> The disease I'd like to complain about today is the "read receipt". I > can only imagine how much time people waste looking up whether I've read > their message or not. You can turn that off, too, but some people really > go crazy if they don't get their read receipts.
Read receipts aren't all bad; I've used them on occasion when working with coders in different time zones or on different shifts. When I got the receipt, it let me know they had checked in and I should probably get ready for a phone call or IM session.
As far as turning off replying to read receipt requests, I usually set things up to ask; I've often let the reply go out for some people, jsut because it makes them feel better. Never because it was useful.
> The machine miserably failed to get past the second page...I've asked the > manager if there was a paper application to fill out... and he has told me > that I -must- fill out the application on their...Terminal. Are there legal > concerns that I should be looking at, here?"
> Kroger's claims to be an EOE employer, however I feel that I am being > denied my equal opportunity to gain employment...Can this be considered > discriminatory to those of a lower education level
Does Kroger make other, better kiosks available to the computer literate? Or are you implying that because the more computer literate have their own PCs they can apply online? Since other computers are often available thorugh libraries and such, there seems absolutely no basis for a EOE violation claim here.
That said, this -may- still be illegal, at the state level. In Ohio, there is absolutely no slack cut for employers who don't have application blank forms, or who for other reasons have a problem accepting applications (or at least there was when I was managing). Anyone who comes in can apply, at any time, and the owner/manager is required to allow them to fill out an application, and must accept the application.
Out of application forms? Tough; get some or accept something on plain paper. No openings? Tough; accept the application anyway. Computer doesn't work? Tough; accept a paper form or plain paper.
So you can pursue this, but I think state law would be the thing to look at.
>> Is it really so hard to pull over, or wait 5 minutes to finish your coffee, >> apply your makeup, or whatever it is you have to do?
> I think this more of a problem of societal norms than anything. Most people > are raised to try to multitask, and be as efficient as possible in our society. > This is not to say that it isn't irresponsible, or that these people are > blameless, but it does give us insight into the question of "Why?"
Also, the expectations of the caller are a factor; I was reprimanded rather sharply by my boss a year or two ago for not answering my cell phone while driving into work. I pulled off at the next exit and called him back ( 5 minutes). He was very upset that I didn't answer immediately; I had an earpiece for hands-free, but I had left it in my laptop case.
>...No unpaid "volunteers". Staff mostly comes from civil service positions > where they work for a week every two years but have to be on city/county > payroll as full time civil service positions.
Where in the world are you getting this? The majority of election workers in a large part of the country -are- volunteers.
> All voting is at least county level, sometimes finer. I voted last week > and there were three different ballots for a single precinct.
There is no real good way around this in most states. It's a headache, but I don't see it as an insuperable problem.
> Results 15 minutes (or less) after polls close.
Not a requirement. Any state that wants to can mandate a delay of days, often weeks till the final count. Admittedly, the TV watching public expects fast results, but the state can tell them to 'f**k off' anytime.
Paper isn't a universal panacea, but it is (1) persistent (2) simple and (3) relatively durable for recounts. And you -can- do an accurate hand recount of paper ballots. It's slow, and relatively expensive, but you can do it.
> If combining a file manager with a web browser was stupid, then why > did the Konqueror folks rip off the idea and do exactly the same thing?
If it were merely that IE was the file system browser, it wouldn't be the problem it is. IE is a critical component of the help rendering engine, and the source of a lot of the APIs underneath that -any- file system browser in Windows is normally going to depend on.
In addition, critical DLLs (COMCTL32, and SHLWAPI for two) have been updated, APIs added, and code and behavior modified for the entire operating system, at the direction of the IE development team, for new versions of IE.
IE updates broke a -lot- of applications by changing the way that common windows controls display and behave, adding and modifying new shell APIs, and changing all sorts of things that aren't relating to web or file system browsing.
One reason the term "Identity Theft" came about was a PITA loophole in the fraud laws. Fraud prosecution tends to be figured on the basis of financial loss. Not that many years ago, it was up to the merchants to push for prosecution. The problem was, it was easier and cheaper for them to hold the person whose personal information was used responsible than try to find the guilty party. But because the technical victim was the merchant, not the person whose identity was used, police were -extremely- uncooperative.
The whole "identity theft" change was to recognize that something of value -solely and wholely- to the person whose identity was used was taken and used inappropriately. It was a necessary change.
Gosh, it's great to live here in Pleasantville, where things are just so darn KEEN!
It's about time MS used their overwhelming security expertise to address this pressing problem!. Gosh knows, now that:
- NT 3.1 solved all the BSOD problems... - Windows 2000 given us perfectly stable drivers that never fail... - we have a flawless and simple system for authenticode verification to prevent all those darned pirates and their stolen copies of Windows... - and a rock solid browser like IE 6 with none of those silly security defects found in (shudder) DOWNLEVEL browsers like FireFox and Opera...
All we've been waiting for is MS to put the last bricks in the wall of total user trust and security with flawless DRM and anti-spyware!
Kudos to the Bill G and the brave, fighting lads at MS for their continuous and unflagging dedication to providing a rock-solid security combo of Win95-compatible OS, ActiveX-enabled Browser, and integrated VBA-enabled Office applications, that makes third-party anti-virus, anti-trojan, firewall, backup, and other rip-offs completely unecessary!
Yeah! And now I'm off to meet the ghost of John Lennon on his magic Yellow Submarine for a late night trip to visit Narnia!
Just how F**KING STUPID are these reporters, anyway?
> Am I the only one who doesn't care about privacy? I mean hell, I don't > really have any to begin with.
Maybe that's -why- you don't care; you don't miss what you never knew you had.
People who grew up in places where any officious putz could stop them on the street and demand they provide identity papers, and shunt them over to the Jewish ghetto (or Ravensbruck, Auschwitz, or Treblinka) realize what a viciously slippery slope this can be.
I'm white, but I know some black people who've been caught "driving while black"; anything like that ever happen to you? Where you need to demonstrate that you have a right to be "driving in this here neighborhood"?
> The grocery stores know what I eat, you can find out how much I make > online easily enough, and anybody can find out what I buy / where I > buy it / pay in rent / pay in loans / what I make in salary via a > quick and easy credit check. I'm sure if you want it you can find > my SNN easily enough
Which is not true of a lot of people. A lot of people try very hard to keep their personal information personal.
