IMO, that's what backups are for. Seriously, once a file has been compromised in any way, it's forever suspect. AV s/w is best at identifying and stopping malware, and realistically, that's all *I* want it to do. If I end up with damaged files, then I can revert to my backups. If I don't have a good backup, then shame on me.
EXACTLY! And no amount of bitching about the PATRIOT act or any other so-called "infringement of our rights" is going to protect a dumb-ass from his own stupidity. The cops have a job to do and getting to the bottom of a situation is part of it. Being a pain in their ass just slows them down. Answer their questions directly and honestly and they'll leave you alone. If you *ARE* doing something wrong and aren't smart enough to exercise your rights, well, you know what Darwin said...
I admire your dedication to your chosen work/life. You're young enough to weather the things that make working long hours difficult. I personally have a strong work ethic and until recently, rarely worked fewer than 60 hours/week, but I came to a realization that totally changed the way I view my work:life ratio.
Last year, I lost my job because the company I worked for had closed due to offshoring. I spent at least 60 hours/week (not including my 1.5 - 2 hour/day commute) on the job for 7 years and I ended up unemployed. As I looked around, I saw so much of the same happening to our technology work force. People with 10 years into a job at 12 hours per day, losing their jobs to minimum-wage Indians\Malaysians\(insert offshoring citizen here) who only have to work 8 hours per day. I understand that companies want to save money by taking advantage of cheap labor overseas (a practice, by the way, that has occurred since the invention of the ship), but it's tough to see all of those jobs sent overseas after all of the extra (mostly unpaid)hours put in by my friends and colleagues (and me!).
It took me almost a year to find another job at half of my former salary and 1/4 the vacation time. When I took on the job, I made the conscious decision to still give 100% of my effort to my job, but only for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week. At my former job, I earned great salary and enjoyed many benefits, but when the plane went down in flames, most of the people who actually did any work were left without parachutes. I'm no longer investing my life into a company for the gain of C-level executives and Board Members. My salary is half of what it was, but my quality of life is improved exponentially. My only regret is that I hadn't done it sooner.
Wow! That is some ~freaky~ reasoning. There's a line between research and malice. Just for kicks, let's call that line "the law." Creating a virus is not illegal or immoral. Intent is not even an issue. _HOWEVER_ releasing said malware is both illegal and immoral.
Your differentiation between "Prankster hackers*" and "computer-criminal[s]" is all wrong. Again, intent is not an issue. When you break the law, you've _broken_ the law. It's pretty simple. A "prankster" who destroys your mailbox with a baseball bat as he's hanging out the window of a passing vehicle is certainly not a criminal on par with a murderer, but he's a criminal nonetheless. There is malicious damage done and losses are incurred when a prankster engages in these types of activities.
Putting crimes in perspective categories is fine, but excusing criminal behavior because it's 'not as bad as...' is just plain stupid.
"The company is writing complex encryption and decryption functionality directly into the product so customers don't have to procure security features from a third party..."
Kudos to Microsoft for working to secure their products at a lower level. Their "new" strategy is certainly better than their previous habit of releasing swiss cheese and then issuing corks (once a month) to plug the holes. However, their track record in the security arena gives one a reason to consider spending the extra $$ with a proven provider of security products when the situation depends upon it. Even if Microsoft's built-in functionality is stellar, the concept of Defense-in-Depth tells us that we may still need to "...procure security features from a third party..."
In the words of [my hero] Bruce Schneier: "Strong cryptography is very powerful when it is done right, but it is not a panacea. Focusing on the cryptographic algorithms while ignoring other aspects of security is like defending your house not by building a fence around it, but by putting an immense stake into the ground and hoping that the adversary runs right into it."
You act like China is some lawless country full of thieves and bandits running around pirating everything in sight, and somehow ignoring the influence of countries when buying/selling/trading with them.
OK. You caught me! I'm powerless to argue against the reasoning of a genius like you. It's obvious that you saw right through my sarcasm and can tell _exactly_ how *I* act from reading a 7-word sentence. What were those mods thinking when they scored my post +5, Funny? Apparently, they just aren't as sharp and insightful as you.
