i think it's worth pointing out that everyone here reading this is likely to be a rational thinker, I would dispute that premise. For example I have read many posts here that support religious views.
Okay, everybody but you. Is that better?
In much of the EU, hate speech is indeed illegal
And once it is made illegal, then you get to start adding to the list of what is considered Hate Speech to include stuff such as whatever is said by someone whose philosophy or ideas you disagree with.
Gotta love slashdot. Defending downloading and playing games without paying for them and then having the nerve to complain that game developers aren't putting any money into developing innovative titles.
My university didn't support Linux...nor Mac, nor Windows. I was one of very few people that actually had a PC. 1.77 MHz was the speed of the day. AT&T donated our university their version of Unix. Later, I switched to another university. PCs were becoming a little more mainstream. We actually had a PC lab or two around campus. Most of the non-PC computers were running Solaris, though most access points were just dumb terminals connected to a mainframe. There were some Macs, but they were not running MacOS, but some other variant of Unix whose name I forget. They were used for learning how to write assembly on 68000 series processors. At work, we used PrimeOS and most of us were on terminals, although we did have a few RISC based IBMs running AIX. I picked up Redhat Linux somewhere in that timeframe and installed it at home, but decided that Solaris was preferable, although at the time it was not free. I ended up eventually buying an UltraSPARC II which I still have, though I haven't started it up in years.
I would love for them to spend the money on helicopters. Around here, the helicopters are not paid for out of police or any emergency service funding, they are paid for by the person who was bleeding out on the side of the road. One trip costs about $45,000 (just going by the couple of people I know who have used the service), and you also have to pay for an ambulance, because they can't just wheel you in a gurney from the helicopter to the hospital, they have to put you in an ambulance for 100 feet, which is probably even more traumatic to an injured person and takes longer, but it sure pays better. Then the person who would have died at the side of the road gets to maybe survive, and 200% of their paycheck every month has to go toward paying back the helicopter ride.
Really, though, I don't want the government paying for everybody to take the helicopter to the hospital. That should be paid for by the patient, but instead of it costing $45,000, they should make it cost about double what a regular helicopter ride would have cost. In other words, about $600 total.
Well, that is your anecdote. My anecdote is that I personally know three people who have been killed by drunk drivers. And I know from watching the news and reading the paper that in my relatively small metro area, a drunk person kills someone almost every single day. Alcohol was a factor in 37% of fatalities in my state, and my state is only slightly above the average. So, by ending drunk driving we could save 15,000 lives a year in the U.S. That seems like a significant issue.
Well, they tell you two hours, and I have had occasion where it took almost that entire amount of time. The last flight I took, I got there about an hour and change ahead of my flight, and nearly missed it. I also fly out of a regional airport. Security was packed, and probably would have taken about 30 minutes, but they were letting people in front of us who were about to miss their plane because they only got there 45 minutes ahead of their flight, so as a consequence, I almost missed mine.
I've also had the front counter delay me about 45 minutes because of a screwup on their side and I asked them to let the gate know I was coming. They did not. I was severely chastised by the gate personnel because they had to reopen the jetway door. I told them the problem was the counter people and that they were supposed to call and tell them I was coming. To add insult to injury, I also had been given a special ticket by the front counter that automatically made me have to go through extra security. I had to add that airline to the list of airlines that I won't fly on. There are no longer any airlines at my airport that are on my list of acceptable airlines to fly on.
You don't understand. If someone brought in a large bottle of water and a 12 volt car battery, they could separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in the water and then recombine them and make a small flash.
I, for one, first thought of the Simpsons, where they nuclear plant is xraying people as they come in, and instantly recognized a hunched over ape like skeleton as Homer.
And does that assessment include the color of your skin? Because that's what it really sounds like they're talking about.
I know this is an unpopular opinion to have, but if statistics show that people with a certain color of skin have been more likely to blow up a plane in the past, why would you not use that? Just because it is not politically correct? I think it is stupid to ignore a statistic that could save lives just because some people might get offended.