> Maybe I'm just boring, but there's nothing in my email they'd find > worth reading anyway.
Excellent point, but I think you tossed it off too quickly, with an implication that "if you aren't guilty, why are you keeping it secret?"
Not all secrets are guilty secrets. Maybe someone had a cleft palate repaired as a child, and wants to keep it a secret. Maybe a woman had a breast reduction. Maybe she had a mom who died of breast cancer, or was in a mental institution, and wants to avoid problems with health insurance. Maybe a man had an accident and lost a testicle.
Maybe they married someone who decided they were gay years later, which tore the family apart, and they just don't want people to know their business.
Any number of people might want to keep these and hundreds of thousands more things about themselves secret. Why can't they? The government, of course, -mostly- doesn't care about this stuff (but see the FBI's misuse of information during the civil rights movement); but some government officials misuse their power. And others just do a crappy job of protecting data (see the articles on the DHS failing another security audit).
> No, this is not the way the common law works in the US. A decision > concerning a state law question in Illinois is not binding on courts > in Ohio (unless the Ohio court is applying Illinois law, but this > is uncommon).
Quite correct; I did not intend to imply otherwise. However, this is an area in which the rules are similar in most states. The various state legislatures and courts have worked to keep a certain commonality. Among other things, it serves the interests of the business community.
The details vary greatly, of course, as does the likelihood of a specific ruling in a given state. But the basic principles tend to be referenced in most states.
> Records are subpoenaed all the time in criminal cases. There's nothing > special about this case whatsoever.
Yes, records are subpoenas evey day. No, there is one thing special about this case; Google -retains- far more information than a common ISP. It's not that they are hit with a subpeona, or that they will comply with it. It's that they, unlike many, are -able- to comply with it. Sure, other outfits make backups; but Google is trying to index the world. They are retaining the data much longer than anyone else.
> Google doesn't claim that your email will remain private against government > subpoenaes! Why does that make it a privacy nightmare?
Re-read the part you quoted. "...Google retains far too much information..."
The key part is "retains". Google retains far more data than ordinary mail services, and for far longer (theoretically forever).
> Hint: If you don't want it to be evidence against you, don't store it > unencrypted on private company email servers. On a related note, don't > write it down and lock it in a drawer, don't hide it under the mattress, > and don't put it in a safe deposit box under your name. None of these > things are safe from a subpoena.
Good advice all. I'll just note that anticipating future needs is difficult, and not all legal proceedings involve criminality. Sometimes they involve people slipping on your sidewalk, auto accidents, and other civil proceedings that quickly become nightmares.
No comment, other than to state that this only affects whether there is a presumption of default on the part of the vendor; it doesn't affect whether you can sue (or escrow payments) or whether the suit can be brought.
> In addition, there is no "US law" in this situation. This is a garden variety > contracts question, which is a state law question, so these assumptions may not > apply.
With the additional point that contract law is governed by precedent under the common law, and thus there is a large body of law which is generally applicable anywhere in the US.
Thanks for your comments. I agree that this is not a foregone "vendor is clearly in default" situation. But it is, in my opinion, actionable.
> You haven't read an end user license agreement lately, have you?
Actually, I have.;>
> In all the ones that I have seen the manufacturer doesn't guarantee that > the software will do anything, including its intended purpose.
The law (in the US) doesn't permit a person to waive -all- legal protections under licensing agreements. These kinds of dodges in license agreements are generally held to have limited effect on software designed and marketed for business purposes.
I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk; I'm just saying the business has the right to take action and let the courts decide.
> One of our clients recently purchased a new financial software package > from a major vendor for their industry.
When a business purchases software (or anything else) the manufacturer implicitly warrants that the item is suitable for its intended purpose.
> What's shocking is that to work around a problem preventing users > from logging on, the manufacturer's recommended solution is to grant > -Domain Administrator- privileges to all users, and they refuse > (or are is unable) to explain that need further
Time for the client firm to call in the lawyers. Write up a formal document explaining that this is unacceptable from a security standpoint. Period.
That your firm cannot and will not accept -any- responsibility for anything that goes wrong if the client's management uses the software in this fashion.
Then write up a formal recommendation that the company either (A) sue the vendor or (B) place the payment for the software in an escrow account, and explain it will be turned over in payment only after the software is made usable by fixing the defects. Choice B is a standard option in dispute resolution; it demonstrates that the client party has every intention of paying, but not until the responsibilities of the vendor are met.
Have -your- firms lawyers look over all these documents and recommendations carefully, and put the right spin on it.
> Considering the enormous costs involved, how do you explain to Management > that they shouldn't run this software until the problem is resolved -- > which could be a long time, costing even more money?
Lay out the business details. Explain to them that under current federal law, the -management- of the client firm will be assuming any an all liability for using unsecure software against all the recommendations of your firm's people.
However, even with all this, the client's management may choose to give away the keys. Cover your own asses. If you support the client in this, you may be liable. In situations like this, the client may choose to go full steam ahead; you can't stop them, you can only CYA.
> Do you think that SourceForge is better than Freshmeat?
I'm not the poster of the message you're replying to, but here's my $.02
Yes; from the standpoint of lending legitimacy to a project, outside of the core tech community, SourceForge is -much- better than FreshMeat.
FreshMeat is extremely techie-friendly, and probably equal to or superior to SourceForge within that community. But realistically, there are a -lot- of people who aren't as tech-oriented. For these people, the existence of the project on SourceForge indicates that it's at a serious level of completion and likely to remain a supported app for the foreseeable future.
Even if it doesn't really mean anything, it's a factor (like the polish on the website) that some people need to see to take the project seriously.
> It seems that the readers of Slashdot are the most likely early adopters of > electronic books,
Based on what logic? The Ooo! Shiny! factor?
Many slashdotters aren't as drawn to shiny as some people.
> 1. Form factor: They just prefer the feel and 'interface' of a paper book.
That's part of it. It's difficult to tell if you are discounting this as a legitimate factor, however. It sort of seems that you are. The size, ease of use, and dead-simple, legible interface of a paper book are -highly- compelling factors. Bluntly, eBook readers still can't offer anything better.