OK, your point is well taken, however, I think that the answer lies more in the middle of both of these. Security adversely affects functionality. This is true in *any* domain, physical or ethereal. The original (and still primary) purpose for computers is to serve as a business tool. When security impedes performance or functionality, users tend to find ways to bypass that security. Again, I'm sure you can think of many non-computer instances here: people who don't set their car alarms because they go off erroneously; having one of those steering wheel clubs but not using it because it's a pain... If something causes inconvenience, it is set aside or discarded. Truly secure systems are an inconvenience to users, so having truly secure systems is *not* going to work in most instances. The way to infosec Nirvana is most likely through somewhat secure systems being used by *well* educated people.
Quite a number of years ago, I (foolishly) purchased a $5,000 notebook PC (brand and retailer omitted). After several months, the removable CD drive stopped working. I called the tech support number where I was greeted by what sounded like a 14-year-old reading from a cue card. I explained to him the problem and that I had 10 years of experience in PC support and repair. I told him all of the things I had done to determine (positively) that the drive was dead. He began:
TSR: "Turn the computer off."
Me: "OK."
TSR: "Turn the computer on."
Me: "OK."
TSR: "Is it working now?"
Me: "Uh, no. It didn't work the last 25 times I started the computer either."
TSR: "OK. Turn the computer off."
Me: "OK."
TSR: "Turn the computer on."
Me: "I think I know where you're going, but I've got nothing better to do right now..."
TSR: "Is it working now?"
Me: "No!"
TSR: "OK. Turn the computer off, but don't turn it back on again."
Me: "Woo-hoo. That game was getting boring."
TSR: "OK, eject the CD Drive from the bay."
Me: "OK."
TSR: "OK, now slam it back in."
Me: "Huh? Excuse me?"
TSR: "Slam it back into the bay."
Me: "S-L-A-M?"
TSR: "That's right"
Me: "You realize that I paid $5,000 for this?"
TSR: "It's OK. Just slam the drive into the bay. Really hard."
Me: "...click..."
$5,000 notebook PC went back to the store for a full refund...
The point is, you still have that freedom. If you want Mickey Mouse, vote for Mickey Mouse. Just because Wesley Clark was eliminated as his chosen party's frontrunner doesn't mean you can't still vote for him. BTW, voting for him now isn't necessarily a waste of your vote. It sends a clear message to him and the Democrats who eliminated him. If Clark still receives a fair percentage of the vote even after his elimination, he may be encouraged to run again in 4 years, and his party may decide to support him more at that time. BTW, your beef should be with the Democratic party, not necessarily with voters in NH and IA. The candidate who survives the primary elections is the one who garners the most support from his party (lower case "p" and capital "P"). The party acts in *its own* best interest by supporting the candidate who has the best chance of defeating the other party's candidate. The idea is self-promotion of the "ruling" party's agenda.
So I encourage, no, I implore you not to throw your vote away by not using it at all. Put it to good use by sending a message. Believe it or not, they're listening.
" And what difference will that make? You don't honestly think that Kerry will roll back the US police state, do you?"
Police State?
Are you even *living* in this country? (BTW, if you aren't, then simply STFU and don't even bother reading the rest of this.)
Would you like to give some concrete examples of the "Freedom[s]" that are so rapidly being destroyed? I'd especially like you to explain how a system designed to identify and track terrorists is a destruction of freedom. FYI, these systems have existed for years on paper. Bringing technology into just makes them more useful. If you're so vehemently against this system, then tell me, what would you suggest as an alternative? Do think that bombing and invading a country, and overthrowing their government because some terrorists live there is a better idea?
And "YES" voting is _the_ most important freedom any citizen can have. The fact that we have two candidates who you (IMO, erroneously) think are identical says something about the people who respect that freedom and actually go out to the polls rather than sitting on their BigMac-stuffed asses watching Jerry Springer. Your opinion shows that you either a) Aren't American (in which case, I already told you to STFU and stop reading) or b) sat on your BigMac-stuffed ass watching Jerry Springer instead of voting for *your* candidate.
