It's not in the same ballpark though. Broadband connections and high-speed access to the internet is critical to the burgeoning information economy. Having a Burger King, McDonald's and Wendy's in the same town is not.
So let's see if I've got this right. I go to the bar and drink beer. I go to the bathroom and urinate into a specially modified urinal which captures the flow, and converts it to electricity for the bar's use. Can I cash that in for free beer?
Are you going to be around your kids every single time they are on the computer? What if they aren't at home? Being good parents is definitely an important step, but to assume that parents have the resources to completely monitor what their kids do all the time is simply ridiculous.
Maybe you should think your argument through better.
Or, perhaps you should think things through better. If you are that concerned, then not only do you put the computer in a place where you can see what the kids are up to, you lock up the modem until you get home. You get NetNanny or some equivalent to block objectionable sites. You set rules for your children's viewing habits, and extend consequences if you find those rules have been violated or circumvented in some fashion. It's called parenting
They haven't. Try reading about their battle to switch to a cash-balance pension plan which just coincidentally happens to discriminate against older employees. You know, the ones who sued them and won for age discrimination?
Simple, really. Guns have largely been phased out of our lives to the point where many folks have no real concept of what actually happens when someone is shot. In both video games and on TV, the victim (most likely someone who "needed killin'" anyway) dies quickly, and quietly, with a minimum of pain and/or blood loss. In video games in particular, you just restart the game and all is well.
The answer is not fewer guns -- the answer is actually to have the things in wider circulation with the caveat that you must be trained in their use, and that you will be held accountable for their use.
Ah... no. There's nothing inherently wrong with them having the guns. Having guns but failing to grasp the consequences is a different matter altogether. Training, perhaps, moral, and technical?
You forget -- the only reason "Bobbish" can work for less is the fact that "Bobbish" lives in India, a country where a PhD making US $20,000 is considered to be rich beyond measure. Of course, the general standard of living sucks, but hey, who cares? If you want to live on those wages, *you* go live in India.
The physical layer needs to be regulated, and regulated strictly. I'm less inclined to agree that a service running over the physical layer needs as much regulation.
In the McDonlad case, they had 700 prior complaints.
Wow. 700 complaints. Over what period of time? Having served how many millions of people during that time? I have no statistics, but I'd hazard a guess that those 700 complaints represented some small fraction of one percent of all the folks who bought McDonald's coffee over the years. The auto and airline industries would love to have such a small number of complaints.
I have all manner of sympathy for the poor woman -- I'm sure she was in pain, but lets face it -- she did something foolish and suffered the consequences.
Stoves are hot. Don't fool with them until they have cooled sufficiently. You learn this as a child. Similarly, coffee is hot, and should be handled with care. Placing a styrofoam cup full of hot coffee between your knees in a car does not fall within the "handle with care" boundaries.
The fact that you are foolish and uncautious should not be grounds for a lawsuit.
The bag nazi at the door is there to look for employee theft, not shoplifting. And they don't accomplish that, either.
I used to work retail. Had a run-in with one of the security guards one night at quitting time over just that sort of thing. I told him that *if* I ever decided to steal from the store, he'd know it, because he'd come to work one day and find the place stripped to the walls. Mutual insults were traded.
Oddly enough, about 5 years later the company filed for banruptcy and ultimately went out of business. The reason? Embezzlement by senior management at corporate headquarters...
Wait. You're saying that the undead should have jobs? >br>
They already do you insensitive clod! Where do you think they get all those extras for slasher movies, return of the body snatchers, etc. What -- you think some SAG actor's gonna work for scale for that dreck? Geeze!
The problem is you expect your boss to entertain you for 7 hours a day, so you can get your 1 hour of work done. Please don't apply for a job where I work.
Agreed for the most part. I assume though, that you are one of the "reasonable" employers. There are those who require excessiev OT, or are otherwise intrusive in their employee's lives.
In your construction example, for instance, the employees work 8 hours, clock out, and go home. They are free then to get on with other aspects of their lives. I'm on salary in a white-collar job. I'm paid to stay until the job is done. Fine. But many of the places I need services from are closed "after hours". Do I make up for it at times by doing business online on "company time"? Damn straight. And you know what? I don't feel the least bit guilty about it. I work to live. I should not have to live to work.
Little League, the Church, the PTA, and other such organizations are *community based* organizations that rely almost exclusively on volunteer labor. They exist for the sole purpose of somehow enriching the community at large, and strengthening the local social fabric.
Your ex-employer exists for the purpose of *making money*, and, as a side effect, benefitting the local community in some way. Note: this is a *side effect* of making money, not the purpose of the business.
It would be helpful, I think, to remember that basic distinction, and charge for your time accordingly.
Re:Headline is Wrong - Not White Hat
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 1
Ok -- so the guy's driving around and discovers an open network. What's he supposed to do? Pretend the problem doesn't exist (and hope the bad guys don't discover it), or inform the folks who have the power and authority to fix the problem before any serious damage is done? So much for trying to be a good citizen...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not in the same ballpark though. Broadband connections and high-speed access to the internet is critical to the burgeoning information economy. Having a Burger King, McDonald's and Wendy's in the same town is not.