> 2. Lack of a compelling device (or perhaps lack of convergence): They don't > own a reader (other than a PC or notebook) and can't take them with them.
I think you under stressed -compelling- there. I read electronic books on my PC and notebook. Where the books refer to PC-centric subjects and that makes it convenient to read -as I work with the content I am learning-.
If it were merely a matter of dragging the notebook along in order to read something non-pc oriented, I'd have just added a lot of weight and inconvenience for very little benefit. I also see no compelling reason to buy a separate device for this purpose.
> 4. Distribution model: They don't like the DRM scheme their favorite > publisher offers, or are otherwise unhappy with current offerings.
-Big point-; the only corrections I would make are to change "They don't like the DRM scheme their favorite publisher offers" to "They don't like DRM" -period-, and add that the rights of consumers are given little or no protection under recent DRM legislation. Why buy an encumbered book, especially when publishers are unwilling to cooperate in securing the rights of consumers to use the content they purchase -as they see fit-?
> What reason do you have for not taking up e-Books? Are they listed above > or are there other reasons that you would like to add?
I want to make sure this isn't misunderstood. Don't read anything into what I'm writing. There is no subtext; it's all clear and open.
Plain paper books -work-. They offer the right combination of features, properly balanced, with adequate protections for both the consumer and the publisher. It ain't broke; it doesn't need fixing.
In order to be a compelling replacement, eBooks have to offer at -least- a close approximation of the same benefits, plus something else.
They don't.
They're getting better; eBooks are not as atrociously hard to read as they once were; but they aren't as easy or easier on the eyes than paper books.
They aren't as annoyingly crippled in terms of conflicting/limited/proprietary DRM schemes as they once were; they're still encumbered, though, and paper books aren't.
The devices aren't stupid single function toys anymore, so you can use them even when not reading an eBook. And the devices generally support decent battery life/durability, etc. But paper books still don't need -any- reader device, and hence -never- have battery life or electronics failure issues.
They might be getting to be nearly, almost as good at being books as books are. Maybe. But in some ways, they may never be as good, or even really that -close-.
I can pass around a book, scribble in it, prop it open on my desk, give it away, etc. eBooks are -never- going to reach the same convenience in these areas. Maybe -close-; maybe with -additional enhancements-. But not the same; never exactly equal.
And that means they don't make it past the "if it ain't broke" test. If I am satisfied with paper books (and I and -many millions of other people are-), then I need to be drawn to some other feature. Something outside of being a good book, that draws me to eBooks instead of paper. I haven't found one yet.
Some people say they save trees; I do more for that by reusing paper bags and not buying useless magazines. Some people say you can save a little money; I save more by buying used
> In the work life of a lot of people, being connected 24/7 is now pretty much > like being in the office 24/7. Yes, there is an off switch. Using it will > just get you scalded because "we couldn't get hold of you like the hundreds > of other times the minute we wanted to".
In fact, it's now written into a lot of employment contracts that shutting off the cell phone or failing to have it with you is grounds for termination.
> Here too, not answering the phone (or turning it off) is immediately > suspicious ("are you filtering me?"). And can lead to problematic > relationship issues with friends.
Hell, yes. I have had voice mail for years. I -still- get messages saying "Pick up the phone, man!" It's voice mail, not an answering machine; I don't hear the message you're leaving while you leave it.
From the original post:
> Sure, you'll be on call at unusual hours of the day, but think about how > much more efficient you'll be -- particularly if your most productive hours > aren't between 9am and 5:30pm!
Sure; by transferring that productivity away from people who -are- most productive from 7am to 4:30pm.
> Honestly, I believe that this view of "the convergence" is as overly optimistic > as the 1950's notion that by now we'd be travelling in flying cars, have robots > cleaning our house*, and atomic power was going to make electricity too cheap > to meter. In real life there's too much (friction? drag? entropy?) due to the > sheer scale and complexity of legacy systems for things to happen the way the > dreamers envision.
It's not just optimism that causes this flaw in thinking, or drag that causes it to fail. It happens anywhere someone sees a trend, extends the line to infinity, and assumes no other factors come into play as we move up the scale.
Just as space ships in E E Doc Smith's books travel faster than light by just adding more power and bigger power conduits, and the future of computers is the ZZM9Z, the huge tank only the best lensmen (usually Rigellians) can operate, the image the authors present assumes this trend continues to infinity.
It could happen... about the same time we finally see Doc's vast space armadas tossing around planets, negaspheres, and faster-than-light planets from an alternate universe. I won't hold my breath.
> The problem with broadband for many Americans is that they don't see the advantage in it.
Also, for many Americans, the theoretical advantages are -not- advantages -to them-.
> Many Americans can afford to pay for many of the things that people in > other countries might only be able to get by downloading them freely off > the net. So, in a way Americans have blinders on with regards to the possibilities of the Internet.
A big point. And it's not merely Americans being able to pay for stuff. A lot of it is merely increased availability, whether for pricing model reasons or other reasons. One poster mentioned the near universality of free local phone calls, and broad access to local dial-up modem banks.
> An excellent, and I would even say profound, example is academic journals...
> In many nations, broadband is enabling a great leap in educational quality > that gives millions of students the chance to study meaningful cutting-edge > research for the first time in their local academic history. Americans > naturally have a hard time imagining what that means or how important it is > because they already have practically free access to these things. Anybody > in the States can use the university library after all. So, for an > American, the issue of getting journals on the Internet seems somewhat irrelevant.
> So, broadband is definitely something that the US is only going to accept > reluctantly, but slowly or not it is most certainly going to come even if > the US is the last place on earth to get decent broadband penetration which > I could easily imagine having just visited there and having been forced to > use a modem on a number of occasions.
There are a few other points. Pricing models on broadband, in the US, use the pricing models for cable television and cell phones as models. This results in what is frequently a truly monumentally stupid mix of conflicting options.
A lot of people, myself included, fully intend to go to broadband, and could afford to now. But there is no rush, and we are still hoping that a little more time and a little more salivating greed on the part of the broadband providers might result in cleaner and better deals.
