More secure locations are likely to have at least one person onsite for premises approval - at least, the kind of companies that can afford biometrics would. Someone would notice the hand.
In terms of that "15 second window", you're imagining this situation a little too clearly.
That's the dumbest argument I've heard all evening.
The "desperate dude who is willing to take out my eyeball?" Why wouldn't he just leave it in your head and just piggyback through? Or bring you along to access that "protected" stuff?
Sure I'd rather give up a memorized password instead of an eye or hand, but again this is a question of severity. I don't believe you go from demanding a password to cutting out an eye without things other than biometrics being a critical factor.
Your employer may not give a shit about you, but most employers do. The liabilities of employees getting hurt is much of the reason that many employer-offered health plans have increases every year. I doubt that any employer will be nonchalant when one of their employees come to work with only one hand.
There's nothing wrong with an employer implementing biometrics, if it's an at-will company. It's up to the employee as to whether that proposition is acceptable.
you have no contract with the company specifying that you get a feature which wasn't built into the product.
That's exactly the point. The company isn't obligated to supplant every wish that you have if it isn't sold with that feature enabled. If that was the case Chevrolet would be having a bitch of a time making a profit, seeing that they'd have to be throwing larger engines in all the time for customers like you.
My previous analogy may have sucked, but this one does not.
Wait, something broke? Why, I'm sure that Dell will support it.
*cough*
No, I doubt Dell gives a shit about supporting everything under the sun, either.
Noone owes you anything. You want to hack wifi into the thing? Go for it. Still expect the manufacturer to support it? Are you high? That'd be like me asking for support after hacking an Xbox.
Give the company a reason to support it, they might. Otherwise, bitching about it and acting as though it's your birthright - well, that's just idiotic.
this is a great idea i use Knoppix a lot and frequently on old computers but having some additional features on a dvd would be great for higher end systems and simplify carrying a bunch of cds or downloading some utilities"
Is your version of Knoppix devoid of comma or period support?:)
Don't take it the wrong way from me... I think it's a pretty cool thing to do! However, having been through a couple of Slashdottings I've seen IT folks (that are normally pretty mellow people) turn into Satan Reborn and exercise Hitler-like judgement:)
Glad to hear you've done well, by no means would I dispute that Symantec's been financially solid. I agree with you on Gordon, as well.
However, that doesn't negate the fact that Symantec's products are monumentally problematic, poorly-supported (even for platinum customers) and slow in reaction time. Veritas hasn't had the same abysmal levels of service and quality, and yes - that's what will likely befall them now. And that's sad.
So no, I don't feel sorry for investors or options-holders - you're doing well. I wouldn't be too proud though, considering the reality that those earnings are being garnered through the poor treatment your employees are receiving. If you couple that with the poor quality that Symantec regularly peddles these days, it's not exactly a benchmark that is becoming of a long-term leader.
If you had any sort of knowledge of Symantec operations, you'd be aware that Symantec outsourced 270 (38%) of their perms in Oregon in 2002. Then in June it cut 206 (30%) of them. That's based off a total of about 700 workers. You're telling me that 30-40 percent suddenly weren't productive?
Stop being a pedantic shithead for a minute, and consider the statistical probability of 38% of a permanent workforce suddenly becoming unproductive.
Simply, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're neither familiar with their operations, nor are you versed in their history.
I do. I've worked for them when their products were decent. I moved on to a better company, and have watched as they've utterly destroyed what used to be a great product line and employee environment. Of course, losing Dana Seibert didn't help things either.
I don't dislike the employees and contractors of Symantec - if anything I feel sorry for them, as they're receiving the short end of the stick on a regular basis.
CEO John Thompson though? He's utterly destroyed the cohesiveness and quality focus that existed before, and now he's about to destroy Veritas. And that - that is sad.
Another company they can screw up. Wasn't screwing *their* employees enough for them? That's right - this company is flush with so much cash, but they have no problem getting rid of their permanent employees, then rehiring them as contractors.
The only thing I want to know is whether Symantec execs will remove their dicks from the asses of their employees now, and will transfer that love to Veritas employees.
I'm not sure that 95% of OSS is a waste of time and energy. Even if it is, I waste a lot of time and energy cleaning up after Windows already, so it's not a real concern for me.
I do think this debate reeks of some exclusivity, however.