Now I'm confused -- I don't know whether to root for SCO, or the MPAA. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll take each other out? One can only hope...
So let's see if I've got this right. I go to the bar and drink beer. I go to the bathroom and urinate into a specially modified urinal which captures the flow, and converts it to electricity for the bar's use. Can I cash that in for free beer?
Are you going to be around your kids every single time they are on the computer? What if they aren't at home? Being good parents is definitely an important step, but to assume that parents have the resources to completely monitor what their kids do all the time is simply ridiculous.
Maybe you should think your argument through better.
Or, perhaps you should think things through better. If you are that concerned, then not only do you put the computer in a place where you can see what the kids are up to, you lock up the modem until you get home. You get NetNanny or some equivalent to block objectionable sites. You set rules for your children's viewing habits, and extend consequences if you find those rules have been violated or circumvented in some fashion. It's called parenting
> Perhaps another reason "PHBs" might be heading to other sources than the IT staff is because the IT staff treats them with such contempt?
Erm... sort of like the way they've treated us all these years?
A friend of mine buys her T1 service from AirLink.net (a Maryland provider, I think). IIRC, she told me she pays $450.00 per month.
Ummm you do understand that the ATA is the telemrketing trade association. They don't make the actual calls, right?
They haven't. Try reading about their battle to switch to a cash-balance pension plan which just coincidentally happens to discriminate against older employees. You know, the ones who sued them and won for age discrimination?
The answer is not fewer guns -- the answer is actually to have the things in wider circulation with the caveat that you must be trained in their use, and that you will be held accountable for their use.
Ah... no. There's nothing inherently wrong with them having the guns. Having guns but failing to grasp the consequences is a different matter altogether. Training, perhaps, moral, and technical?
MMMM -- Turtles! Good eatin'...
You forget -- the only reason "Bobbish" can work for less is the fact that "Bobbish" lives in India, a country where a PhD making US $20,000 is considered to be rich beyond measure. Of course, the general standard of living sucks, but hey, who cares? If you want to live on those wages, *you* go live in India.
The physical layer needs to be regulated, and regulated strictly. I'm less inclined to agree that a service running over the physical layer needs as much regulation.
Ma, Pa and John-Boy are mostly boutique farmers and their disappearance probably wouldn't be noticed by 98% of the population.
There are more small farmers than you think. And since a number of them are my relatives, I'd sure notice.
In the McDonlad case, they had 700 prior complaints.
Wow. 700 complaints. Over what period of time? Having served how many millions of people during that time? I have no statistics, but I'd hazard a guess that those 700 complaints represented some small fraction of one percent of all the folks who bought McDonald's coffee over the years. The auto and airline industries would love to have such a small number of complaints. I have all manner of sympathy for the poor woman -- I'm sure she was in pain, but lets face it -- she did something foolish and suffered the consequences.
Stoves are hot. Don't fool with them until they have cooled sufficiently. You learn this as a child. Similarly, coffee is hot, and should be handled with care. Placing a styrofoam cup full of hot coffee between your knees in a car does not fall within the "handle with care" boundaries. The fact that you are foolish and uncautious should not be grounds for a lawsuit.
The bag nazi at the door is there to look for employee theft, not shoplifting. And they don't accomplish that, either.
I used to work retail. Had a run-in with one of the security guards one night at quitting time over just that sort of thing. I told him that *if* I ever decided to steal from the store, he'd know it, because he'd come to work one day and find the place stripped to the walls. Mutual insults were traded.
Oddly enough, about 5 years later the company filed for banruptcy and ultimately went out of business. The reason? Embezzlement by senior management at corporate headquarters...
Wait. You're saying that the undead should have jobs?
>br> They already do you insensitive clod! Where do you think they get all those extras for slasher movies, return of the body snatchers, etc. What -- you think some SAG actor's gonna work for scale for that dreck? Geeze!
The problem is you expect your boss to entertain you for 7 hours a day, so you can get your 1 hour of work done. Please don't apply for a job where I work.
Agreed for the most part. I assume though, that you are one of the "reasonable" employers. There are those who require excessiev OT, or are otherwise intrusive in their employee's lives.
In your construction example, for instance, the employees work 8 hours, clock out, and go home. They are free then to get on with other aspects of their lives. I'm on salary in a white-collar job. I'm paid to stay until the job is done. Fine. But many of the places I need services from are closed "after hours". Do I make up for it at times by doing business online on "company time"? Damn straight. And you know what? I don't feel the least bit guilty about it. I work to live. I should not have to live to work.
Thank you.
Little League, the Church, the PTA, and other such organizations are *community based* organizations that rely almost exclusively on volunteer labor. They exist for the sole purpose of somehow enriching the community at large, and strengthening the local social fabric.
Your ex-employer exists for the purpose of *making money*, and, as a side effect, benefitting the local community in some way. Note: this is a *side effect* of making money, not the purpose of the business.
It would be helpful, I think, to remember that basic distinction, and charge for your time accordingly.
Ok -- so the guy's driving around and discovers an open network. What's he supposed to do? Pretend the problem doesn't exist (and hope the bad guys don't discover it), or inform the folks who have the power and authority to fix the problem before any serious damage is done? So much for trying to be a good citizen...