Where in order to get the good price on cable access, we don't need to go to the Digital Premium Package and get 595 channels of crap, including 214 community access channels and 85 music channels that play a total of 2 hours of music a day. This is a contrast to the phone provider's DSL option, which was advertised as "coming in june" 6 years ago, and is still "coming in june" .
Additionally, many of us look at the fact that we wasting a lot of time on the net downloading crap we never look at now. We're delaying on broadband to avoid wasting more time downloading more more crap we'll never look at.
Yeah, there's good stuff out there; but not enough to compel immediate action. There's no rush.
> Leadership emerges naturally in any group of people for the simple reason > that it is in our nature.
It is also the nature of man to constantly strive to alter his nature.
> All this one vote rubish and all the other mumbo jumbo you mention is > against the nature of small groups of people,
Actually, I wasn't lauding the holy nature of one-man-one-vote. I was simply pointing out that the forms under which we choose to organize can be a conscious decision. I'm not particularly enamored of voting.
> We vote for leaders when human societies grow too big to express > interpersonal hierarchies.
I'd have to say that's an oversimplified, two-valued view there. Instead of reducing the question to when it is appropriate to vote and when it is appropriate to organize in a simple hierarchy under a single leader, I would say the more general principle is that we can select different methods of organization for different purposes. I would make no other general recommendations. For specific recommendations, I'd want to discuss first the purpose for which we are forming a group.
As far as the primate commentary, I do not argue that man is a not a primate; I would say, however, that man is not -merely- a primate.
> In every project, no matter what it is, whether it's open source or sending > a space probe to Pluto. There will always be decisions to make that is not > going to be in favor of every person on the team.
That explains why absolutely unanimous decisions are impossible. So, we have identified one system that doesn't work; why do we need -one- leader?
Why not one-man-one-vote? Why not voting by proxy shares, given out for lines of code contributed? Why not polling the user community and allow the developers to veto bad ideas on technical grounds?
There are probably hundreds or thousands of decision making protocols you could use.
> Sometimes you have to cut down, cut away, change and sometimes that process > can be painful. Without someone who has the final word, anarchy and a "new > geeky shiny thing" is the result.
Yes, you need to edit sometimes. Why does the editor have to be some "one"? Why not some two? Some nine? Some twelve?
Why is one leader superior to one group voting or blackballing? It's faster, but is it better? And if so, why?
> You can have all the creativity you want - but without proper leadership, all > that effort and talent goes wasted.
Is it leadership or direction that's needed? Leader implies a hierarchial management structure and differentiated skill sets. But can you achieve results with the (rarer) self-directed, self-disciplined people? Is it the leader that's missing, or the discipline and vision a leader often provides?
> I have a few creative friends that have all these wonderful ideas - but they > have no idea on the concepts of project planning or management of resources.
True.;> I have a few project manager friends with no idea of the concepts of project planning or management of resources.
> Needless to say, their killer applications are still brain children - and > not actually out here where the rest of us can use them.
I've often said to the big talkers I know: "It's not enough to be a genius; you have to be a genius -at- something." Aka "Put up or shut up."
> But, how does this differ from any form of nationalization which could occur?
It doesn't, really. But the US -does- have policies and controls over physical assets of US firms in other countries, and import export controls on physical devices. It has had for many years. This really just takes that concept over to information.
> Google's servers aren't exactly vital to the operation of the US government, so why the special interest?
Google is collecting a lot of data on people. How this data is used is of concern to the US government, as well as a lot of private individuals.
> They didn't step in when France said that certain things on websites were not allowed in their country.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately stretching the point or if you don't see the difference. Prohibiting certain things on websites is not quite the same as demanding information about the persons who put them there, in order to persecute them.
I think France's policies are stupid and needlessly restrictive, but they are different -in kind- from summary demands for information used to lock people up without trial.
As far as the rest of your points go, I'm not defending what the US does in other countries. A lot of it is very, very bad. But it doesn't justify the wrongs done by China and others.
Again, I'm not saying the US does no wrong, or that this is a good bill; I haven't seen it (no one has; it hasn't been written yet). I'm just saying the details in the article don't support the conclusions drawn in the SlashDot post.
> USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that > would keep Google and others out of China.
Actually, no. First off, the bill hasn't even been drafted yet.
Secondarily, as I read the article, it wouldn't prevent anyone from doing business in China and other oppressive regimes. It would simply require the "vital computer servers" (currently not defined; remember, it hasn't been -drafted- yet) from being located physically within the opressive regime's geographic control.
> From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that > would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft > to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State > Department deems repressive to human rights.
The part that wasn't quoted says: "Moving servers would keep personal data they house from government reach. But that also could weaken the firms' crucial Internet search engines."
It appears the intent of the bill is to prohibit situations where crucial equipment could be physically compromised by force, although since it hasn't been drafted yet, it could go further, of course.
I don't know anything about Rep. Smith, but this page:
Seems to indicate he has been actively interested in human rights under opressive regimes rather than gestapo internet control laws. Maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, at least until after he has finished a first draft we could look at?
> What sort of business applications are we talking about? If we're talking > about serious users, Excel and Access aren't exactly the software that is > used.
Actually, according to some studies, a large percentage of serious business applications are, in fact, in Excel spreadsheets. The studies in question were not MS propaganda; they were in fact complaining about this as a serious problem. I believe IEEE Computer magazine and Communications of the ACM have both looked at this problem.
I can tell you from first hand experience, Excel spreadsheets are the life and blood of many banks, accounting firms, medical, and other -large- corporations. I have spent a fair amount of time over the last few years helping some of these firms replace these spreadsheets with better applications. Some of this is for Sarbox compliance, some for HIPAA. But even with these changes, a -lot- of serious work is done in Excel.
Slashdot Mirror
> object insertion
...You're right, OO doesn't have Clippy. It's got a talking paperclip...
> Same as [ms] office: You can insert objects from other OO applications
> and it works very well.
You can insert any COM/OLE/ActiveX object, same as MS Office, or a number of other types of objects: sounds, videos, Java applets...
> watermarking
> Not 100% sure about this one.
It's got it, at least in OO 2.0. Basically just like Word. View the header, insert the graphic, set the transparency.
> and our favorite, Clippy the paperclip.