If you're the industry leader, you can afford to ignore different market segments - at least temporarily. OSS is still essentially second to Windows, at least in terms of mass-market adoption.
Also, ignoring a market out of concern for some sort of "ethic" in programming creates an air of "holier-than-thou" - something that many already sense from the open-source crowd. While it's not really the case, that doesn't erase the perception. To get someone to jump to your side they have to feel like they'll be "accepted"... just look at all the companies that choose to be Microsoft shops to placate investors. Exclusivity doesn't encourage that.
That's one helluva piece of evidence there... what's that, 40x40 resolution?
If that's the smoking gun, it's the smallest one I've ever seen. I'm not saying that a problem doesn't exist, but you sure as hell can't expect people to render an opinion based on that - can you?
I'd say give Sony 12 hours to respond, and then render a judgement based on their admissions, denials and/or pledges to repair it.
"NASA is utterly obsessed with safety and conservatism."
And that's a bad thing? Tell that to this redneck:
..."We heard a rumbling sound. We thought it was a tornado and then - wham! - something hit the trailer," Bradley, Pinkston's father, said after another small piece of debris bounced off the roof of his mobile home, punching a hole in its outer shell about three inches (13 cm) across.
Slashdot Mirror
More secure locations are likely to have at least one person onsite for premises approval - at least, the kind of companies that can afford biometrics would. Someone would notice the hand.
In terms of that "15 second window", you're imagining this situation a little too clearly.
"In other though, I think the sight of one man forcing another to put his hand to the terminal is going to draw attention to itself."
And carrying around a severed hand won't?
That's the dumbest argument I've heard all evening.
The "desperate dude who is willing to take out my eyeball?" Why wouldn't he just leave it in your head and just piggyback through? Or bring you along to access that "protected" stuff?
Sure I'd rather give up a memorized password instead of an eye or hand, but again this is a question of severity. I don't believe you go from demanding a password to cutting out an eye without things other than biometrics being a critical factor.
Your employer may not give a shit about you, but most employers do. The liabilities of employees getting hurt is much of the reason that many employer-offered health plans have increases every year. I doubt that any employer will be nonchalant when one of their employees come to work with only one hand.
There's nothing wrong with an employer implementing biometrics, if it's an at-will company. It's up to the employee as to whether that proposition is acceptable.
you have no contract with the company specifying that you get a feature which wasn't built into the product.
That's exactly the point. The company isn't obligated to supplant every wish that you have if it isn't sold with that feature enabled. If that was the case Chevrolet would be having a bitch of a time making a profit, seeing that they'd have to be throwing larger engines in all the time for customers like you.
My previous analogy may have sucked, but this one does not.
Look! I got Linux to work on my Dell PC!
Wait, something broke? Why, I'm sure that Dell will support it.
*cough*
No, I doubt Dell gives a shit about supporting everything under the sun, either.
Noone owes you anything. You want to hack wifi into the thing? Go for it. Still expect the manufacturer to support it? Are you high? That'd be like me asking for support after hacking an Xbox.
Give the company a reason to support it, they might. Otherwise, bitching about it and acting as though it's your birthright - well, that's just idiotic.
No kidding. Worst example of moderating I've seen since... errr.. 4 articles down.
The point is completely valid, mod grandparent up!
CherryOS? Seems to me that every cock is looking for a cherry.
Wait, I forgot... CherryOS is still under wraps, right?
"It'll either put open source developers using encryption at odds with federal policy or require that we all expose ourselves online."
You all can make your own decisions, but if VoIP regulations require that Slashdotters expose themselves, I'll just stick with POTS.
*laughing*
Kazaa? Programming quality?
*laughing some more*
You're kidding, right?!?
*head explodes*
Yet if it's ready-made and mass-produced, does a problem really exist, and is there really a struggle involved?
It was bound to happen sooner or later: an LCARS system had sex with a clock radio!
Just don't use it in a Lowe's parking lot.
this is a great idea i use Knoppix a lot and frequently on old computers but having some additional features on a dvd would be great for higher end systems and simplify carrying a bunch of cds or downloading some utilities"
:)
Is your version of Knoppix devoid of comma or period support?
I'm not complaining about marrying one! I'm just saying - it's just good karma to alert a single guy to clusters of blondes :)
"I want a map service that says "Travel advisory: Avoid I-57. 1274 blondes at this moment on I-57" :)"
What is this I-57 you speak of? And why wasn't I alerted of the high concentration of blondes there before getting married?
