At this point, one can only make guesses as to how market forces would net out in either situation.
The Internet has practiced net neutrality since its inception. Why do you suggest that one can only guess how it will play out? It's playing out just fine right now and has been doing so since the beginning.
I don't see any facts in the Google analysis, just ambiguous terms and a demeaning, "You can't see what we won't show you, so you don't know what you're talking about."
There's been a simple solution to all of this for years and that's to truly open up AdWords to the people that are paying for AdWords; the advertisers.
They won't do that because being open hurts Google and they know it. Google has something to hide.
I was about to respond to you to state how you completely missed my point. I then discovered that dev/trash already helped you out with that.
But, to directly respond to your question of "Are you saying our elections are secure enough then?"... The answer is that no matter how secure they are, unreasonable people will never be satisfied if they lose. And let's face it - no system that does anything millions of times is perfect. Especially when you consider that even with a fantastically accurate and secure system, the imperfect (and often incredibly stupid) people that are voting can still mess it up. Remember the einsteins that accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore in Florida? High-tech paper ballots were too much for them.
So there will always be things for buffoons on both sides to nitpick.
What do we need to ask for?... Voter verified paper trails that are human readable, serial in nature and easily handled / processed for recounts. Flimsy, thermal rolls that can discolor from improper storage and or handling won't cut it.
The bottom line is that your guy lost and you're not happy about it. So, you declare it's unfair (as any unreasonable person does) and start looking for someone or something to blame. This time it's supposedly hackable voting machines, but let's be honest - that's not the point. The point is your guy lost and you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore.
Let's just take one example from your exhausting (for emphasis, note that I didn't say exhaustive) list, which was to add printers to the whole process. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that if your next guy loses again you'll be the first one crying foul over the printers. "Printer jams occurred 1.2% more frequently in [my guy's stronghold]! Diebold rigged the election again!"
Quit the bull. You'll be unhappy until you win. At which point you'll be happy. And some idiots on the other side can take up the cause.
Before I'm inevitably accused of being pro-this or anti-that, you should be aware that I am thoroughly sick of partisans on both sides and I wish that everyone would realize that all politicians are fake and only out for themselves.
I enjoy the fact that Bush's antics have gotten so severely anti-American that people like you don't even bother to try and defend them anymore
People like me? You've obviously assumed that I'm some sort of partisan Republican blindly supporting Bush. I am not, and my comment said nothing to that effect. I am however sick of hearing the same unfunny, unclever, lame commentary on George Bush that obviously attempts to come across as clever. It's not clever, and I'm sick of hearing it. Similarly, I was sick of hearing incessant Clinton bashing in the 90s. It's just stupid.
In fact, all politicians are stupid. Anyone who thinks their side is brilliant while the other side are a bunch of cro-magnons really just has their eyes closed. Both sides use such people and make you a pawn in their political game.
I realize you only posted this comment 4 seconds ago, but I find it strange on Slashdot that you're not modded to +9 SuperGenius yet.
You don't get witty anti-Dubya sarcasm like this just anywhere:
Hell, they'll probably outlaw encrypting your own phone calls, next, because (the flag waving) it's (an eagle poses rampant) in (strains of The Star Bangled Banner) the (In God We Trust) best(the blue angels fly overhead) interests (cascading images of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.) of (Betsy Ross adds another star to her handicraft) America (fanfare of fife and drum) and everybody knows the real patriots don't question any of this.
That's quality stuff! And your clever use of condescending nicknames for George Bush...
Dub's dirty tricks or not
Magnificient! Yes, I'm sure it's only a matter of picoseconds before you'll be at +9 or greater. Congratulations.
The biggest downside is that in just two short years, George Bush will no longer be president and we won't get to hear such cerebral commentaries any longer.
I'm sorry to rant, but come on... Did you not see the line in my original comment:
Note that as a Slashdot comment, this an extremely simplified explanation and not a complete picture.
The guy I was replying to thought that being in the same subnet enabled you to sniff traffic. I figured I'd try to help him out by responding with the basics. To such a person, are discussions of ARP poisoning, ethercap, dsniff, blah blah blah going to be helpful? No, they aren't. Why don't I just take a few hours out of my day and teach him about spanning a port while I'm at it?
Israel is not the weak little victim in this conflict.