>
Ick! It does? Damn. At least it seems to be turned -off- by default.
> The disease I'd like to complain about today is the "read receipt". I
> can only imagine how much time people waste looking up whether I've read
> their message or not. You can turn that off, too, but some people really
> go crazy if they don't get their read receipts.
Read receipts aren't all bad; I've used them on occasion when working with coders in different time zones or on different shifts. When I got the receipt, it let me know they had checked in and I should probably get ready for a phone call or IM session.
As far as turning off replying to read receipt requests, I usually set things up to ask; I've often let the reply go out for some people, jsut because it makes them feel better. Never because it was useful.
Priority is completely useless, of course.
> The machine miserably failed to get past the second page...I've asked the
> manager if there was a paper application to fill out... and he has told me
> that I -must- fill out the application on their...Terminal. Are there legal
> concerns that I should be looking at, here?"
> Kroger's claims to be an EOE employer, however I feel that I am being
> denied my equal opportunity to gain employment...Can this be considered
> discriminatory to those of a lower education level
Does Kroger make other, better kiosks available to the computer literate? Or are you implying that because the more computer literate have their own PCs they can apply online? Since other computers are often available thorugh libraries and such, there seems absolutely no basis for a EOE violation claim here.
That said, this -may- still be illegal, at the state level. In Ohio, there is absolutely no slack cut for employers who don't have application blank forms, or who for other reasons have a problem accepting applications (or at least there was when I was managing). Anyone who comes in can apply, at any time, and the owner/manager is required to allow them to fill out an application, and must accept the application.
Out of application forms? Tough; get some or accept something on plain paper. No openings? Tough; accept the application anyway. Computer doesn't work? Tough; accept a paper form or plain paper.
So you can pursue this, but I think state law would be the thing to look at.
>> Is it really so hard to pull over, or wait 5 minutes to finish your coffee,
>> apply your makeup, or whatever it is you have to do?
> I think this more of a problem of societal norms than anything. Most people
> are raised to try to multitask, and be as efficient as possible in our society.
> This is not to say that it isn't irresponsible, or that these people are
> blameless, but it does give us insight into the question of "Why?"
Also, the expectations of the caller are a factor; I was reprimanded rather sharply by my boss a year or two ago for not answering my cell phone while driving into work. I pulled off at the next exit and called him back ( 5 minutes). He was very upset that I didn't answer immediately; I had an earpiece for hands-free, but I had left it in my laptop case.
> ...No unpaid "volunteers". Staff mostly comes from civil service positions
> where they work for a week every two years but have to be on city/county
> payroll as full time civil service positions.
Where in the world are you getting this? The majority of election workers in a large part of the country -are- volunteers.
> All voting is at least county level, sometimes finer. I voted last week
> and there were three different ballots for a single precinct.
There is no real good way around this in most states. It's a headache, but I don't see it as an insuperable problem.
> Results 15 minutes (or less) after polls close.
Not a requirement. Any state that wants to can mandate a delay of days, often weeks till the final count. Admittedly, the TV watching public expects fast results, but the state can tell them to 'f**k off' anytime.
Paper isn't a universal panacea, but it is (1) persistent (2) simple and (3) relatively durable for recounts. And you -can- do an accurate hand recount of paper ballots. It's slow, and relatively expensive, but you can do it.
> If combining a file manager with a web browser was stupid, then why
> did the Konqueror folks rip off the idea and do exactly the same thing?
If it were merely that IE was the file system browser, it wouldn't be the problem it is. IE is a critical component of the help rendering engine, and the source of a lot of the APIs underneath that -any- file system browser in Windows is normally going to depend on.
In addition, critical DLLs (COMCTL32, and SHLWAPI for two) have been updated, APIs added, and code and behavior modified for the entire operating system, at the direction of the IE development team, for new versions of IE.
IE updates broke a -lot- of applications by changing the way that common windows controls display and behave, adding and modifying new shell APIs, and changing all sorts of things that aren't relating to web or file system browsing.
One reason the term "Identity Theft" came about was a PITA loophole in the fraud laws. Fraud prosecution tends to be figured on the basis of financial loss. Not that many years ago, it was up to the merchants to push for prosecution. The problem was, it was easier and cheaper for them to hold the person whose personal information was used responsible than try to find the guilty party. But because the technical victim was the merchant, not the person whose identity was used, police were -extremely- uncooperative.
The whole "identity theft" change was to recognize that something of value -solely and wholely- to the person whose identity was used was taken and used inappropriately. It was a necessary change.
Gosh, it's great to live here in Pleasantville, where things are just so darn KEEN!
It's about time MS used their overwhelming security expertise to address this pressing problem!. Gosh knows, now that:
- NT 3.1 solved all the BSOD problems...
- Windows 2000 given us perfectly stable drivers that never fail...
- we have a flawless and simple system for authenticode verification to prevent all those darned pirates and their stolen copies of Windows...
- and a rock solid browser like IE 6 with none of those silly security defects found in (shudder) DOWNLEVEL browsers like FireFox and Opera...
All we've been waiting for is MS to put the last bricks in the wall of total user trust and security with flawless DRM and anti-spyware!
Kudos to the Bill G and the brave, fighting lads at MS for their continuous and unflagging dedication to providing a rock-solid security combo of Win95-compatible OS, ActiveX-enabled Browser, and integrated VBA-enabled Office applications, that makes third-party anti-virus, anti-trojan, firewall, backup, and other rip-offs completely unecessary!
Yeah! And now I'm off to meet the ghost of John Lennon on his magic Yellow Submarine for a late night trip to visit Narnia!
Just how F**KING STUPID are these reporters, anyway?
> Am I the only one who doesn't care about privacy? I mean hell, I don't
> really have any to begin with.
Maybe that's -why- you don't care; you don't miss what you never knew you had.
People who grew up in places where any officious putz could stop them on the street and demand they provide identity papers, and shunt them over to the Jewish ghetto (or Ravensbruck, Auschwitz, or Treblinka) realize what a viciously slippery slope this can be.
I'm white, but I know some black people who've been caught "driving while black"; anything like that ever happen to you? Where you need to demonstrate that you have a right to be "driving in this here neighborhood"?