Our ancestors fought and died for the freedoms we have. So much has gone wrong (in the world, and in this country) since that time and our government is pretty f@#$'d up, but it's far from a police state and I'm so sick of non-voting jackasses whining about the voting choices and even more sick of non-Americans telling us about *our* government and its flaws.
Your comment: " If only the USSR had offered people two voting choices rather than one, they'd still be around today." tells me that you know nothing about Civics or Politics. Maybe you should have payed attention in class, instead of smoking crack like the mods who gave you a score of +5, Insightful.
"And it better be an open solution not a proprietary one."
Unfortunately, the only way a solution is going to be widely accepted enough to be useful is if, like you say, "a few major backers get behind the same thing..." and this most likely will not happen if the solution is not proprietary so that said backer(s) can make some solid $$ from it. The real problem with this is if the public has no input and is not allowed to scrutinize it, we'll likely see a plethora of holes for years after, essentially leaving us where we are right now. At this point, I'm just about ready to throw my hands up and start hoping for a whole new means of communication rather than wait for email to be fixed.
Well, actually, if you _read_ my argument (not my original statement, my follow-up to it), you would have noticed that I said that the problems with Windows has *less* to do with the software, and more to do with the users. Turning your own reasoning around on you: Seat belts do no good if they're not used. Microsoft issues plenty of patches and there are plenty of free tools available to ensure that the systems running their software are up-to date. Clicking a few buttons is all it takes. The users don't need to be educated to not get into "accidents". They need to be educated to wear the "seatbelts" that are provided to them.
OK, apparently my comment was misunderstood. I'm not saying(or implying) that Windows users are morons. What I mean is that the problems discussed in the article have less to do with the security of the Windows OS (and applications) than with the foolish behavior of its users. Most of the damage caused by worms and viruses today could be prevented by users who keep their OS and sofware up to date and exercise (reasonable) caution when browsing the web and reading email. So, I reiterate, Windows is not the Security Nightmare, it's users are.
[ NT is one of the only operating systems the FDA approves for class 2 (and higher, I think) medical devices.. ]
That's because the time it takes the FDA to validate/approve *anything* is longer than the number of Slashdotters in line to kick Darl McBride in the nuts. They'll be approving Windows 2003 at the release of Windows 2215.
[In fact, you might want to leave oral sex metaphors out of your letter altogether... the Democrats will just be embarrassed or defensive about it]
...or they'll perjure themselves during testimony about it, get impeached, claim that oral sex is not actually sex, and then make millions from a book and speaking engagements...
[Myth. Wages are on par when you take into consideration the health insurance an American pays (after tax) that is rolled into our socialized medicare system (pre-tax).]
Ummmm... Last I checked, my health insurance was a pre-tax expense.
[socialized medicine is good, except when you need surgery or have cancer.
It works a helluvalot better than in the states, unless you're in the wealthiest 20% who can afford top-of-the-line private healthcare. Or are you forgetting that not everyone is rich? Its easy to forget about all those homeless people you have, eh? I mean, they're all tucked away on those street corners, and after a lifetime of ignoring them, you probably just plain forget they're there, right?]
Is that why most of the Canadiens who I know come down to the states for the more critical medical procedures? The original poster was talking about *quality of care*, not cost. Oh, and I've seen plenty of sick homeless people on the streets of Montreal. Just because they are entitled to free health care doesn't mean they use it.
[80% of all gun deaths in Canada are suicides. That's pretty interesting, don't you think? If 5 people show up in a Canadian morgue, dead of gunshot wounds, 4 of them did it to themselves and committed suicide.]
Well, that says volumes about the quality of the free mental health care...
I'm probably just throwing gasoline on this fire, but...
