The distinction between "classified" and "unclassified" networks parent is referring to comes from The Register's coverage of the same story. The PCWorld link in the original submission makes no mention of whether or not the networks were classified or not.
if Microsoft really understood this niche, it wouldn't exist for OLPC to fill!
That's pretty much the heart of the matter, right there. Microsoft doesn't get the point of the project. They perceive it a platform for possible brand expansion and user lock-in, and care little about the humanistic goals. Its not about what the OLPC can do for the users, but what it can do for Microsoft.
We could shoot these people in the field. No muss no fuss. These things happen in war. Innocent people die.
Ahhh. I love the smell of Christian values ion the morning...
Instead, at great expense, we take them to a Caribbean island and duly torture them.
Fixed that for you.
We have to go through all this B.S. because the enemy does not wear uniforms. They take pains to look like civilians. And when we make a tiny mistake through excess of caution, by collecting a civilian - that is our fault? We're the big baddies because we took care not to shoot first and ask questions later?
You know. Before 9/11, the only other terrorists attacks on U.S. soil were carried out by . . . wait for it . . . my fellow Americans Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. By your logic above, any American civilians under suspicion should be handled the same way we currently treat those in Gitmo, so it follows that there are a great many U.S. citizens that need rounding up.
Are you really and truly comfortable with that?
If someone with political leanings that are the polar opposite of yours were to declare that all followers of your beliefs are henceforth to be considered possible terrorists, would you voluntarily submit to be "duly process[ed]" in the same way the folks at Gitmo have been processed?
Good to know whose side you're on. I predict that after the next successful terrorist attack on the US mainland, it will be very unhealthy to profess such support for the enemy.
If the next terrorist attack is carried out by another American, who would the enemy be?
Have you paused to consider that maybe it was done under anonymity to preserve whatever karma they may have here on/., and not because of fear of governmental persecution?
Thanks for that. I know I feel so much better knowing that any debate about my freedoms or lack thereof is being done with an eye towards what the mods think, or how much karma one has left. Jesus Christ, somebody's got to get a better sense of perspective.
Their very jobs were created by users bringing in unauthorized equipment in an attempt to circumvent company and administrator policies on the mainframe that kept them from doing their job easier and better.
Funny. This is exactly what our law department says about their own jobs.
Seriously folks, this "us vs. them" attitude has got to stop. Like it or not, IT is an integrated part of any business. Sure, they can be controlling at times, but no one can deny that some controls are necessary. It's far easier to try to understand what each side is doing than to continually butt heads against each other's attitudes. Hurts less, too.
Their marketing folks will say your water is unsafe and they'll test it for free.
Just reply:
"Really!! I guess I should call my water company and let them know that your company has definitively stated that their water is unsafe. I should probably call Clark Howard as well so that he may alert my neighbors to the terrible dangers lurking right beneath our very noses. Tell me oh wise telemarketing guy, what was your name again? I'll need to be sure I get it right when the attorneys contact me regarding the massive class action lawsuit that's been brought against the city and state."
For example, the DNC list has an exemption for anyone a company has dome business with in the past year or so. Of course, doing business hasn't been defined but that's just a technicality.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there's an extremely loose "affiliates" clause in the definition of "business". Something along the lines of "Apple "affiliate" AT&T, sells an iPhone that uses "affiliate" AT&T's services, which can access "affiliate" GE's holdings, which includes "affiliates" NBC and the SCi-Fi channel, both of which produce content playable on an iPhone, and both of which air commercials from their "affiliates" Cialis, Kellogg's, and Swiffer, that are carried over wires managed by our "affiliate" Con Edison, via telephone poles planted in "affiliate" Donald Trump's land, etc.".
If you recall the last major protests in Washington in September, only about 10,000 turned out for the ANSWER rally, and they were met by 1,000 Freepers. That's a piss-poor performance for a supposedly angry public.
Attendance figures from a rally in D.C. are never going to be an accurate indicator of the nation's approval or disgust. That's what polls are for.
I can think of many reasons that would prohibit attending a rally - none of which would have negative impact on my level of opinion. Family responsibilities (think of the children), job responsibilities (your boss doesn't give a damn about your politics), distance (D.C. is not exactly next door), and, most importantly, economic ability. With gasoline, utility and food prices way up, your average American is less likely to perceive a trip to D.C. just to vent some spleen as financially sane.
And it makes you so angry you vow you're going to cancel your service and switch to a competitor, except you can't, because they're the Phone Company, the only game in town.
Or, whenever you try to use your phone to find a competitor, they disconnect the call. Over and over and over.
Is this the future of of ISP competition? Active interception and disruption of competitive traffic? No effort policing your own traffic?
When businesses started trying to pinch pennies by buying the cheapest toilet paper they could find, I knew the economics of corporate life were changing for the worse.
The problem is, businesses don't try anymore. Innovation has taken a back seat to profit protectionism, and the people that are suffering the most for this lack of vision, lack of ability, or flat out apathy are the customers.
Quality customer service? "Sorry, that means we have to actually deal with customers. That's never fun - they actually criticise us! The nerve of these people!"
