You're not suggesting any alternative that I can see. I'll just assume you're advocating the 'head in sand' approach, and assert that the new IT guy cannot afford that risk either. The boss makes the call, or you walk. Better to be job hunting than to be sacrificed when the ousted guy attacks the network, in my opinion.
To answer your concerns, however:
1) It needs testing, period. Further I'm absolutely not advocating recovering everything. Data only. Reinstall the apps and platform by hand.
2) They do not, but they should. Most, if not all, are required by Federal law to do so. Also your false dichotomy where only fortune 500 companies have IT departments is upsetting. If for no other reason, are we not discussing a company with a dedicated IT person being dismissed and replaced? The stock trading angle is moot, and you ought to know it.
3) As others have point out, I left out the necessary order of operations. Build new servers, and THEN burn the old ones. I should have been more clear... And finally, when the ENTIRE PLATFORM GOES DOWN, due to the attack we're assuming will happen, will that same phone not also ring? Outages are what we're hoping to prevent...
If you're seriously considering this as a possibility, I'd say treat it like a DR drill. Burn everything down to bare metal and restore only the data. It's the only way to be sure...
That seems a bit risky. I cannot see any manager worth his salt giving authorization to purposely destroying data "to see if the backup works".
That's because the order of operations is out of whack.
If you're seriously considering this as a possibility, I'd say treat it like a DR drill. Burn everything down to bare metal and restore only the data. It's the only way to be sure...
However, before taking my advice, I'd suggest you get your boss to sign off on it, whichever way. Present a list of options from 'ignore it' to 'burn everything' and have them pick. This way, whatever happens, you're covered.
That's an interesting response, and I'm curious what your alternative is.
I support a moderate approach to taxation. Really, though, I would like to see the overall burden reduced through deep cuts in Federal programs. I'd also lobby for the States to do all the taxation, and pay their dues up to Washington for only that which they are provided.
Also, at what tax rate will the 'fat cat' stop scamming the govt out of taxes owed? Is there such a limit, or will he cheat to the full extent possible regardless?
I'm sure it varies from person to person, but 'fat cat's suffer from loss aversion as much or more than anyone else. He'll only cheat so far as he doesn't lose sleep at night about being caught. However, he's likely to cheat more when he feels he is being treated unfairly. Vigilantism, perhaps.
And further, take care with the 'scamming the govt out of taxes owed' stance, as I'm certain few of us are completely innocent of that. For example, did you properly pay use tax for all the online purchases you made this year? I certainly did not.
Somehow the republicans have managed to convince people that increasing taxes on the rich (over $250,000/yr) and lowering everyone else's taxes is the wrong thing to do. I just don't understand it.
I understand it, because I have seen it. First hand.
1) Fat cat guy earns 'x' dollars as a result of operating a successful company. It, and his other holdings, all serve one another towards meeting his needs and fulfilling his standard of living.
2) Since his slice of the pie is deemed unjust, he is taxed and his 'pay' is subsequently decreased.
3) He moves the shells in the game around, and his standard of living is unchanged.
'How?', you might ask... Well imagine that he was planning on buying one of those new Mercedes he saw on TV. He was planning on doing this on his previous standard of living. Now, with the new taxes, he can't afford to do that, so his company will buy one instead. He'll drive it as part of his official duties as owner. Or he'll raise the rent on the building his company leases from his holding company. Or whatever other thing tickles his fancy, because as the owner he can do almost whatever he pleases.
And who pays for that car, rent, etc? The employees who are told that due to 'tough times' they aren't seeing raises that year.
So the money flows from those wages into the government's coffers, while those that made it happen vote themselves another pay increase...
The system is indeed flawed but 'tax the fat cat' does not and simply will not work.
But I don't want to step over your point, which is accurate. The conservative's main voter base (blue-collar, working class, middle-americans) are the ones hurt the most by Republican policy. And yet they vote for the same policies time after time out of a belief that liberal politicians are immoral, or anti-jesus, or hate families or something.
A couple points in this charged and juicy statement...