Pattern recognition is a skill that we have developed over millions of years and it has kept us from becoming a footnote in history. Why should we throw that away?
I'm not saying we should anal probe every Saudi that gets on a plane, I'm just saying exercise whatever extra precaution the statistics bear up. And if other statistics are better indicators, obviously we should give them more weight.
Even more amazing is that the flight must take negative one hours or less because you are supposed to be at the airport two hours before a domestic flight.
Well, there is no reason why the brute force thing should even enter into it. Any properly designed system will not allow you to try to login again within1 second. Nobody can type that fast anyway. So any kind of brute force attempt is going to take billions of years. All of the IT security is just like TSA, pure theater. It costs us time, money, and decreases security to have the kinds of password rules and expiration that are considered "best practices".
But Palin's quote was that he was "ringin' the bells and firin' the guns" when he warned them. It seems unlikely that after Paul Revere's capture by the British they still allowed him access to bells and guns during his interrogation.
You're right. It is much more likely that she was not implying that he did all this simultaneously or even implying that it was Paul Revere himself that did the gun firing and church bell ringing.
Somewhere along the line, I was taught that he said "the redcoats are coming". I do not make any claim that that is correct, just what I was taught in school, or maybe Bugs Bunny.
Most likely not, mostly because she has made decisions like quitting her job as Governor for reasons that do not sit well with me.
How do you feel about how Obama left his position as an Illinois Senator?
Mod parent up. Nevermind different sites, we have different password requirements on different systems WITHIN MY OWN COMPANY. Our expense reporting system, bug tracking system, OS login, and intranet login all have different and incompatible password requirements, and some of these also expire, requiring you think of a NEW one that fits the format. So within my own company I have to remember 5 different passwords (plus the other system passwords, some of which I also need to know to perform my job). Then externally, I probably have 30 to 40 sites that I have accounts on that I use on a regular basis. Some of these not only have crazy password requirements, but some have non-choosable usernames, like a number or a name that they assign you. Sometimes they assign you a password as well and won't let you change it.
So it comes down to sticky notes, or a trusted source to keep all your passwords. I have chosen the latter. I have a password file that I keep on my own domain. However, even that is not foolproof, because I don't host the sever myself, so somebody at the host, or somebody that compromised the host could get in and look at that file (I have permissions set to keep the casual viewer out, but these people would obviously have admin permission). I still have security through obscurity, as they would have to recognize the file for what it was, while wading through thousands of uninteresting files, and then figure out what user and password goes with what site, which is somewhat cryptic, but recognizable by me.
As an aside, why does talking about my file which is hosted on a unix based system make me want to use vi editor keys when typing into slashdot?
As an employee, I have been told by my last three employers that every employee is in sales. The obvious followup question to that is "what is my commission rate?" If you don't want to be asked about commission, don't tell them that they are salespeople.
Can't? Or Won't? Lying is wrong. It is beneficial in the short run for the individual that does it, but is harmful in the long run to the customer and the servicing company. I leave the lies to my supervisor. I won't lie even when asked to do so. I will just say nothing at all, rather than lie to a customer.
One of my buddies at work got in big trouble for accidentally exposing a lie that our company told a customer, and he didn't even know that he was doing it. The management was bringing the customer through the operations area, with no warning to the people in operations, and brought them to my buddy to show them how our remote keying worked. While observing this, the customer was able to observe that the keyer was able to see the whole image, while the customer had been told that we only sent snippets of the area that we want keyed (technically not possible with the 3rd party software we use). My Buddy got in big trouble for exposing this lie without even knowing that they had lied. If they had told the truth, then nobody has to worry about what they can or can't show a customer. Of course, if they had told the truth, we probably wouldn't have gotten the sale, because our salesman are not good enough to sell our system without lying about the capabilities.