> The grocery stores know what I eat, you can find out how much I make
> online easily enough, and anybody can find out what I buy / where I
> buy it / pay in rent / pay in loans / what I make in salary via a
> quick and easy credit check. I'm sure if you want it you can find
> my SNN easily enough
Which is not true of a lot of people. A lot of people try very hard to keep their personal information personal.
> Maybe I'm just boring, but there's nothing in my email they'd find
> worth reading anyway.
Excellent point, but I think you tossed it off too quickly, with an implication that "if you aren't guilty, why are you keeping it secret?"
Not all secrets are guilty secrets. Maybe someone had a cleft palate repaired as a child, and wants to keep it a secret. Maybe a woman had a breast reduction. Maybe she had a mom who died of breast cancer, or was in a mental institution, and wants to avoid problems with health insurance. Maybe a man had an accident and lost a testicle.
Maybe they married someone who decided they were gay years later, which tore the family apart, and they just don't want people to know their business.
Any number of people might want to keep these and hundreds of thousands more things about themselves secret. Why can't they? The government, of course, -mostly- doesn't care about this stuff (but see the FBI's misuse of information during the civil rights movement); but some government officials misuse their power. And others just do a crappy job of protecting data (see the articles on the DHS failing another security audit).
My last post in this thread.
> No, this is not the way the common law works in the US. A decision
> concerning a state law question in Illinois is not binding on courts
> in Ohio (unless the Ohio court is applying Illinois law, but this
> is uncommon).
Quite correct; I did not intend to imply otherwise. However, this is an area in which the rules are similar in most states. The various state legislatures and courts have worked to keep a certain commonality. Among other things, it serves the interests of the business community.
The details vary greatly, of course, as does the likelihood of a specific ruling in a given state. But the basic principles tend to be referenced in most states.
Thank you for your comments.
> Records are subpoenaed all the time in criminal cases. There's nothing
> special about this case whatsoever.
Yes, records are subpoenas evey day. No, there is one thing special about this case; Google -retains- far more information than a common ISP. It's not that they are hit with a subpeona, or that they will comply with it. It's that they, unlike many, are -able- to comply with it. Sure, other outfits make backups; but Google is trying to index the world. They are retaining the data much longer than anyone else.
> Google doesn't claim that your email will remain private against government
> subpoenaes! Why does that make it a privacy nightmare?
Re-read the part you quoted. "...Google retains far too much information..."
The key part is "retains". Google retains far more data than ordinary mail services, and for far longer (theoretically forever).
> Hint: If you don't want it to be evidence against you, don't store it
> unencrypted on private company email servers. On a related note, don't
> write it down and lock it in a drawer, don't hide it under the mattress,
> and don't put it in a safe deposit box under your name. None of these
> things are safe from a subpoena.
Good advice all. I'll just note that anticipating future needs is difficult, and not all legal proceedings involve criminality. Sometimes they involve people slipping on your sidewalk, auto accidents, and other civil proceedings that quickly become nightmares.
> Speaking generally...
No comment, other than to state that this only affects whether there is a presumption of default on the part of the vendor; it doesn't affect whether you can sue (or escrow payments) or whether the suit can be brought.
> In addition, there is no "US law" in this situation. This is a garden variety
> contracts question, which is a state law question, so these assumptions may not
> apply.
With the additional point that contract law is governed by precedent under the common law, and thus there is a large body of law which is generally applicable anywhere in the US.
Thanks for your comments. I agree that this is not a foregone "vendor is clearly in default" situation. But it is, in my opinion, actionable.
> You haven't read an end user license agreement lately, have you?
;>
Actually, I have.
> In all the ones that I have seen the manufacturer doesn't guarantee that
> the software will do anything, including its intended purpose.
The law (in the US) doesn't permit a person to waive -all- legal protections under licensing agreements. These kinds of dodges in license agreements are generally held to have limited effect on software designed and marketed for business purposes.
I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk; I'm just saying the business has the right to take action and let the courts decide.
Note: IANAL
> One of our clients recently purchased a new financial software package
> from a major vendor for their industry.
When a business purchases software (or anything else) the manufacturer implicitly warrants that the item is suitable for its intended purpose.
> What's shocking is that to work around a problem preventing users
> from logging on, the manufacturer's recommended solution is to grant
> -Domain Administrator- privileges to all users, and they refuse
> (or are is unable) to explain that need further
Time for the client firm to call in the lawyers. Write up a formal document explaining that this is unacceptable from a security standpoint. Period.
That your firm cannot and will not accept -any- responsibility for anything that goes wrong if the client's management uses the software in this fashion.
Then write up a formal recommendation that the company either (A) sue the vendor or (B) place the payment for the software in an escrow account, and explain it will be turned over in payment only after the software is made usable by fixing the defects. Choice B is a standard option in dispute resolution; it demonstrates that the client party has every intention of paying, but not until the responsibilities of the vendor are met.
Have -your- firms lawyers look over all these documents and recommendations carefully, and put the right spin on it.
> Considering the enormous costs involved, how do you explain to Management
> that they shouldn't run this software until the problem is resolved --
> which could be a long time, costing even more money?
Lay out the business details. Explain to them that under current federal law, the -management- of the client firm will be assuming any an all liability for using unsecure software against all the recommendations of your firm's people.
However, even with all this, the client's management may choose to give away the keys. Cover your own asses. If you support the client in this, you may be liable. In situations like this, the client may choose to go full steam ahead; you can't stop them, you can only CYA.
> Do you think that SourceForge is better than Freshmeat?
I'm not the poster of the message you're replying to, but here's my $.02
Yes; from the standpoint of lending legitimacy to a project, outside of the core tech community, SourceForge is -much- better than FreshMeat.
FreshMeat is extremely techie-friendly, and probably equal to or superior to SourceForge within that community. But realistically, there are a -lot- of people who aren't as tech-oriented. For these people, the existence of the project on SourceForge indicates that it's at a serious level of completion and likely to remain a supported app for the foreseeable future.
Even if it doesn't really mean anything, it's a factor (like the polish on the website) that some people need to see to take the project seriously.
> It seems that the readers of Slashdot are the most likely early adopters of
> electronic books,
Based on what logic? The Ooo! Shiny! factor?