I'll ignore your first rant about how Jews should get over the slaughter of 6 million of their people circa 1940 and focus on the inaccurate statement quoted above.
Israel is in fact the weak little victim in this conflict. This is a proxy war - the real player is Iran and to a lesser extent Syria. There's little positive in this conflict for Hezbullah. The only ones that benefit truly from this are the leaders of Iran and they plan on pushing this conflict as far as they can.
i'm far from expert on the subject, but if you are on the same subnet , sniffing should be trivial.
Sniffing has nothing to do with subnetting. It has very much to do with the hardware that connects you. If you're both connected to the same hub, you can see all of each other's traffic. If you're both connected to the same switch, you can't.
Note that as a Slashdot comment, this an extremely simplified explanation and not a complete picture.
File your story under "fiction" because both analogies you gave are inaccurate. In fact, they're so contrived that it makes it obvious that any attempt to dissuade you from your partisan viewpoint will be futile.
You are likely not a law scholar, and you're probably also not even an attorney. The world isn't black and white, and you are in no position to determine what does and what does not break the law. Law scholars I've seen interviewed on this situation do not agree on whether it breaks the law or not so it's surprising that you can be so sure of yourself.
You likely do not have top secret clearance to know exactly what has been going on with this program. Therefore, you're relying on unofficial reports from unnamed sources that were reported in newspapers. It's surprising with such limited information that you again feel so sure of yourself.
I want to see Bush or Cheney do the perp walk. So do the majority of Americans at this point
It's a sad state when you're so biased you can't see your own biases. I don't mean that as an insult but as an invitation for introspection. The majority of Americans don't want to see a "perp" walk of Cheney or Bush. An "unfavorable" opinion is not the same thing as calling for the arrest of someone.
First of all, that headline... While it may be technically true, it's misleading. Then the write-up that convicts the entire program even before an investigation (which is apparently now stalled) has been started by calling it "illegal actions". That might be putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
Let's try re-writing the headline and summary:
Senator Kerry Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe
By failing to win the presidency, Senator Kerry has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.
There you go - this entire thing is really Kerry's doing. And though misleading, it's technically correct.
In fact, I know right where I'd file (BBB) that complaint.
I have two questions for you:
1. Have you ever filed a BBB complaint?
2. Before every purchase, do you look up the company's record at the BBB?
The answer to both of these questions for almost everyone is "no".
If you want to file a BBB complaint, expect to spend about 20 hours of your own time making sure that it gets put on their record. I've done it, and believe me - the onus is on you. Expect to have to make or take about 15 phone calls, send 2 or 3 FAXes and send 2 or 3 letters. Oh, and when the company replies that you're full of crap, you have 5 days to refute what they say - in writing. There's typically three ping-pong statements from both parties before anything gets put on the company's record. It takes months and it is not easy at all. One slip up, and the complaint is discarded and at best you start over from scratch.
Unfortunately what you outline is the only effective tactic in dealing with someone that makes $10 per hour, is reading from a script, doesn't really care about their job and knows that they will not get in trouble no matter how nonsensical they are as long as they are reasonably following written procedures. Be nice, and you might land on the nice side of the procedures. Be angry or uncooperative... You'll be following the worst parts of procedures to the letter.
You could support several pass-phrases. [...] One time use read pass phrases could even be supported. Pass phrases could be changed by visiting the Social Security Office or online.
I have to say, that I have absolutely no problem with what you propose. I would have no trouble using it whatsoever.
However, consider the mass audience of this stuff. Think back to Florida '00 where people voted for the wrong person because they couldn't figure out a paper voting ballot. A piece of paper! Any system proposed that doesn't take into consideration the moronic nature of a significant portion of the population is doomed to fail. I'm guessing based on my own subjective experience (totally pulled out of the air) that 15% of society are total morons. I'm not talking about slightly below average - I mean, can barely read style of moronification. I'm not insutling such people - I'm just saying that if we don't take them into consideration in designing the next system - there's going to be hell to pay.
Oh and one addition to your proposed solution: You better pass a law that companies that are given your private phrase aren't allowed to store it at all. And if it's one-time use, all the better... but that would just exacerbate the furrowed brows and confused stares of the moronites.
I've got a better chance of being hit by lightning that being killed by the (boogeyman) Terrorists.