Every single engineer at all of the companies I have worked for in the last 18 years has had to have face time and phone time with customers and part of their job requirement was to be able to interface with customers. Granted, that is a limited group of only a couple of hundred people, so my evidence is anecdotal, but it seems like if engineers were as socially inept as claimed, then at least one of the engineers I have run into should fit into that category , and so far, none have.
In the long run honesty still wins
That may be true, but in the short run, a company will not survive unless their sales people either a) stoop to telling the same lies as the competition or b) have such fantastically good salespeople that they are able to convince the potential customer that the competition is lying.
B is surprisingly hard to do because most companies really have a hard time believing that someone would out and out LIE to them.
Unfortunately, dishonesty in sales becomes a race to them bottom.
These days, what I see a lot is "Tell them anything to get them on our product, because once they switch it will be painful and expensive to switch back, and we can take our time creating all the stuff we told them we already had." I am ashamed to admit that my company also does this, as have the last two companies I worked for. I do my small part to try to make this not happen, but it is mostly an exercise in tilting at windmills.
As long as the provider was able to meet HIPAA regulations, SOX, EHNAC ISO 9001 and whatever other accreditations your particular line of business required there would be no regulatory reason not to use a cloud provider. Now, your business will likely suffer because knowing the healthcare business as I do, few of your potential customers will want to do business with you if you don't keep your data in-house.
We have a hard enough time just trying to convince customers that it is okay that we host our datacenter in a 3rd party dedicated service provider facility 4 blocks away and not in our own office building (which loses power about 4 times a year).
Wow, I guess I am different from people, because I use cloud services as a convenient method of having the information online to share with people, and absolutely NOT as a place to store my data. My data belongs on my computer and any of that data that I feel like sharing may go on the internet. I have no interest in any kind of device that has minimal local storage and immediately uploads all data to the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
i think it's worth pointing out that everyone here reading this is likely to be a rational thinker,
I would dispute that premise. For example I have read many posts here that support religious views.
Okay, everybody but you. Is that better?
In much of the EU, hate speech is indeed illegal
And once it is made illegal, then you get to start adding to the list of what is considered Hate Speech to include stuff such as whatever is said by someone whose philosophy or ideas you disagree with.
Gotta love slashdot. Defending downloading and playing games without paying for them and then having the nerve to complain that game developers aren't putting any money into developing innovative titles.
My university didn't support Linux...nor Mac, nor Windows. I was one of very few people that actually had a PC. 1.77 MHz was the speed of the day. AT&T donated our university their version of Unix. Later, I switched to another university. PCs were becoming a little more mainstream. We actually had a PC lab or two around campus. Most of the non-PC computers were running Solaris, though most access points were just dumb terminals connected to a mainframe. There were some Macs, but they were not running MacOS, but some other variant of Unix whose name I forget. They were used for learning how to write assembly on 68000 series processors. At work, we used PrimeOS and most of us were on terminals, although we did have a few RISC based IBMs running AIX. I picked up Redhat Linux somewhere in that timeframe and installed it at home, but decided that Solaris was preferable, although at the time it was not free. I ended up eventually buying an UltraSPARC II which I still have, though I haven't started it up in years.
I would love for them to spend the money on helicopters. Around here, the helicopters are not paid for out of police or any emergency service funding, they are paid for by the person who was bleeding out on the side of the road. One trip costs about $45,000 (just going by the couple of people I know who have used the service), and you also have to pay for an ambulance, because they can't just wheel you in a gurney from the helicopter to the hospital, they have to put you in an ambulance for 100 feet, which is probably even more traumatic to an injured person and takes longer, but it sure pays better. Then the person who would have died at the side of the road gets to maybe survive, and 200% of their paycheck every month has to go toward paying back the helicopter ride.
Really, though, I don't want the government paying for everybody to take the helicopter to the hospital. That should be paid for by the patient, but instead of it costing $45,000, they should make it cost about double what a regular helicopter ride would have cost. In other words, about $600 total.