1) Those blue-collar folks work for the rich white men the Republicans represent. They know, and know it damn good and well, that if you make the fat cat suffer, he takes it out on them. This doesn't impact those in the breadlines as much, but the working man feels it, and feels it hard. Given every viable opportunity, the owner's take home pay will never decrease, taxes be damned. He'll just pay himself more, or up his lease rates to his shell company that he's leasing his own company's building from... There are limits, but 'screwing the man' invariably screws those he employs far more severely. That's why he's called 'the man' as opposed to merely 'a man'.
2) Liberal politicians are, indeed, immoral, to a Christian or similar. Liberals are indeed anti-Jesus, and they do appear to hate at least all white and/or middle class families. At least if you judge them by their policies, you would reasonably draw this conclusion. Primarily these views stem from wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the like. Jesus's book says these are bad, but liberals are cool with them, and in some cases want tax dollars to fund these activities. Further, they take money from the tax payers and give it to the non-payers, which hurts those with jobs far more than it hurts those without. And, referencing my point above, even when they aim for the top earners, they hurt the middle class.
These aren't necessarily my own views, but they do logically follow - once you step outside the mental disease that is partisanship, that is.
Did he now? Why didn't he care enough to trackhis own money as well? Because he, rather like Fox, declined to tell the whole story, wherein the guy is connected to Viacom as well as to Fox.
It kind of does, though. I mean it's still ludicrous, but it lacks edge.
The line of reasoning is:
1) Guilanni rejected money from guy for terrorism-related reasons 2) Guy may be behind funding of mosque, implication being that it should likewise be rejected
Now compare the two punch lines...
3a) Guy also owns Fox, should be rejected or 3b) Guy owns everything./kneeslap...
Maybe I'm just more critical of comedy than you are, but I see the latter as far less humorous.
This sounded pretty outrageous, so I looked it up, watched the video, etc.
Mr Stewart's question, meant to be comedic, sets up a false standard. Check out the list of the other holdings of this 'evil prince':
Citicorp Citibank AOL Apple Inc. MCI Inc. Motorola News Corporation Ltd Four Seasons Plaza Hotel Savoy Hotel Monte Carlo Grand Hotel Euro Disney SCA Colony Capital
That's just from the wikipedia writeup. I'm sure some actual research could yield far more recognizable names.
So, I'm led to ask this question: How much were you paid to write that on slashdot??
You can always tell who the paid shills are because they're the ones who disagree with you.
Yes and no. They're typically the ones that disagree to a fault. Even the most staunch opponent will concede a single point from time to time. Shills never do.
Answer: "Does anyone NOT pay friendly bloggers? And if not, how stupid are they?"
How many of us regulars here can honestly say we've never encountered a paid shill right here on this little corner of the web? There are agents from Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and the US government. We encounter them all the time, and they're always easy to spot. If you think this is unique to this one website, you're insane.
So I say again, welcome to slashdot - or indeed the Internet - you must be new here...
This is all really light on details, but Neverwinter Nights had a dungeon master client, a level generator, etc. None of that here, so I'm guessing we're looking at a Guild Wars clone based on the 4e ruleset?
If not, I stand corrected. If so, a definitive meh.
Well, your lobbying must be working, because they're currently loading the entire trailer up onto train cars for the long-haul. Trucks pick them back up at the railhead and take them the last mile.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not suggesting any alternative that I can see. I'll just assume you're advocating the 'head in sand' approach, and assert that the new IT guy cannot afford that risk either. The boss makes the call, or you walk. Better to be job hunting than to be sacrificed when the ousted guy attacks the network, in my opinion.
To answer your concerns, however:
1) It needs testing, period. Further I'm absolutely not advocating recovering everything. Data only. Reinstall the apps and platform by hand.
2) They do not, but they should. Most, if not all, are required by Federal law to do so. Also your false dichotomy where only fortune 500 companies have IT departments is upsetting. If for no other reason, are we not discussing a company with a dedicated IT person being dismissed and replaced? The stock trading angle is moot, and you ought to know it.
3) As others have point out, I left out the necessary order of operations. Build new servers, and THEN burn the old ones. I should have been more clear... And finally, when the ENTIRE PLATFORM GOES DOWN, due to the attack we're assuming will happen, will that same phone not also ring? Outages are what we're hoping to prevent...