Don't take it the wrong way from me... I think it's a pretty cool thing to do! However, having been through a couple of Slashdottings I've seen IT folks (that are normally pretty mellow people) turn into Satan Reborn and exercise Hitler-like judgement :)
Miami network admin: "Sir? We've got gigabytes of usage all of a sudden, all from one VLAN."
Miami network manager: "Let's see... all the students have gone home. Who's left in that building?"
30 seconds later, Toadman8 becomes confused as his IM session (and all network traffic) drops.
Moral of the story: When laying waste to a network bandwidth-wise, it is best to do it when you're able to point a finger elsewhere.
Glad to hear you've done well, by no means would I dispute that Symantec's been financially solid. I agree with you on Gordon, as well. However, that doesn't negate the fact that Symantec's products are monumentally problematic, poorly-supported (even for platinum customers) and slow in reaction time. Veritas hasn't had the same abysmal levels of service and quality, and yes - that's what will likely befall them now. And that's sad. So no, I don't feel sorry for investors or options-holders - you're doing well. I wouldn't be too proud though, considering the reality that those earnings are being garnered through the poor treatment your employees are receiving. If you couple that with the poor quality that Symantec regularly peddles these days, it's not exactly a benchmark that is becoming of a long-term leader.
If you had any sort of knowledge of Symantec operations, you'd be aware that Symantec outsourced 270 (38%) of their perms in Oregon in 2002. Then in June it cut 206 (30%) of them. That's based off a total of about 700 workers. You're telling me that 30-40 percent suddenly weren't productive?
Stop being a pedantic shithead for a minute, and consider the statistical probability of 38% of a permanent workforce suddenly becoming unproductive.
Simply, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're neither familiar with their operations, nor are you versed in their history.
I do. I've worked for them when their products were decent. I moved on to a better company, and have watched as they've utterly destroyed what used to be a great product line and employee environment. Of course, losing Dana Seibert didn't help things either.
I don't dislike the employees and contractors of Symantec - if anything I feel sorry for them, as they're receiving the short end of the stick on a regular basis.
CEO John Thompson though? He's utterly destroyed the cohesiveness and quality focus that existed before, and now he's about to destroy Veritas. And that - that is sad.
I remember the good old days of "Tristep" - their old contract-to-hire company... When I asked what it stood for, I was told:
1 foot in the door
1 foot out the door
1 foot in your ass
Not sure who they're using now, but employees I've kept in touch with indicate that it's gotten more efficient: they wear cleats now.
Another company they can screw up. Wasn't screwing *their* employees enough for them? That's right - this company is flush with so much cash, but they have no problem getting rid of their permanent employees, then rehiring them as contractors.
The only thing I want to know is whether Symantec execs will remove their dicks from the asses of their employees now, and will transfer that love to Veritas employees.
I'm not sure that 95% of OSS is a waste of time and energy. Even if it is, I waste a lot of time and energy cleaning up after Windows already, so it's not a real concern for me.
I do think this debate reeks of some exclusivity, however.
If you're the industry leader, you can afford to ignore different market segments - at least temporarily. OSS is still essentially second to Windows, at least in terms of mass-market adoption.
Also, ignoring a market out of concern for some sort of "ethic" in programming creates an air of "holier-than-thou" - something that many already sense from the open-source crowd. While it's not really the case, that doesn't erase the perception. To get someone to jump to your side they have to feel like they'll be "accepted"... just look at all the companies that choose to be Microsoft shops to placate investors. Exclusivity doesn't encourage that.
That's one helluva piece of evidence there... what's that, 40x40 resolution?
If that's the smoking gun, it's the smallest one I've ever seen. I'm not saying that a problem doesn't exist, but you sure as hell can't expect people to render an opinion based on that - can you?
I'd say give Sony 12 hours to respond, and then render a judgement based on their admissions, denials and/or pledges to repair it.
Don't look at me on that one - I didn't write it :) I'm assuming that the former is correct...
"NASA is utterly obsessed with safety and conservatism."
..."We heard a rumbling sound. We thought it was a tornado and then - wham! - something hit the trailer," Bradley, Pinkston's father, said after another small piece of debris bounced off the roof of his mobile home, punching a hole in its outer shell about three inches (13 cm) across.
And that's a bad thing? Tell that to this redneck:
News account