Republicans don't pass Insurance Bailouts...I mean socialized healthcare.
Well, that is your anecdote. My anecdote is that I personally know three people who have been killed by drunk drivers. And I know from watching the news and reading the paper that in my relatively small metro area, a drunk person kills someone almost every single day. Alcohol was a factor in 37% of fatalities in my state, and my state is only slightly above the average. So, by ending drunk driving we could save 15,000 lives a year in the U.S. That seems like a significant issue.
Well, they tell you two hours, and I have had occasion where it took almost that entire amount of time. The last flight I took, I got there about an hour and change ahead of my flight, and nearly missed it. I also fly out of a regional airport. Security was packed, and probably would have taken about 30 minutes, but they were letting people in front of us who were about to miss their plane because they only got there 45 minutes ahead of their flight, so as a consequence, I almost missed mine.
I've also had the front counter delay me about 45 minutes because of a screwup on their side and I asked them to let the gate know I was coming. They did not. I was severely chastised by the gate personnel because they had to reopen the jetway door. I told them the problem was the counter people and that they were supposed to call and tell them I was coming. To add insult to injury, I also had been given a special ticket by the front counter that automatically made me have to go through extra security. I had to add that airline to the list of airlines that I won't fly on. There are no longer any airlines at my airport that are on my list of acceptable airlines to fly on.
You don't understand. If someone brought in a large bottle of water and a 12 volt car battery, they could separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in the water and then recombine them and make a small flash.
I, for one, first thought of the Simpsons, where they nuclear plant is xraying people as they come in, and instantly recognized a hunched over ape like skeleton as Homer.
And does that assessment include the color of your skin? Because that's what it really sounds like they're talking about.
I know this is an unpopular opinion to have, but if statistics show that people with a certain color of skin have been more likely to blow up a plane in the past, why would you not use that? Just because it is not politically correct? I think it is stupid to ignore a statistic that could save lives just because some people might get offended.
Pattern recognition is a skill that we have developed over millions of years and it has kept us from becoming a footnote in history. Why should we throw that away?
I'm not saying we should anal probe every Saudi that gets on a plane, I'm just saying exercise whatever extra precaution the statistics bear up. And if other statistics are better indicators, obviously we should give them more weight.
Even more amazing is that the flight must take negative one hours or less because you are supposed to be at the airport two hours before a domestic flight.
Well, there is no reason why the brute force thing should even enter into it. Any properly designed system will not allow you to try to login again within1 second. Nobody can type that fast anyway. So any kind of brute force attempt is going to take billions of years. All of the IT security is just like TSA, pure theater. It costs us time, money, and decreases security to have the kinds of password rules and expiration that are considered "best practices".
By giving people the power, to share we're making the world, more transparent
Obviously not Mark Zuckerberg.
I'm guessing William Shatner.
But Palin's quote was that he was "ringin' the bells and firin' the guns" when he warned them. It seems unlikely that after Paul Revere's capture by the British they still allowed him access to bells and guns during his interrogation.
You're right. It is much more likely that she was not implying that he did all this simultaneously or even implying that it was Paul Revere himself that did the gun firing and church bell ringing.
Somewhere along the line, I was taught that he said "the redcoats are coming". I do not make any claim that that is correct, just what I was taught in school, or maybe Bugs Bunny.
Most likely not, mostly because she has made decisions like quitting her job as Governor for reasons that do not sit well with me.
How do you feel about how Obama left his position as an Illinois Senator?
Mod parent up. Nevermind different sites, we have different password requirements on different systems WITHIN MY OWN COMPANY. Our expense reporting system, bug tracking system, OS login, and intranet login all have different and incompatible password requirements, and some of these also expire, requiring you think of a NEW one that fits the format. So within my own company I have to remember 5 different passwords (plus the other system passwords, some of which I also need to know to perform my job). Then externally, I probably have 30 to 40 sites that I have accounts on that I use on a regular basis. Some of these not only have crazy password requirements, but some have non-choosable usernames, like a number or a name that they assign you. Sometimes they assign you a password as well and won't let you change it.