I'm won't argue with your feelings/beliefs about privacy. I respect your opinions and your right to have them. I *will*, however, argue your point that police power is always abused. Apparently, you do not know very many police officers. I do, and I will say that there are certainly abuses that occur, but to use the word 'always' is not only inflammatory, it's irresponsible and wrong. In my many encounters (good and bad) with police officers, most of the officers were very professional and behaved according to the law and codes of conduct to which they have been sworn to uphold, regardless of the behavior of the person with whom they were dealing. Just because FOX new s shows a weekly clip of a police officer behaving badly doesn't mean you should form a generalized opinion of a large group of individuals. We do not need to be careful about extending powers because they are ALWAYS abused. We need to be careful because they COULD BE abused.
Exactly! However, I don't care if I pay the same, or maybe even a little more if I can choose my own channels from their lineup. I basically have to pay $50/month for an "expanded" package so that I can see two of the 18 channels that are included in it. I might even subscribe to HBO if I didn't have to pay for the three other crappy channels that I have to take with it. Let *us* decide what we want and we might not even bitch and moan the next time they tell us our rates are going up.
I'm wondering how many execs are actually paying attention to the fact that these plans are essentially useless. I have spoken with at least a dozen, who blindly renewed their contracts without ever checking to see if there was a return on their investment. Funny (not in a ha-ha way) how as an IT Manager, one gets the 3rd degree when asking for the funds to upgrade a data backup system because the CTO fails to see the business case, yet they blow their budgets on "software assurance" programs that provide no value whatsoever.
I appreciate the sentiment. Actually, after 9 months of unemployment/self-employment, I did eventually land a job at about half of my former salary and benefits. The problem I'm finding is not that there are no jobs, it's that it's too hard to even get a foot in the door. Most of the hiring managers to whom I've spoken appear to have absolutely no understanding of what we do and essentially disqualify candidates based upon the schools they attended or their GPA. I've got 13+ years of solid experience and a stellar list of references. I fail to understand how the school I attended and the grades I garnered 13 years ago are relevant today.
Slashdot Mirror
IMO, that's what backups are for. Seriously, once a file has been compromised in any way, it's forever suspect. AV s/w is best at identifying and stopping malware, and realistically, that's all *I* want it to do. If I end up with damaged files, then I can revert to my backups. If I don't have a good backup, then shame on me.
EXACTLY! And no amount of bitching about the PATRIOT act or any other so-called "infringement of our rights" is going to protect a dumb-ass from his own stupidity. The cops have a job to do and getting to the bottom of a situation is part of it. Being a pain in their ass just slows them down. Answer their questions directly and honestly and they'll leave you alone. If you *ARE* doing something wrong and aren't smart enough to exercise your rights, well, you know what Darwin said...
I admire your dedication to your chosen work/life. You're young enough to weather the things that make working long hours difficult. I personally have a strong work ethic and until recently, rarely worked fewer than 60 hours/week, but I came to a realization that totally changed the way I view my work:life ratio.
Last year, I lost my job because the company I worked for had closed due to offshoring. I spent at least 60 hours/week (not including my 1.5 - 2 hour/day commute) on the job for 7 years and I ended up unemployed. As I looked around, I saw so much of the same happening to our technology work force. People with 10 years into a job at 12 hours per day, losing their jobs to minimum-wage Indians\Malaysians\(insert offshoring citizen here) who only have to work 8 hours per day. I understand that companies want to save money by taking advantage of cheap labor overseas (a practice, by the way, that has occurred since the invention of the ship), but it's tough to see all of those jobs sent overseas after all of the extra (mostly unpaid)hours put in by my friends and colleagues (and me!).
It took me almost a year to find another job at half of my former salary and 1/4 the vacation time. When I took on the job, I made the conscious decision to still give 100% of my effort to my job, but only for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week. At my former job, I earned great salary and enjoyed many benefits, but when the plane went down in flames, most of the people who actually did any work were left without parachutes. I'm no longer investing my life into a company for the gain of C-level executives and Board Members. My salary is half of what it was, but my quality of life is improved exponentially. My only regret is that I hadn't done it sooner.
Wow! That is some ~freaky~ reasoning. There's a line between research and malice. Just for kicks, let's call that line "the law." Creating a virus is not illegal or immoral. Intent is not even an issue. _HOWEVER_ releasing said malware is both illegal and immoral.