Executive salaries draining the coffers? "No sweat. We go cheap on customer toilet paper and crow about increasing shareholder value. But, uhm, be sure to let the shareholders use the executive washrooms, OK?"
Don't really have a business model? "We don't really do those anymore. It's easier to just buy someone else. If they don't have one, there's always another company out there that might."
Infrastructure maintenance/improvements? "What are you, nuts?!? We'd have to dip into profit! I've got a golf tournament next week, asshole. Do you expect me to take the bus?!?"
Customer realtions? "That's funny! Seriously . . . Funny . . . What do we care about customers? I've got elected officials. Once he signs off on my monopoly, who gives a shit about customers? They buy what I sell whether they like it or not. It's not like they have a choice. Besides, even if they do try and leave, I'll just get my official to mandate ownership, just like the insurance companies did."
"Then, my son . . . then we can begin suing the customers . . . "
Alexey Tolstokozhev fails to show up on any web searches either, except in the context of his supposed assassination. Informed parties, such as Sunbelt president and chief executive Alex Eckelberry, have never heard of him either.
Eckelberry did a little digging and discovered that Loonov's website, where reports of the hit first surfaced, was only registered on Tuesday and with EST Domains, an operation that has attracted complaints about hosting malware.
Loonov's website is free of malware (at least at the time of writing) but distinctly whiffy. Bloggers who first took the story at face value have begun to reverse their positions.
I suspect that some company mandated "appearance rules" or regions will eventually have to apply.
I can't imagine that an anatomically "enhanced", gimp mask wearing, bondage squirrel is going to be too popular after crossing into the inevitable Disney world. If only everyone looked the same . . . like say, with blond hair and blue eyes . . .
If you continue using AT&T "service" you obviously shouldn't be allowed to express negative things about any of the other companies they do business with.
Speaking of which, where can one get a complete list of AT&T affiliates or partners?
Is there an easier way to get these other than a piecemeal, and time consuming, paper crawl assembly from an assortment of sources like divisional reports and Google searches?
It is only relevant for the perpetuation for this constant "us vs. them" bitching that is splitting this country apart. Remember what mom used to say about your friend's jumping off a cliff?
Just because someone is stupid enough to try and blame a single individual for the mess this entire world is getting itself into does not mean you have to feed the delusion by chiming in with a matching, and equally delusional counterpoint.
It does not matter who did the deeds, it's that we allowed them happen. It is our responsibility to decide whether we want to continue to keep at each other's throats over stupid red v. blue bullshit, or do we want to start acting like a country again?
Jesus Christ. It doesn't fucking matter who started it. It's stupid regardless of which side of the aisle!
Stop to think for a minute. Suppose we do have this massive cross referenced database of interesting facts about people who act like they might be a terrorist. What can we do with it?
Absolutely nothing!
Are we going round these folks up and vanish them for fear of what they might do? Not bloody likely.
The cold hard fact of the matter is there is no possible way to prevent crimes ahead of time. If someone wants to become a terrorist, they're going to make the leap and blow something up. No amount of data collection beforehand will prevent that. Ever.
Slashdot Mirror
The distinction between "classified" and "unclassified" networks parent is referring to comes from The Register's coverage of the same story. The PCWorld link in the original submission makes no mention of whether or not the networks were classified or not.
That's pretty much the heart of the matter, right there. Microsoft doesn't get the point of the project. They perceive it a platform for possible brand expansion and user lock-in, and care little about the humanistic goals. Its not about what the OLPC can do for the users, but what it can do for Microsoft.
This is really disturbing.
Ahhh. I love the smell of Christian values ion the morning...
Fixed that for you.
You know. Before 9/11, the only other terrorists attacks on U.S. soil were carried out by . . . wait for it . . . my fellow Americans Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. By your logic above, any American civilians under suspicion should be handled the same way we currently treat those in Gitmo, so it follows that there are a great many U.S. citizens that need rounding up.
Are you really and truly comfortable with that?
If someone with political leanings that are the polar opposite of yours were to declare that all followers of your beliefs are henceforth to be considered possible terrorists, would you voluntarily submit to be "duly process[ed]" in the same way the folks at Gitmo have been processed?
If the next terrorist attack is carried out by another American, who would the enemy be?
A nice call from your insurance company informing you that they are dropping your coverage due to a genetic predisposition for X disease.
Thanks for that. I know I feel so much better knowing that any debate about my freedoms or lack thereof is being done with an eye towards what the mods think, or how much karma one has left. Jesus Christ, somebody's got to get a better sense of perspective.
Would that be called the "G-Spot"?
Funny. This is exactly what our law department says about their own jobs.
Seriously folks, this "us vs. them" attitude has got to stop. Like it or not, IT is an integrated part of any business. Sure, they can be controlling at times, but no one can deny that some controls are necessary. It's far easier to try to understand what each side is doing than to continually butt heads against each other's attitudes. Hurts less, too.
Just reply:
"Really!! I guess I should call my water company and let them know that your company has definitively stated that their water is unsafe. I should probably call Clark Howard as well so that he may alert my neighbors to the terrible dangers lurking right beneath our very noses. Tell me oh wise telemarketing guy, what was your name again? I'll need to be sure I get it right when the attorneys contact me regarding the massive class action lawsuit that's been brought against the city and state."