Yes, definitely.
Just the movie I had in mind, yep.
If you're seriously considering this as a possibility, I'd say treat it like a DR drill. Burn everything down to bare metal and restore only the data. It's the only way to be sure...
That seems a bit risky. I cannot see any manager worth his salt giving authorization to purposely destroying data "to see if the backup works".
That's because the order of operations is out of whack.
Rebuild, then cut over. Same result, less risk.
Sorry for glossing that over.
If you're seriously considering this as a possibility, I'd say treat it like a DR drill. Burn everything down to bare metal and restore only the data. It's the only way to be sure...
However, before taking my advice, I'd suggest you get your boss to sign off on it, whichever way. Present a list of options from 'ignore it' to 'burn everything' and have them pick. This way, whatever happens, you're covered.
"the solar system with the most planets yet"
There is only one Sol. There can only be one System Sol. Anything else is a star system.
Isn't that kind of like saying the only Lindsey is Lohan?
Perhaps, however, we can start planning the date when they might come see us...
My money's on 2057, personally...
Until then, what we are discussing is the Republican party buying political support online, and nothing else.
Who are you to dictate the content of my post?
We have 'caught' water being wet, and this should surprise no one. If you wish to postulate something different, post your own thread, yes?
That's an interesting response, and I'm curious what your alternative is.
I support a moderate approach to taxation. Really, though, I would like to see the overall burden reduced through deep cuts in Federal programs. I'd also lobby for the States to do all the taxation, and pay their dues up to Washington for only that which they are provided.
Also, at what tax rate will the 'fat cat' stop scamming the govt out of taxes owed? Is there such a limit, or will he cheat to the full extent possible regardless?
I'm sure it varies from person to person, but 'fat cat's suffer from loss aversion as much or more than anyone else. He'll only cheat so far as he doesn't lose sleep at night about being caught. However, he's likely to cheat more when he feels he is being treated unfairly. Vigilantism, perhaps.
And further, take care with the 'scamming the govt out of taxes owed' stance, as I'm certain few of us are completely innocent of that. For example, did you properly pay use tax for all the online purchases you made this year? I certainly did not.
Somehow the republicans have managed to convince people that increasing taxes on the rich (over $250,000/yr) and lowering everyone else's taxes is the wrong thing to do. I just don't understand it.
I understand it, because I have seen it. First hand.
1) Fat cat guy earns 'x' dollars as a result of operating a successful company. It, and his other holdings, all serve one another towards meeting his needs and fulfilling his standard of living.
2) Since his slice of the pie is deemed unjust, he is taxed and his 'pay' is subsequently decreased.
3) He moves the shells in the game around, and his standard of living is unchanged.
'How?', you might ask... Well imagine that he was planning on buying one of those new Mercedes he saw on TV. He was planning on doing this on his previous standard of living. Now, with the new taxes, he can't afford to do that, so his company will buy one instead. He'll drive it as part of his official duties as owner. Or he'll raise the rent on the building his company leases from his holding company. Or whatever other thing tickles his fancy, because as the owner he can do almost whatever he pleases.
And who pays for that car, rent, etc? The employees who are told that due to 'tough times' they aren't seeing raises that year.
So the money flows from those wages into the government's coffers, while those that made it happen vote themselves another pay increase...
The system is indeed flawed but 'tax the fat cat' does not and simply will not work.
But I don't want to step over your point, which is accurate. The conservative's main voter base (blue-collar, working class, middle-americans) are the ones hurt the most by Republican policy. And yet they vote for the same policies time after time out of a belief that liberal politicians are immoral, or anti-jesus, or hate families or something.
A couple points in this charged and juicy statement...
1) Those blue-collar folks work for the rich white men the Republicans represent. They know, and know it damn good and well, that if you make the fat cat suffer, he takes it out on them. This doesn't impact those in the breadlines as much, but the working man feels it, and feels it hard. Given every viable opportunity, the owner's take home pay will never decrease, taxes be damned. He'll just pay himself more, or up his lease rates to his shell company that he's leasing his own company's building from... There are limits, but 'screwing the man' invariably screws those he employs far more severely. That's why he's called 'the man' as opposed to merely 'a man'.
