families. This is why I would like to see more options in the electric market than are currently offered. I am willing to sacrifice on horsepower, but I cannot give up passenger/luggage capacity and distance.
Laws vary between countries, and can be changed. Like my comment below describes, it was their open ended policy that kept us from donating. Their literature told us very little about the mission of the organization.
When we make a monetary donation to a charity we want some knowledge of the way the money will be spent. We felt the same concept applied here. This organization (I do not remember the name) stated that the blood became their property and they gave no limits on its use. If they stated that they limited their research to finding a cure for leukemia, we probably would not have had a concern. While the probability is low that they were doing crazy human/animal gene splicing experiments (which we do find objectionable), it was because of their open ended policy that we decided not to make the donation.
My memory is fuzzy, but it is possible this was a legal caveat rather than a technical limitation. I remember a 10-year time limit, and that factored into our decision to not save the cord blood.
The passenger capacity of the electric cars I have seen is a problem for me and I suspect a lot of other families. My family needs a sedan that can hold three young children in the back seat (car seats are very wide). A minivan option is also nice since it carry the grandparents that visit frequently on the weekends.
Range is also important. 500km is close to the current range of our current cars on one tank of gasoline.
Hybrids are only just now beginning to meet these requirements. All the electric cars I have seen are not practical for most families.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a valid point about too much school work, but that is a whole other conversation. If there is some credible evidence to suggest that a different schedule puts kids into a better rhythm for the day, then fine. But if all we do is time-shift their day, then I see no point to changing anything.
Let me start by saying that I am not opposed to changing start times. I am interested in these pilot schools and how they fare in the long run. A change like this will have an impact the whole community, disturbing its natural cycles. I feel that it is best to know what we are doing before we implement changes on a wider scale.
In my own personal experience, when my children go to bed on time, they wake up ready for the school day. This has become a big issue in my school district, but I have noted that the parents who complain the most, have kids out late at night, or lights on in their bedroom past 10pm.
I am skeptical of results like these in the UK. I want to see long term positive results.
The simple solution is to just make your kids go to bed earlier. The same irresponsible parents that let their high schoolers stay up too late will likely let them stay up even later after the school schedule is adjusted. The study has some merit, but I doubt that the trends for this school will hold. I suspect the drop in absenteeism is only temporary, and that the rate will go back up in a few short years.
Don't overlook the knowledge to be gained by working with someone who's already been there. Try to find someone who does (or did) the same kind of programming that you do and open a dialog with them. Swapping war stories with someone who has 10 or 15 years more experience can help you decide what kind of things you still need to learn, and what direction you want your career to take.
This is a good option if the coax is a relatively straight run, such as up the wall into the attic. It is very difficult if the coax was run through several studs, possibly making a turn or two in the wall cavity. You also want to be careful if the coax was run parallel to a power line. I know this is not code in most areas, but you never know if a contractor or previous homeowner got lazy and used the existing holes in a row of studs or joists. My advise, if the coax does not easily slide when you pull on either end, leave it alone and run the Cat5 by itself.
I think there is a difference between one login/interface to your bank to pay all your bills, and having to login to the websites of 10+ bill payers to collect all the information I need to pay them. Some of my bills are paid only once or twice per year. I would rather not have to remember all the different logons and passwords for every company who wants to send me an electronic bill.
I use banking software, however I rely on those paper statements to tell me when exactly the bill is due, and how much. In the past I have opted into electronic statements, but there is no uniformity in how the statements are delivered. Sometimes I get a PDF emailed to me, but often just an email saying the bill is due, then I must login to find the date and amount. This is too inconsistent. I am waiting for the day when I can use my banking software to download a detailed statement from a single application, and then mark it for payment.
One of the craziest rules of them all is 'you have to change your password and it cannot be one of your last x passwords', I really can't wrap my head around that one, how it should improve password security, anyone care to explain the rationale behind that?
The general principal is to make users choose and keep a new password. Forcing a password change every n days does no good if the users immediatly change it back, or if they just alternate between two. Our system keeps our last 25 passwords. I once had a coworker that on password change day would loop though a list of 25 passwords, so they could reset it to their original password, in effect, never change it. They stopped once a minimum password age was set, but I think this highlites the rationale of such a policy.
The article was light on details, but Merrick Bank hired auditors, Savvis, to certify that were compliant with the CISP standard. If Savvis was negligent, as Merrick charges, and they were not compliant, then why shouldn't they be held liable? If the breach occured via a security hole that the audit should have caught, then I say let the suit go forward.
I will admit that this is a very gray area, but if you offer your services as a network auditor, then expect to be held liable for failing to anticipate common threats. You should not just be auditing a static network at a single point in time, but also the policies and procedures for maintaing the system.
Comparing mechanical devices like a car, that have parts that wear down to a network which is not susceptible to the same pressures is not completely fair. If my mechanic certifies that my car passes the state safety inspection (which we do have in the US) on Monday, and I suffer a catastrophic failure of one of the inspected parts on Friday, then I might have a case. In six months, I probably don't.