Your differentiation between "Prankster hackers*" and "computer-criminal[s]" is all wrong. Again, intent is not an issue. When you break the law, you've _broken_ the law. It's pretty simple. A "prankster" who destroys your mailbox with a baseball bat as he's hanging out the window of a passing vehicle is certainly not a criminal on par with a murderer, but he's a criminal nonetheless. There is malicious damage done and losses are incurred when a prankster engages in these types of activities.
Putting crimes in perspective categories is fine, but excusing criminal behavior because it's 'not as bad as...' is just plain stupid.
... doesn't mean we shouldn't.
"The company is writing complex encryption and decryption functionality directly into the product so customers don't have to procure security features from a third party..."
Kudos to Microsoft for working to secure their products at a lower level. Their "new" strategy is certainly better than their previous habit of releasing swiss cheese and then issuing corks (once a month) to plug the holes. However, their track record in the security arena gives one a reason to consider spending the extra $$ with a proven provider of security products when the situation depends upon it. Even if Microsoft's built-in functionality is stellar, the concept of Defense-in-Depth tells us that we may still need to "...procure security features from a third party..."
In the words of [my hero] Bruce Schneier: "Strong cryptography is very powerful when it is done right, but it is not a panacea. Focusing on the cryptographic algorithms while ignoring other aspects of security is like defending your house not by building a fence around it, but by putting an immense stake into the ground and hoping that the adversary runs right into it."
You act like China is some lawless country full of thieves and bandits running around pirating everything in sight, and somehow ignoring the influence of countries when buying/selling/trading with them.
OK. You caught me! I'm powerless to argue against the reasoning of a genius like you. It's obvious that you saw right through my sarcasm and can tell _exactly_ how *I* act from reading a 7-word sentence. What were those mods thinking when they scored my post +5, Funny? Apparently, they just aren't as sharp and insightful as you.
Welcome to my friends list...
...Chinese firms growing tired of paying foreign patent fees.
Are they even _paying_ patent fees now?
OK, your point is well taken, however, I think that the answer lies more in the middle of both of these. Security adversely affects functionality. This is true in *any* domain, physical or ethereal. The original (and still primary) purpose for computers is to serve as a business tool. When security impedes performance or functionality, users tend to find ways to bypass that security. Again, I'm sure you can think of many non-computer instances here: people who don't set their car alarms because they go off erroneously; having one of those steering wheel clubs but not using it because it's a pain... If something causes inconvenience, it is set aside or discarded. Truly secure systems are an inconvenience to users, so having truly secure systems is *not* going to work in most instances. The way to infosec Nirvana is most likely through somewhat secure systems being used by *well* educated people.
Thanks for your insights.
Quite a number of years ago, I (foolishly) purchased a $5,000 notebook PC (brand and retailer omitted). After several months, the removable CD drive stopped working. I called the tech support number where I was greeted by what sounded like a 14-year-old reading from a cue card. I explained to him the problem and that I had 10 years of experience in PC support and repair. I told him all of the things I had done to determine (positively) that the drive was dead. He began:
TSR: "Turn the computer off."
Me: "OK."
TSR: "Turn the computer on."
Me: "OK."
TSR: "Is it working now?"
Me: "Uh, no. It didn't work the last 25 times I started the computer either."
TSR: "OK. Turn the computer off."
Me: "OK."
TSR: "Turn the computer on."
Me: "I think I know where you're going, but I've got nothing better to do right now..."
TSR: "Is it working now?"
Me: "No!"
TSR: "OK. Turn the computer off, but don't turn it back on again."
Me: "Woo-hoo. That game was getting boring."
TSR: "OK, eject the CD Drive from the bay."
Me: "OK."
TSR: "OK, now slam it back in."
Me: "Huh? Excuse me?"
TSR: "Slam it back into the bay."
Me: "S-L-A-M?"
TSR: "That's right"
Me: "You realize that I paid $5,000 for this?"
TSR: "It's OK. Just slam the drive into the bay. Really hard."
Me: "...click..."
$5,000 notebook PC went back to the store for a full refund...