I have a sneaking suspicion that there's an extremely loose "affiliates" clause in the definition of "business". Something along the lines of "Apple "affiliate" AT&T, sells an iPhone that uses "affiliate" AT&T's services, which can access "affiliate" GE's holdings, which includes "affiliates" NBC and the SCi-Fi channel, both of which produce content playable on an iPhone, and both of which air commercials from their "affiliates" Cialis, Kellogg's, and Swiffer, that are carried over wires managed by our "affiliate" Con Edison, via telephone poles planted in "affiliate" Donald Trump's land, etc.".
Attendance figures from a rally in D.C. are never going to be an accurate indicator of the nation's approval or disgust. That's what polls are for.
I can think of many reasons that would prohibit attending a rally - none of which would have negative impact on my level of opinion. Family responsibilities (think of the children), job responsibilities (your boss doesn't give a damn about your politics), distance (D.C. is not exactly next door), and, most importantly, economic ability. With gasoline, utility and food prices way up, your average American is less likely to perceive a trip to D.C. just to vent some spleen as financially sane.
Perfect only if coupled with a lovely image-based signature file from "goatse.cx". If they want to snoop, make them earn the privilege.
We are talking about a corporation here.
Perhaps it's time to modify the quote to something more timely:
Following that single statement, art officially died.
Or, whenever you try to use your phone to find a competitor, they disconnect the call. Over and over and over.
Is this the future of of ISP competition? Active interception and disruption of competitive traffic? No effort policing your own traffic?
When businesses started trying to pinch pennies by buying the cheapest toilet paper they could find, I knew the economics of corporate life were changing for the worse.
The problem is, businesses don't try anymore. Innovation has taken a back seat to profit protectionism, and the people that are suffering the most for this lack of vision, lack of ability, or flat out apathy are the customers.
Quality customer service? "Sorry, that means we have to actually deal with customers. That's never fun - they actually criticise us! The nerve of these people!"
Executive salaries draining the coffers? "No sweat. We go cheap on customer toilet paper and crow about increasing shareholder value. But, uhm, be sure to let the shareholders use the executive washrooms, OK?"
Don't really have a business model? "We don't really do those anymore. It's easier to just buy someone else. If they don't have one, there's always another company out there that might."
Infrastructure maintenance/improvements? "What are you, nuts?!? We'd have to dip into profit! I've got a golf tournament next week, asshole. Do you expect me to take the bus?!?"
Customer realtions? "That's funny! Seriously . . . Funny . . . What do we care about customers? I've got elected officials. Once he signs off on my monopoly, who gives a shit about customers? They buy what I sell whether they like it or not. It's not like they have a choice. Besides, even if they do try and leave, I'll just get my official to mandate ownership, just like the insurance companies did."
"Then, my son . . . then we can begin suing the customers . . . "
Meh. Anything that requires more than up-down-left-right is for sissies.
This is the bit that I think would be pretty cool to see . . .
Because he's not a perfectly good executive if he's making mistakes of this scale? Because thats what "accountability" means?
Just because business isn't fair, doesn't mean we should strive to make it fair. Why settle for less than the best?
P.S.: As a professional cynic, I'm more than a little shocked that I actually wrote that last sentence.
I suspect that some company mandated "appearance rules" or regions will eventually have to apply.
I can't imagine that an anatomically "enhanced", gimp mask wearing, bondage squirrel is going to be too popular after crossing into the inevitable Disney world. If only everyone looked the same . . . like say, with blond hair and blue eyes . . .
Speaking of which, where can one get a complete list of AT&T affiliates or partners?
Is there an easier way to get these other than a piecemeal, and time consuming, paper crawl assembly from an assortment of sources like divisional reports and Google searches?
INCOMING!!!
Are the astronauts wearing protective gear when working with bacterial experiments? I can't recall ever reading this, or seeing a photo . . .
Bullshit.
It is only relevant for the perpetuation for this constant "us vs. them" bitching that is splitting this country apart. Remember what mom used to say about your friend's jumping off a cliff?
Just because someone is stupid enough to try and blame a single individual for the mess this entire world is getting itself into does not mean you have to feed the delusion by chiming in with a matching, and equally delusional counterpoint.
It does not matter who did the deeds, it's that we allowed them happen. It is our responsibility to decide whether we want to continue to keep at each other's throats over stupid red v. blue bullshit, or do we want to start acting like a country again?
Jesus Christ. It doesn't fucking matter who started it. It's stupid regardless of which side of the aisle!
Stop to think for a minute. Suppose we do have this massive cross referenced database of interesting facts about people who act like they might be a terrorist. What can we do with it?
Absolutely nothing!
Are we going round these folks up and vanish them for fear of what they might do? Not bloody likely.
The cold hard fact of the matter is there is no possible way to prevent crimes ahead of time. If someone wants to become a terrorist, they're going to make the leap and blow something up. No amount of data collection beforehand will prevent that. Ever.