Many slashdotters aren't as drawn to shiny as some people.
> 1. Form factor: They just prefer the feel and 'interface' of a paper book.
That's part of it. It's difficult to tell if you are discounting this as a legitimate factor, however. It sort of seems that you are. The size, ease of use, and dead-simple, legible interface of a paper book are -highly- compelling factors. Bluntly, eBook readers still can't offer anything better.
> 2. Lack of a compelling device (or perhaps lack of convergence): They don't
> own a reader (other than a PC or notebook) and can't take them with them.
I think you under stressed -compelling- there. I read electronic books on my PC and notebook. Where the books refer to PC-centric subjects and that makes it convenient to read -as I work with the content I am learning-.
If it were merely a matter of dragging the notebook along in order to read something non-pc oriented, I'd have just added a lot of weight and inconvenience for very little benefit. I also see no compelling reason to buy a separate device for this purpose.
> 4. Distribution model: They don't like the DRM scheme their favorite
> publisher offers, or are otherwise unhappy with current offerings.
-Big point-; the only corrections I would make are to change "They don't like the DRM scheme their favorite publisher offers" to "They don't like DRM" -period-, and add that the rights of consumers are given little or no protection under recent DRM legislation. Why buy an encumbered book, especially when publishers are unwilling to cooperate in securing the rights of consumers to use the content they purchase -as they see fit-?
> What reason do you have for not taking up e-Books? Are they listed above
> or are there other reasons that you would like to add?
I want to make sure this isn't misunderstood. Don't read anything into what I'm writing. There is no subtext; it's all clear and open.
Plain paper books -work-. They offer the right combination of features, properly balanced, with adequate protections for both the consumer and the publisher. It ain't broke; it doesn't need fixing.
In order to be a compelling replacement, eBooks have to offer at -least- a close approximation of the same benefits, plus something else.
They don't.
They're getting better; eBooks are not as atrociously hard to read as they once were; but they aren't as easy or easier on the eyes than paper books.
They aren't as annoyingly crippled in terms of conflicting/limited/proprietary DRM schemes as they once were; they're still encumbered, though, and paper books aren't.
The devices aren't stupid single function toys anymore, so you can use them even when not reading an eBook. And the devices generally support decent battery life/durability, etc. But paper books still don't need -any- reader device, and hence -never- have battery life or electronics failure issues.
They might be getting to be nearly, almost as good at being books as books are. Maybe. But in some ways, they may never be as good, or even really that -close-.
I can pass around a book, scribble in it, prop it open on my desk, give it away, etc. eBooks are -never- going to reach the same convenience in these areas. Maybe -close-; maybe with -additional enhancements-. But not the same; never exactly equal.
And that means they don't make it past the "if it ain't broke" test. If I am satisfied with paper books (and I and -many millions of other people are-), then I need to be drawn to some other feature. Something outside of being a good book, that draws me to eBooks instead of paper. I haven't found one yet.
Some people say they save trees; I do more for that by reusing paper bags and not buying useless magazines. Some people say you can save a little money; I save more by buying used
> In the work life of a lot of people, being connected 24/7 is now pretty much
> like being in the office 24/7. Yes, there is an off switch. Using it will
> just get you scalded because "we couldn't get hold of you like the hundreds
> of other times the minute we wanted to".
In fact, it's now written into a lot of employment contracts that shutting off the cell phone or failing to have it with you is grounds for termination.
> Here too, not answering the phone (or turning it off) is immediately
> suspicious ("are you filtering me?"). And can lead to problematic
> relationship issues with friends.
Hell, yes. I have had voice mail for years. I -still- get messages saying "Pick up the phone, man!" It's voice mail, not an answering machine; I don't hear the message you're leaving while you leave it.
From the original post:
> Sure, you'll be on call at unusual hours of the day, but think about how
> much more efficient you'll be -- particularly if your most productive hours
> aren't between 9am and 5:30pm!
Sure; by transferring that productivity away from people who -are- most productive from 7am to 4:30pm.
> Honestly, I believe that this view of "the convergence" is as overly optimistic
> as the 1950's notion that by now we'd be travelling in flying cars, have robots
> cleaning our house*, and atomic power was going to make electricity too cheap
> to meter. In real life there's too much (friction? drag? entropy?) due to the
> sheer scale and complexity of legacy systems for things to happen the way the
> dreamers envision.
It's not just optimism that causes this flaw in thinking, or drag that causes it to fail. It happens anywhere someone sees a trend, extends the line to infinity, and assumes no other factors come into play as we move up the scale.
Just as space ships in E E Doc Smith's books travel faster than light by just adding more power and bigger power conduits, and the future of computers is the ZZM9Z, the huge tank only the best lensmen (usually Rigellians) can operate, the image the authors present assumes this trend continues to infinity.
It could happen... about the same time we finally see Doc's vast space armadas tossing around planets, negaspheres, and faster-than-light planets from an alternate universe. I won't hold my breath.
> The problem with broadband for many Americans is that they don't see the advantage in it.
Also, for many Americans, the theoretical advantages are -not- advantages -to them-.
> Many Americans can afford to pay for many of the things that people in
> other countries might only be able to get by downloading them freely off
> the net. So, in a way Americans have blinders on with regards to the possibilities of the Internet.
A big point. And it's not merely Americans being able to pay for stuff. A lot of it is merely increased availability, whether for pricing model reasons or other reasons. One poster mentioned the near universality of free local phone calls, and broad access to local dial-up modem banks.
> An excellent, and I would even say profound, example is academic journals...
> In many nations, broadband is enabling a great leap in educational quality
> that gives millions of students the chance to study meaningful cutting-edge
> research for the first time in their local academic history. Americans
> naturally have a hard time imagining what that means or how important it is
> because they already have practically free access to these things. Anybody
> in the States can use the university library after all. So, for an
> American, the issue of getting journals on the Internet seems somewhat irrelevant.
> So, broadband is definitely something that the US is only going to accept
> reluctantly, but slowly or not it is most certainly going to come even if
> the US is the last place on earth to get decent broadband penetration which
> I could easily imagine having just visited there and having been forced to
> use a modem on a number of occasions.