The point is, you still have that freedom. If you want Mickey Mouse, vote for Mickey Mouse. Just because Wesley Clark was eliminated as his chosen party's frontrunner doesn't mean you can't still vote for him. BTW, voting for him now isn't necessarily a waste of your vote. It sends a clear message to him and the Democrats who eliminated him. If Clark still receives a fair percentage of the vote even after his elimination, he may be encouraged to run again in 4 years, and his party may decide to support him more at that time. BTW, your beef should be with the Democratic party, not necessarily with voters in NH and IA. The candidate who survives the primary elections is the one who garners the most support from his party (lower case "p" and capital "P"). The party acts in *its own* best interest by supporting the candidate who has the best chance of defeating the other party's candidate. The idea is self-promotion of the "ruling" party's agenda.
So I encourage, no, I implore you not to throw your vote away by not using it at all. Put it to good use by sending a message. Believe it or not, they're listening.
" And what difference will that make? You don't honestly think that Kerry will roll back the US police state, do you?"
Police State?
Are you even *living* in this country? (BTW, if you aren't, then simply STFU and don't even bother reading the rest of this.)
Would you like to give some concrete examples of the "Freedom[s]" that are so rapidly being destroyed? I'd especially like you to explain how a system designed to identify and track terrorists is a destruction of freedom. FYI, these systems have existed for years on paper. Bringing technology into just makes them more useful. If you're so vehemently against this system, then tell me, what would you suggest as an alternative? Do think that bombing and invading a country, and overthrowing their government because some terrorists live there is a better idea?
And "YES" voting is _the_ most important freedom any citizen can have. The fact that we have two candidates who you (IMO, erroneously) think are identical says something about the people who respect that freedom and actually go out to the polls rather than sitting on their BigMac-stuffed asses watching Jerry Springer. Your opinion shows that you either a) Aren't American (in which case, I already told you to STFU and stop reading) or b) sat on your BigMac-stuffed ass watching Jerry Springer instead of voting for *your* candidate.
Our ancestors fought and died for the freedoms we have. So much has gone wrong (in the world, and in this country) since that time and our government is pretty f@#$'d up, but it's far from a police state and I'm so sick of non-voting jackasses whining about the voting choices and even more sick of non-Americans telling us about *our* government and its flaws.
Your comment: " If only the USSR had offered people two voting choices rather than one, they'd still be around today." tells me that you know nothing about Civics or Politics. Maybe you should have payed attention in class, instead of smoking crack like the mods who gave you a score of +5, Insightful.
"And it better be an open solution not a proprietary one."
Unfortunately, the only way a solution is going to be widely accepted enough to be useful is if, like you say, "a few major backers get behind the same thing..." and this most likely will not happen if the solution is not proprietary so that said backer(s) can make some solid $$ from it. The real problem with this is if the public has no input and is not allowed to scrutinize it, we'll likely see a plethora of holes for years after, essentially leaving us where we are right now. At this point, I'm just about ready to throw my hands up and start hoping for a whole new means of communication rather than wait for email to be fixed.
Well, actually, if you _read_ my argument (not my original statement, my follow-up to it), you would have noticed that I said that the problems with Windows has *less* to do with the software, and more to do with the users. Turning your own reasoning around on you: Seat belts do no good if they're not used. Microsoft issues plenty of patches and there are plenty of free tools available to ensure that the systems running their software are up-to date. Clicking a few buttons is all it takes. The users don't need to be educated to not get into "accidents". They need to be educated to wear the "seatbelts" that are provided to them.
OK, apparently my comment was misunderstood. I'm not saying(or implying) that Windows users are morons. What I mean is that the problems discussed in the article have less to do with the security of the Windows OS (and applications) than with the foolish behavior of its users. Most of the damage caused by worms and viruses today could be prevented by users who keep their OS and sofware up to date and exercise (reasonable) caution when browsing the web and reading email. So, I reiterate, Windows is not the Security Nightmare, it's users are.
I'm sorry, but the security nightmare isn't Windows. It's the non-thinking morons who use Windows.