When you compare the 3,000+ people that died on 9/11 with the 45,000 or so people that die every single year from highway accidents, it doesn't seem very significant. So I agree with your belief that historical terrorist attacks have not been very scary when placed into context. I would even verbalize what you imply - the actions we take in response to the attack exacerbate the problem, not make it better.
However - with the prospect for future attacks including nuclear weapons (either irradiated traditional bombs or nuclear bombs), all bets are off. Imagine 3,000,000 people and an entire city disappearing.
In that context, in my book it grants pretty significant leeway in terms of what constitutes the "appropriate measures" you speak of.
I'll make it so obvious even an idiot would see the folly of blaming US auto woes on unions.
The unfortunate thing is that anyone that thinks that it was not in fact unions that caused the US car manufacturer's problems is not worth having a conversation with.
The poster was illustrating the faulty logic of the grandparent. Unions didn't kill the steel industry or the auto industry. They were mis-managed and demand dropped for American cars.
I got his point. I just disagreed with it and I thought I'd have a bit of fun.
Unions did kill the industries you mention. Chief among any mismanagement that went on was caving in to ludicrous union demands.
If you don't want to be dragged down by lazy or shoddy tech workers then don't let them into the union!
Yeah - that way it will work just as well as the fabulous tenure system with teachers. Never get a bad apple then! Every tenured teacher is p-e-r-f-e-c-t.
If a union can toss my boss in the trash, where can I pay my dues?
I know it is so popular to rag on bosses. How they know nothing, add no value, blah blah blah. The funny thing is there is a segment of the boss population that is like this. But I bet it's pretty small. The reality is that it is far more likely that your boss possesses skillsets (whatever they are) that you may never comprehend in your entire career. Rather than admit that, it's easier just to chalk his success up to luck, or brown nosing, or nepotism or whatever other nonsense you can latch on to.
Realize that everyone has something to teach you... everyone... and you just may find yourself the one making the decisions some day. Or, keep grousing on Slashdot about your lack of opportunities and your stupid boss. Makes no difference to me.
Then a few months passed. Then it was half a year. Not a single reply from any of the resumes sent out. Then it was a year. It was three years before I was employed in the tech field again.
You say all this as if it is typical. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you just sucked at what you did? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are? I'm being serious. Most people in the world, and especially in the tech job market, think they are far more intelligent than they really are. You could just be a dumbass.
Despite that, what did you do with your year-long vacation? Let me guess. It all started with a phrase like, "Yeah, I'm going to take a few weeks off and then start looking for work." I'm willing to bet you didn't walk to the library every day to study new computer skills. If you had, you would have found work far sooner. I'm sure you got some really high Playstation 2 scores though. Yeah, I bet you do really well at video games. Am I right?
Yeah, I think anyone that's been unemployed for a year is either really dumb, really lazy or both. Which are you?
Here's a different example. Skilled construction jobs are way up, and they are largely union.
Therefore, unions create larger markets.
Fantastic! Not since my 9th grade health class have a heard such a good example of impaired mental ability demonstrating faulty logic. The example back then was:
"Jesus was a man with long hair. I have long hair. I must be Jesus."
Again, great job on ignoring the largest real estate bubble ever to hit a capitalist economy in your pro-union analysis.
I can telnet to port 80 and type GET / and guess what, I'm browsing the web. It's the same damn thing.
You're right - both telnet and http protocols use TCP. The similarities end there and you know it. Why are you even arguing this point? I will never understand why some people think it's perfectly acceptable to do things in the online world which they fundamentally know is wrong but they rationalize with some goofy loophole
By your logic, spammers are innocent of any wrongdoing because SMTP uses TCP as well and sending millions of unsolicited commercial emails is morally equivalent to telnetting to port 25 and typing "HELO spam.com". It's not morally or legally equivalent and I fail to see why anyone would think it is. They both use the same protocol but one is a series of actions purposely designed with a harm-causing end in mind.
By your logic, DDoS the hell out of anyone you want. After all, it's the same as typing PING yourhost.com. If they didn't want quadrillions of ICMP REPLY packets from broadcast addresses throughout the Internet, they shouldn't have connected to the public Internet. Again, just ludicrous.
"causing damage"? This is the first I have heard of that. How did he cause damage?