2) Liberal politicians are, indeed, immoral, to a Christian or similar. Liberals are indeed anti-Jesus, and they do appear to hate at least all white and/or middle class families. At least if you judge them by their policies, you would reasonably draw this conclusion. Primarily these views stem from wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the like. Jesus's book says these are bad, but liberals are cool with them, and in some cases want tax dollars to fund these activities. Further, they take money from the tax payers and give it to the non-payers, which hurts those with jobs far more than it hurts those without. And, referencing my point above, even when they aim for the top earners, they hurt the middle class.
These aren't necessarily my own views, but they do logically follow - once you step outside the mental disease that is partisanship, that is.
And yet, they're all calling out Obama for not being 'liberal enough'. But, nah, totally a myth.
Did he now? Why didn't he care enough to track his own money as well? Because he, rather like Fox, declined to tell the whole story, wherein the guy is connected to Viacom as well as to Fox.
Just let it go.
Well, perhaps you're wearing the 'Team Evil' shirt, whereas I'm wearing the 'Team Stupid' one. I see it as more ironic, really.
You were simply Fox bashing, because that's what the cool kids do. There's nothing wrong with it, but there's nothing special about it either.
It kind of does, though. I mean it's still ludicrous, but it lacks edge.
The line of reasoning is:
1) Guilanni rejected money from guy for terrorism-related reasons
2) Guy may be behind funding of mosque, implication being that it should likewise be rejected
Now compare the two punch lines...
3a) Guy also owns Fox, should be rejected /kneeslap...
or
3b) Guy owns everything.
Maybe I'm just more critical of comedy than you are, but I see the latter as far less humorous.
I didn't miss it. I'm only pointing out that when explained fully, it isn't necessarily funny any more.
A better angle would be that watching Stewart on Comedy Central would also be funding terror, via Viacom links to both AOL and Disney.
I didn't quote Steward, I quoted you. By the way, you just said it again...
thus if he really was funding terrorists, then watching Fox News would fund terrorists
This 'thus' is false, unless you also hold this true for anyone purchasing from any of the other companies as well.
Then again, by just watching Fox, you're funding terrorists.
This sounded pretty outrageous, so I looked it up, watched the video, etc.
Mr Stewart's question, meant to be comedic, sets up a false standard. Check out the list of the other holdings of this 'evil prince':
Citicorp
Citibank
AOL
Apple Inc.
MCI Inc.
Motorola
News Corporation Ltd
Four Seasons
Plaza Hotel
Savoy Hotel
Monte Carlo Grand Hotel
Euro Disney SCA
Colony Capital
That's just from the wikipedia writeup. I'm sure some actual research could yield far more recognizable names.
So, I'm led to ask this question: How much were you paid to write that on slashdot??
Just kidding, of course, but still, there it is.
You can always tell who the paid shills are because they're the ones who disagree with you.
Yes and no. They're typically the ones that disagree to a fault. Even the most staunch opponent will concede a single point from time to time. Shills never do.
Question: "Does the GOP pay friendly bloggers?"
Answer: "Does anyone NOT pay friendly bloggers? And if not, how stupid are they?"
How many of us regulars here can honestly say we've never encountered a paid shill right here on this little corner of the web? There are agents from Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and the US government. We encounter them all the time, and they're always easy to spot. If you think this is unique to this one website, you're insane.
So I say again, welcome to slashdot - or indeed the Internet - you must be new here...
This is all really light on details, but Neverwinter Nights had a dungeon master client, a level generator, etc. None of that here, so I'm guessing we're looking at a Guild Wars clone based on the 4e ruleset?
If not, I stand corrected. If so, a definitive meh.
Yeppers, that's how I see it as well. Point being, such an intelligence is likely to be a lot harder to detect at a distance.
Maybe the difference is that Amazon is seen as more of a threat than Apple?
Not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely asking.
Well, your lobbying must be working, because they're currently loading the entire trailer up onto train cars for the long-haul. Trucks pick them back up at the railhead and take them the last mile.