Huh?! How did this get modded up? Yeah, OK. You're smarter than us, Anonymous Eunich, er, Coward.
If you're going to assert the superiority of your intellect, at least have the gonads to not do it anonymously.
[ NT is one of the only operating systems the FDA approves for class 2 (and higher, I think) medical devices.. ]
That's because the time it takes the FDA to validate/approve *anything* is longer than the number of Slashdotters in line to kick Darl McBride in the nuts. They'll be approving Windows 2003 at the release of Windows 2215.
[In fact, you might want to leave oral sex metaphors out of your letter altogether ... the Democrats will just be embarrassed or defensive about it]
...or they'll perjure themselves during testimony about it, get impeached, claim that oral sex is not actually sex, and then make millions from a book and speaking engagements...
[Myth. Wages are on par when you take into consideration the health insurance an American pays (after tax) that is rolled into our socialized medicare system (pre-tax).]
Ummmm... Last I checked, my health insurance was a pre-tax expense.
[socialized medicine is good, except when you need surgery or have cancer.
It works a helluvalot better than in the states, unless you're in the wealthiest 20% who can afford top-of-the-line private healthcare. Or are you forgetting that not everyone is rich? Its easy to forget about all those homeless people you have, eh? I mean, they're all tucked away on those street corners, and after a lifetime of ignoring them, you probably just plain forget they're there, right?]
Is that why most of the Canadiens who I know come down to the states for the more critical medical procedures? The original poster was talking about *quality of care*, not cost. Oh, and I've seen plenty of sick homeless people on the streets of Montreal. Just because they are entitled to free health care doesn't mean they use it.
[80% of all gun deaths in Canada are suicides. That's pretty interesting, don't you think? If 5 people show up in a Canadian morgue, dead of gunshot wounds, 4 of them did it to themselves and committed suicide.]
Well, that says volumes about the quality of the free mental health care...
I'm probably just throwing gasoline on this fire, but...
I'm won't argue with your feelings/beliefs about privacy. I respect your opinions and your right to have them. I *will*, however, argue your point that police power is always abused. Apparently, you do not know very many police officers. I do, and I will say that there are certainly abuses that occur, but to use the word 'always' is not only inflammatory, it's irresponsible and wrong. In my many encounters (good and bad) with police officers, most of the officers were very professional and behaved according to the law and codes of conduct to which they have been sworn to uphold, regardless of the behavior of the person with whom they were dealing. Just because FOX new s shows a weekly clip of a police officer behaving badly doesn't mean you should form a generalized opinion of a large group of individuals.
We do not need to be careful about extending powers because they are ALWAYS abused. We need to be careful because they COULD BE abused.
Exactly! However, I don't care if I pay the same, or maybe even a little more if I can choose my own channels from their lineup. I basically have to pay $50/month for an "expanded" package so that I can see two of the 18 channels that are included in it. I might even subscribe to HBO if I didn't have to pay for the three other crappy channels that I have to take with it. Let *us* decide what we want and we might not even bitch and moan the next time they tell us our rates are going up.
Mobile phones aren't annoying. It's the insensitive and ignorant users who are annoying.
I'm wondering how many execs are actually paying attention to the fact that these plans are essentially useless. I have spoken with at least a dozen, who blindly renewed their contracts without ever checking to see if there was a return on their investment. Funny (not in a ha-ha way) how as an IT Manager, one gets the 3rd degree when asking for the funds to upgrade a data backup system because the CTO fails to see the business case, yet they blow their budgets on "software assurance" programs that provide no value whatsoever.
Why didn't I become a plumber?
I appreciate the sentiment. Actually, after 9 months of unemployment/self-employment, I did eventually land a job at about half of my former salary and benefits. The problem I'm finding is not that there are no jobs, it's that it's too hard to even get a foot in the door. Most of the hiring managers to whom I've spoken appear to have absolutely no understanding of what we do and essentially disqualify candidates based upon the schools they attended or their GPA. I've got 13+ years of solid experience and a stellar list of references. I fail to understand how the school I attended and the grades I garnered 13 years ago are relevant today.