You actually sound like you know a little bit about networking and operating systems, so let me ask you. Consider you accidentally leave a small hole in your system - it can be anything, a user without a password, a buffer overflow you didn't immediately patch, whatever. Some jackass comes along and exploits the weakness in your security. Let's assume he doesn't actually delete any data, and doesn't install a rootkit, doesn't copy your data to his workstation, doesn't install keyloggers, doesn't install sniffers, etc, etc. He just goes in to your system and pokes around for a little while. The question is... Did he cause any damage? The answer is (to any rationale person) ABSOLUTELY. Because you don't know what he did. He could've installed 15 rootkits for all you know. Which is why any rationale person would rebuild their system from scratch from known good sources after the most innocuous seeming of security violations. It's unfortunate, but that is serious damages that wouldn't have been caused if the jerk wouldn't have taken positive, purposeful steps to poke his nose in where he knew it didn't belong. Not by accidentally typing a web address into a browser (something that any reasonable person would acknowledge is not hacking) but by entering a command or series of commands designed to go where he knows he shouldn't be. He said it himself; he was trying to look for evidence of UFOs that the government was hiding. Or, stated another way, he was breaking into systems for the purpose of gathering data that someone didn't want him to have.
I say again - why are you rationalizing and justifying what this lowlife did?
I suppose you obtained permission from every contributor (read: copyright holder) on slashdot.org before you broke into port 80 and pirated all of this text and graphics to your computer, correct?
Give me a break. This guy spent at least a year (2/01 to 3/02) hacking into U.S. Government computer systems, he's 40 years old, and he's more than competent with computers. He knew exactly what he's doing, and he knows what he's doing when he obfuscates the issue by saying that he logged into systems that didn't have a password. It's ridiculous to assume from his flippant answer that all of the thousands of systems he hacked into had no passwords. Keep in mind by his own admission he was scouring file systems for evidence of UFOs. How many file systems do you know don't require any authentication whatsoever?
before you broke into port 80 and pirated all of this text and graphics to your computer
Talk about horrible, totally irrelevant, and not remotely applicable analogies. Anyone with half a brain and even moderate computer skills knows that using a web browser to access unprotected content is one thing. Telnetting into a machine, password or no, is a completely different matter.
Finally, I have no idea why it's popular to defend people with no life that are amused by causing damage to systems they don't own and know they shouldn't be accessing.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point, one can only make guesses as to how market forces would net out in either situation.
The Internet has practiced net neutrality since its inception. Why do you suggest that one can only guess how it will play out? It's playing out just fine right now and has been doing so since the beginning.
A not so clever ploy for a free game methinks
Please tell me that you don't use the word "methinks" in everyday conversation. Do you wear a plumed hat and walk around in chain mail as well?
Ye art a dork.
I don't see any facts in the Google analysis, just ambiguous terms and a demeaning, "You can't see what we won't show you, so you don't know what you're talking about."
There's been a simple solution to all of this for years and that's to truly open up AdWords to the people that are paying for AdWords; the advertisers.
They won't do that because being open hurts Google and they know it. Google has something to hide.
I was about to respond to you to state how you completely missed my point. I then discovered that dev/trash already helped you out with that.
But, to directly respond to your question of "Are you saying our elections are secure enough then?"... The answer is that no matter how secure they are, unreasonable people will never be satisfied if they lose. And let's face it - no system that does anything millions of times is perfect. Especially when you consider that even with a fantastically accurate and secure system, the imperfect (and often incredibly stupid) people that are voting can still mess it up. Remember the einsteins that accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore in Florida? High-tech paper ballots were too much for them.
So there will always be things for buffoons on both sides to nitpick.
What do we need to ask for? ... Voter verified paper trails that are human readable, serial in nature and easily handled / processed for recounts. Flimsy, thermal rolls that can discolor from improper storage and or handling won't cut it.
The bottom line is that your guy lost and you're not happy about it. So, you declare it's unfair (as any unreasonable person does) and start looking for someone or something to blame. This time it's supposedly hackable voting machines, but let's be honest - that's not the point. The point is your guy lost and you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore.
Let's just take one example from your exhausting (for emphasis, note that I didn't say exhaustive) list, which was to add printers to the whole process. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that if your next guy loses again you'll be the first one crying foul over the printers. "Printer jams occurred 1.2% more frequently in [my guy's stronghold]! Diebold rigged the election again!"