There are a few other points. Pricing models on broadband, in the US, use the pricing models for cable television and cell phones as models. This results in what is frequently a truly monumentally stupid mix of conflicting options.
A lot of people, myself included, fully intend to go to broadband, and could afford to now. But there is no rush, and we are still hoping that a little more time and a little more salivating greed on the part of the broadband providers might result in cleaner and better deals.
Where in order to get the good price on cable access, we don't need to go to the Digital Premium Package and get 595 channels of crap, including 214 community access channels and 85 music channels that play a total of 2 hours of music a day. This is a contrast to the phone provider's DSL option, which was advertised as "coming in june" 6 years ago, and is still "coming in june" .
Additionally, many of us look at the fact that we wasting a lot of time on the net downloading crap we never look at now. We're delaying on broadband to avoid wasting more time downloading more more crap we'll never look at.
Yeah, there's good stuff out there; but not enough to compel immediate action. There's no rush.
> Leadership emerges naturally in any group of people for the simple reason
> that it is in our nature.
It is also the nature of man to constantly strive to alter his nature.
> All this one vote rubish and all the other mumbo jumbo you mention is
> against the nature of small groups of people,
Actually, I wasn't lauding the holy nature of one-man-one-vote. I was simply pointing out that the forms under which we choose to organize can be a conscious decision. I'm not particularly enamored of voting.
> We vote for leaders when human societies grow too big to express
> interpersonal hierarchies.
I'd have to say that's an oversimplified, two-valued view there. Instead of reducing the question to when it is appropriate to vote and when it is appropriate to organize in a simple hierarchy under a single leader, I would say the more general principle is that we can select different methods of organization for different purposes. I would make no other general recommendations. For specific recommendations, I'd want to discuss first the purpose for which we are forming a group.
As far as the primate commentary, I do not argue that man is a not a primate; I would say, however, that man is not -merely- a primate.
Thanks for your comments.
> Leadership is needed!
Why?
> In every project, no matter what it is, whether it's open source or sending
> a space probe to Pluto. There will always be decisions to make that is not
> going to be in favor of every person on the team.
That explains why absolutely unanimous decisions are impossible. So, we have identified one system that doesn't work; why do we need -one- leader?
Why not one-man-one-vote? Why not voting by proxy shares, given out for lines of code contributed? Why not polling the user community and allow the developers to veto bad ideas on technical grounds?
There are probably hundreds or thousands of decision making protocols you could use.
> Sometimes you have to cut down, cut away, change and sometimes that process
> can be painful. Without someone who has the final word, anarchy and a "new
> geeky shiny thing" is the result.
Yes, you need to edit sometimes. Why does the editor have to be some "one"? Why not some two? Some nine? Some twelve?
Why is one leader superior to one group voting or blackballing? It's faster, but is it better? And if so, why?
> You can have all the creativity you want - but without proper leadership, all
;> I have a few project manager friends with no idea of the concepts of project planning or management of resources.
> that effort and talent goes wasted.
Is it leadership or direction that's needed? Leader implies a hierarchial management structure and differentiated skill sets. But can you achieve results with the (rarer) self-directed, self-disciplined people? Is it the leader that's missing, or the discipline and vision a leader often provides?
> I have a few creative friends that have all these wonderful ideas - but they
> have no idea on the concepts of project planning or management of resources.
True.
> Needless to say, their killer applications are still brain children - and
> not actually out here where the rest of us can use them.
I've often said to the big talkers I know: "It's not enough to be a genius; you have to be a genius -at- something." Aka "Put up or shut up."
> But, how does this differ from any form of nationalization which could occur?
It doesn't, really. But the US -does- have policies and controls over physical assets of US firms in other countries, and import export controls on physical devices. It has had for many years. This really just takes that concept over to information.
> Google's servers aren't exactly vital to the operation of the US government, so why the special interest?
Google is collecting a lot of data on people. How this data is used is of concern to the US government, as well as a lot of private individuals.
> They didn't step in when France said that certain things on websites were not allowed in their country.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately stretching the point or if you don't see the difference. Prohibiting certain things on websites is not quite the same as demanding information about the persons who put them there, in order to persecute them.
I think France's policies are stupid and needlessly restrictive, but they are different -in kind- from summary demands for information used to lock people up without trial.
As far as the rest of your points go, I'm not defending what the US does in other countries. A lot of it is very, very bad. But it doesn't justify the wrongs done by China and others.
Again, I'm not saying the US does no wrong, or that this is a good bill; I haven't seen it (no one has; it hasn't been written yet). I'm just saying the details in the article don't support the conclusions drawn in the SlashDot post.
Thank you for your comments.
A few observations:
> USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that
> would keep Google and others out of China.
Actually, no. First off, the bill hasn't even been drafted yet.
Secondarily, as I read the article, it wouldn't prevent anyone from doing business in China and other oppressive regimes. It would simply require the "vital computer servers" (currently not defined; remember, it hasn't been -drafted- yet) from being located physically within the opressive regime's geographic control.
> From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that
> would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft
> to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State
> Department deems repressive to human rights.
The part that wasn't quoted says: "Moving servers would keep personal data they house from government reach. But that also could weaken the firms' crucial Internet search engines."
It appears the intent of the bill is to prohibit situations where crucial equipment could be physically compromised by force, although since it hasn't been drafted yet, it could go further, of course.
I don't know anything about Rep. Smith, but this page:
http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/laws/laws.htm
Seems to indicate he has been actively interested in human rights under opressive regimes rather than gestapo internet control laws. Maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, at least until after he has finished a first draft we could look at?
> What sort of business applications are we talking about? If we're talking
> about serious users, Excel and Access aren't exactly the software that is
> used.
Actually, according to some studies, a large percentage of serious business applications are, in fact, in Excel spreadsheets. The studies in question were not MS propaganda; they were in fact complaining about this as a serious problem. I believe IEEE Computer magazine and Communications of the ACM have both looked at this problem.
I can tell you from first hand experience, Excel spreadsheets are the life and blood of many banks, accounting firms, medical, and other -large- corporations. I have spent a fair amount of time over the last few years helping some of these firms replace these spreadsheets with better applications. Some of this is for Sarbox compliance, some for HIPAA. But even with these changes, a -lot- of serious work is done in Excel.