I see inspecting/certifying a network as being a little different. If I certify that your network meets a certain standard, protecting you from X, Y, and Z types of attacks, then baring a change to the network's configuration (thereby voiding the certification) you should always be protected. If in the future you are attacked using one of these methods, then shame on me for not being thorough. However, this does not let you off the hook for protecting yourself against new types of attacks.
I am not sure the comment was directed at the manager's log term outlook, but rather the student's. Put differently are you going to be better off in 10 years with a Masters degree, or two extra years of experience?
I say go to work immediately, and work on a Master's part time, then you get the best of both. You also get additional time to find a MS program that fits your career path and interests, which will make the program all the more rewarding.
Secondly, since it is started and run by the Government, wouldn't this be considered a public service instead?
I find this an interesting argument. Where is the line between an essential public service, like water and electricity, and something that is less essential like an Internet connection? The electric company in my area is a non-profit electric cooperative. It was started in the 1930's to supply power to what was then a very rural area. Electricity at that time was about the same as the internet is today, can you get by with out it? Yes. It is a boost to your standard of living? Yes.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the citizens of a community getting together, through their local government, to provide a service they they want. It probably would be best if Greenlight was spun off into a separate non-profit, but I am not sure if that changes much for companies like TWC. They got beat because they (allegedly) ignored the demands of a segment of customers. I really don't blame them for ignoring these smaller communities. TWC only has so much money to spend. I probably would have made the same decision, to focus on larger markets first. The even bigger shame is that the NC legislature is seriously considering this bill.
I believe the same goes for the Earth's revolution question. If I respond with 365 days, am I wrong? If I respond 365.25 am I correct, or do need to be more precise? What if I am a smart ass and said one tenth of a decade (I did not hear them ask for unit of measure)?
This blog feels more like a rant than a scientific analysis of a survey. I would like to see the original questions and responses (I did not see them linked in the article). I suspect they were not carefully worded, and the responses leave a lot of room for interpretation.
I recognize your point that an IP address is not always fixed to one user or machine, but I think the analogy works for this situation. If the police found a phone number logged on a caller ID near the scene of a crime, I would expect them to request the owner's name from the phone company. The same goes for an IP address discovered. I would expect them to follow the evidence. Now if the police attempted to prosecute using this IP evidence, then all of your other arguments apply.
The question before the judge was "can we solicit this information without a warrant" not "does this evidence support our case". From the summary it appears that the police used this evidence, to request other warrants, to collect information from the suspect's computer. This is raises much tougher legal issues that I do not feel qualified to debate.
You are correct. My analogy was an attempt to point out my perceived contradiction that it is OK to pirate software if it is for personal use, but not OK when used for profit.
My kingdom for the perfect analogy!
The original post claimed, in a nutshell, that it is OK to use pirated material as long as you don't profit from it, which was the basis for my analogy. I wholeheartedly believe, as I suspect you do, that current copyright laws and EULAs are f'ed up. However, you should not justify the unauthorized use of a product because the owner does not know, or cannot show, that they sustained loss. You should either agree to the terms of use or walk away.
By your logic I should be able to walk into a grocery store and take what I want as long as I don't open a restaurant. It would be nice if I paid for what I took, but I might want to spend that money on a dinner cruise at some point in the future.
Hang on, what were you afraid they might do with it?
This organization stated all the possible benefits of the research that could be done on cord blood, but provided no specific information on what they plan to do with the donation. Their contract required us to give up all rights to the blood, but put no restrictions on its use. They could use the blood to conduct research we find objectionable. The more I reflect on this, the more I realize this was just a bad sales job. This organization did not give us all the information or assurances we felt were required to make a commitment to them.
I am not trying to persuade people from making donations of this kind. I am reporting our personal experience so others can make an informed decision if presented with the same opportunity.
That could work for some families. In my family we split the drop off at school and daycare. Mom drops off in the AM and dad picks up in the PM. There is no one best fit for all families. This is why I would like to see more options in the electric market than are currently offered. I am willing to sacrifice on horsepower, but I cannot give up passenger/luggage capacity and distance.
Laws vary between countries, and can be changed. Like my comment below describes, it was their open ended policy that kept us from donating. Their literature told us very little about the mission of the organization.
When we make a monetary donation to a charity we want some knowledge of the way the money will be spent. We felt the same concept applied here. This organization (I do not remember the name) stated that the blood became their property and they gave no limits on its use. If they stated that they limited their research to finding a cure for leukemia, we probably would not have had a concern. While the probability is low that they were doing crazy human/animal gene splicing experiments (which we do find objectionable), it was because of their open ended policy that we decided not to make the donation.
My memory is fuzzy, but it is possible this was a legal caveat rather than a technical limitation. I remember a 10-year time limit, and that factored into our decision to not save the cord blood.
The passenger capacity of the electric cars I have seen is a problem for me and I suspect a lot of other families. My family needs a sedan that can hold three young children in the back seat (car seats are very wide). A minivan option is also nice since it carry the grandparents that visit frequently on the weekends.
Range is also important. 500km is close to the current range of our current cars on one tank of gasoline.
Hybrids are only just now beginning to meet these requirements. All the electric cars I have seen are not practical for most families.