Quit the bull. You'll be unhappy until you win. At which point you'll be happy. And some idiots on the other side can take up the cause.
Before I'm inevitably accused of being pro-this or anti-that, you should be aware that I am thoroughly sick of partisans on both sides and I wish that everyone would realize that all politicians are fake and only out for themselves.
I enjoy the fact that Bush's antics have gotten so severely anti-American that people like you don't even bother to try and defend them anymore
People like me? You've obviously assumed that I'm some sort of partisan Republican blindly supporting Bush. I am not, and my comment said nothing to that effect. I am however sick of hearing the same unfunny, unclever, lame commentary on George Bush that obviously attempts to come across as clever. It's not clever, and I'm sick of hearing it. Similarly, I was sick of hearing incessant Clinton bashing in the 90s. It's just stupid.
In fact, all politicians are stupid. Anyone who thinks their side is brilliant while the other side are a bunch of cro-magnons really just has their eyes closed. Both sides use such people and make you a pawn in their political game.
I realize you only posted this comment 4 seconds ago, but I find it strange on Slashdot that you're not modded to +9 SuperGenius yet.
You don't get witty anti-Dubya sarcasm like this just anywhere:
Hell, they'll probably outlaw encrypting your own phone calls, next, because (the flag waving) it's (an eagle poses rampant) in (strains of The Star Bangled Banner) the (In God We Trust) best(the blue angels fly overhead) interests (cascading images of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.) of (Betsy Ross adds another star to her handicraft) America (fanfare of fife and drum) and everybody knows the real patriots don't question any of this.
That's quality stuff! And your clever use of condescending nicknames for George Bush...
Dub's dirty tricks or not
Magnificient! Yes, I'm sure it's only a matter of picoseconds before you'll be at +9 or greater. Congratulations.
The biggest downside is that in just two short years, George Bush will no longer be president and we won't get to hear such cerebral commentaries any longer.
I'm sorry to rant, but come on... Did you not see the line in my original comment:
Note that as a Slashdot comment, this an extremely simplified explanation and not a complete picture.
The guy I was replying to thought that being in the same subnet enabled you to sniff traffic. I figured I'd try to help him out by responding with the basics. To such a person, are discussions of ARP poisoning, ethercap, dsniff, blah blah blah going to be helpful? No, they aren't. Why don't I just take a few hours out of my day and teach him about spanning a port while I'm at it?
Man, you guys really are nutjobs.
Israel is not the weak little victim in this conflict.
I'll ignore your first rant about how Jews should get over the slaughter of 6 million of their people circa 1940 and focus on the inaccurate statement quoted above.
Israel is in fact the weak little victim in this conflict. This is a proxy war - the real player is Iran and to a lesser extent Syria. There's little positive in this conflict for Hezbullah. The only ones that benefit truly from this are the leaders of Iran and they plan on pushing this conflict as far as they can.
i'm far from expert on the subject, but if you are on the same subnet , sniffing should be trivial.
Sniffing has nothing to do with subnetting. It has very much to do with the hardware that connects you. If you're both connected to the same hub, you can see all of each other's traffic. If you're both connected to the same switch, you can't.
Note that as a Slashdot comment, this an extremely simplified explanation and not a complete picture.
The names change, the story remains the same.
File your story under "fiction" because both analogies you gave are inaccurate. In fact, they're so contrived that it makes it obvious that any attempt to dissuade you from your partisan viewpoint will be futile.
Therefore, I won't try.
The program does indeed break the law.
You are likely not a law scholar, and you're probably also not even an attorney. The world isn't black and white, and you are in no position to determine what does and what does not break the law. Law scholars I've seen interviewed on this situation do not agree on whether it breaks the law or not so it's surprising that you can be so sure of yourself.
You likely do not have top secret clearance to know exactly what has been going on with this program. Therefore, you're relying on unofficial reports from unnamed sources that were reported in newspapers. It's surprising with such limited information that you again feel so sure of yourself.
I want to see Bush or Cheney do the perp walk. So do the majority of Americans at this point
It's a sad state when you're so biased you can't see your own biases. I don't mean that as an insult but as an invitation for introspection. The majority of Americans don't want to see a "perp" walk of Cheney or Bush. An "unfavorable" opinion is not the same thing as calling for the arrest of someone.