So it comes down to sticky notes, or a trusted source to keep all your passwords. I have chosen the latter. I have a password file that I keep on my own domain. However, even that is not foolproof, because I don't host the sever myself, so somebody at the host, or somebody that compromised the host could get in and look at that file (I have permissions set to keep the casual viewer out, but these people would obviously have admin permission). I still have security through obscurity, as they would have to recognize the file for what it was, while wading through thousands of uninteresting files, and then figure out what user and password goes with what site, which is somewhat cryptic, but recognizable by me.
As an aside, why does talking about my file which is hosted on a unix based system make me want to use vi editor keys when typing into slashdot?
As an employee, I have been told by my last three employers that every employee is in sales. The obvious followup question to that is "what is my commission rate?" If you don't want to be asked about commission, don't tell them that they are salespeople.
Can't? Or Won't? Lying is wrong. It is beneficial in the short run for the individual that does it, but is harmful in the long run to the customer and the servicing company. I leave the lies to my supervisor. I won't lie even when asked to do so. I will just say nothing at all, rather than lie to a customer.
One of my buddies at work got in big trouble for accidentally exposing a lie that our company told a customer, and he didn't even know that he was doing it. The management was bringing the customer through the operations area, with no warning to the people in operations, and brought them to my buddy to show them how our remote keying worked. While observing this, the customer was able to observe that the keyer was able to see the whole image, while the customer had been told that we only sent snippets of the area that we want keyed (technically not possible with the 3rd party software we use). My Buddy got in big trouble for exposing this lie without even knowing that they had lied. If they had told the truth, then nobody has to worry about what they can or can't show a customer. Of course, if they had told the truth, we probably wouldn't have gotten the sale, because our salesman are not good enough to sell our system without lying about the capabilities.
Every single engineer at all of the companies I have worked for in the last 18 years has had to have face time and phone time with customers and part of their job requirement was to be able to interface with customers. Granted, that is a limited group of only a couple of hundred people, so my evidence is anecdotal, but it seems like if engineers were as socially inept as claimed, then at least one of the engineers I have run into should fit into that category , and so far, none have.
In the long run honesty still wins
That may be true, but in the short run, a company will not survive unless their sales people either a) stoop to telling the same lies as the competition or b) have such fantastically good salespeople that they are able to convince the potential customer that the competition is lying.
B is surprisingly hard to do because most companies really have a hard time believing that someone would out and out LIE to them.
Unfortunately, dishonesty in sales becomes a race to them bottom.
These days, what I see a lot is "Tell them anything to get them on our product, because once they switch it will be painful and expensive to switch back, and we can take our time creating all the stuff we told them we already had." I am ashamed to admit that my company also does this, as have the last two companies I worked for. I do my small part to try to make this not happen, but it is mostly an exercise in tilting at windmills.
Why is American forced to list on Orbitz and not Southwest?
Is this step 1 in reregulating the airline industry?
As long as the provider was able to meet HIPAA regulations, SOX, EHNAC ISO 9001 and whatever other accreditations your particular line of business required there would be no regulatory reason not to use a cloud provider. Now, your business will likely suffer because knowing the healthcare business as I do, few of your potential customers will want to do business with you if you don't keep your data in-house.
We have a hard enough time just trying to convince customers that it is okay that we host our datacenter in a 3rd party dedicated service provider facility 4 blocks away and not in our own office building (which loses power about 4 times a year).
Wow, I guess I am different from people, because I use cloud services as a convenient method of having the information online to share with people, and absolutely NOT as a place to store my data. My data belongs on my computer and any of that data that I feel like sharing may go on the internet. I have no interest in any kind of device that has minimal local storage and immediately uploads all data to the internet.