First of all, that headline... While it may be technically true, it's misleading. Then the write-up that convicts the entire program even before an investigation (which is apparently now stalled) has been started by calling it "illegal actions". That might be putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
Let's try re-writing the headline and summary:
Senator Kerry Blocks NSA Wireless Tapping Probe
By failing to win the presidency, Senator Kerry has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place.
There you go - this entire thing is really Kerry's doing. And though misleading, it's technically correct.
In fact, I know right where I'd file (BBB) that complaint.
I have two questions for you:
1. Have you ever filed a BBB complaint?
2. Before every purchase, do you look up the company's record at the BBB?
The answer to both of these questions for almost everyone is "no".
If you want to file a BBB complaint, expect to spend about 20 hours of your own time making sure that it gets put on their record. I've done it, and believe me - the onus is on you. Expect to have to make or take about 15 phone calls, send 2 or 3 FAXes and send 2 or 3 letters. Oh, and when the company replies that you're full of crap, you have 5 days to refute what they say - in writing. There's typically three ping-pong statements from both parties before anything gets put on the company's record. It takes months and it is not easy at all. One slip up, and the complaint is discarded and at best you start over from scratch.
So, when I have an issue I suck up.
Unfortunately what you outline is the only effective tactic in dealing with someone that makes $10 per hour, is reading from a script, doesn't really care about their job and knows that they will not get in trouble no matter how nonsensical they are as long as they are reasonably following written procedures. Be nice, and you might land on the nice side of the procedures. Be angry or uncooperative... You'll be following the worst parts of procedures to the letter.
You could support several pass-phrases. [...] One time use read pass phrases could even be supported. Pass phrases could be changed by visiting the Social Security Office or online.
I have to say, that I have absolutely no problem with what you propose. I would have no trouble using it whatsoever.
However, consider the mass audience of this stuff. Think back to Florida '00 where people voted for the wrong person because they couldn't figure out a paper voting ballot. A piece of paper! Any system proposed that doesn't take into consideration the moronic nature of a significant portion of the population is doomed to fail. I'm guessing based on my own subjective experience (totally pulled out of the air) that 15% of society are total morons. I'm not talking about slightly below average - I mean, can barely read style of moronification. I'm not insutling such people - I'm just saying that if we don't take them into consideration in designing the next system - there's going to be hell to pay.
Oh and one addition to your proposed solution: You better pass a law that companies that are given your private phrase aren't allowed to store it at all. And if it's one-time use, all the better... but that would just exacerbate the furrowed brows and confused stares of the moronites.
I've got a better chance of being hit by lightning that being killed by the (boogeyman) Terrorists.
When you compare the 3,000+ people that died on 9/11 with the 45,000 or so people that die every single year from highway accidents, it doesn't seem very significant. So I agree with your belief that historical terrorist attacks have not been very scary when placed into context. I would even verbalize what you imply - the actions we take in response to the attack exacerbate the problem, not make it better.
However - with the prospect for future attacks including nuclear weapons (either irradiated traditional bombs or nuclear bombs), all bets are off. Imagine 3,000,000 people and an entire city disappearing.
In that context, in my book it grants pretty significant leeway in terms of what constitutes the "appropriate measures" you speak of.
The unfortunate thing is that anyone that thinks that it was not in fact unions that caused the US car manufacturer's problems is not worth having a conversation with.
Which is why it's more fun to make fun of you.
Next you're going to tell me you're Jesus.
I got his point. I just disagreed with it and I thought I'd have a bit of fun.
Unions did kill the industries you mention. Chief among any mismanagement that went on was caving in to ludicrous union demands.
If you don't want to be dragged down by lazy or shoddy tech workers then don't let them into the union!
Yeah - that way it will work just as well as the fabulous tenure system with teachers. Never get a bad apple then! Every tenured teacher is p-e-r-f-e-c-t.
If a union can toss my boss in the trash, where can I pay my dues?
I know it is so popular to rag on bosses. How they know nothing, add no value, blah blah blah. The funny thing is there is a segment of the boss population that is like this. But I bet it's pretty small. The reality is that it is far more likely that your boss possesses skillsets (whatever they are) that you may never comprehend in your entire career. Rather than admit that, it's easier just to chalk his success up to luck, or brown nosing, or nepotism or whatever other nonsense you can latch on to.
Realize that everyone has something to teach you... everyone... and you just may find yourself the one making the decisions some day. Or, keep grousing on Slashdot about your lack of opportunities and your stupid boss. Makes no difference to me.
Best of luck to you.
Then a few months passed. Then it was half a year. Not a single reply from any of the resumes sent out. Then it was a year. It was three years before I was employed in the tech field again.
You say all this as if it is typical. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you just sucked at what you did? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are? I'm being serious. Most people in the world, and especially in the tech job market, think they are far more intelligent than they really are. You could just be a dumbass.
Despite that, what did you do with your year-long vacation? Let me guess. It all started with a phrase like, "Yeah, I'm going to take a few weeks off and then start looking for work." I'm willing to bet you didn't walk to the library every day to study new computer skills. If you had, you would have found work far sooner. I'm sure you got some really high Playstation 2 scores though. Yeah, I bet you do really well at video games. Am I right?
Yeah, I think anyone that's been unemployed for a year is either really dumb, really lazy or both. Which are you?
Joining a union is about as appealing to me as chaining myself to a half a dozen people who can't swim and jumping into a lake.
With infinite time, I don't believe I could think of a more apt analogy.
Here's a different example. Skilled construction jobs are way up, and they are largely union.
Therefore, unions create larger markets.
Fantastic! Not since my 9th grade health class have a heard such a good example of impaired mental ability demonstrating faulty logic. The example back then was:
"Jesus was a man with long hair. I have long hair. I must be Jesus."
Again, great job on ignoring the largest real estate bubble ever to hit a capitalist economy in your pro-union analysis.
I can telnet to port 80 and type GET / and guess what, I'm browsing the web. It's the same damn thing.
You're right - both telnet and http protocols use TCP. The similarities end there and you know it. Why are you even arguing this point? I will never understand why some people think it's perfectly acceptable to do things in the online world which they fundamentally know is wrong but they rationalize with some goofy loophole
By your logic, spammers are innocent of any wrongdoing because SMTP uses TCP as well and sending millions of unsolicited commercial emails is morally equivalent to telnetting to port 25 and typing "HELO spam.com". It's not morally or legally equivalent and I fail to see why anyone would think it is. They both use the same protocol but one is a series of actions purposely designed with a harm-causing end in mind.
By your logic, DDoS the hell out of anyone you want. After all, it's the same as typing PING yourhost.com. If they didn't want quadrillions of ICMP REPLY packets from broadcast addresses throughout the Internet, they shouldn't have connected to the public Internet. Again, just ludicrous.
"causing damage"? This is the first I have heard of that. How did he cause damage?
You actually sound like you know a little bit about networking and operating systems, so let me ask you. Consider you accidentally leave a small hole in your system - it can be anything, a user without a password, a buffer overflow you didn't immediately patch, whatever. Some jackass comes along and exploits the weakness in your security. Let's assume he doesn't actually delete any data, and doesn't install a rootkit, doesn't copy your data to his workstation, doesn't install keyloggers, doesn't install sniffers, etc, etc. He just goes in to your system and pokes around for a little while. The question is... Did he cause any damage? The answer is (to any rationale person) ABSOLUTELY. Because you don't know what he did. He could've installed 15 rootkits for all you know. Which is why any rationale person would rebuild their system from scratch from known good sources after the most innocuous seeming of security violations. It's unfortunate, but that is serious damages that wouldn't have been caused if the jerk wouldn't have taken positive, purposeful steps to poke his nose in where he knew it didn't belong. Not by accidentally typing a web address into a browser (something that any reasonable person would acknowledge is not hacking) but by entering a command or series of commands designed to go where he knows he shouldn't be. He said it himself; he was trying to look for evidence of UFOs that the government was hiding. Or, stated another way, he was breaking into systems for the purpose of gathering data that someone didn't want him to have.
I say again - why are you rationalizing and justifying what this lowlife did?
I suppose you obtained permission from every contributor (read: copyright holder) on slashdot.org before you broke into port 80 and pirated all of this text and graphics to your computer, correct?
Give me a break. This guy spent at least a year (2/01 to 3/02) hacking into U.S. Government computer systems, he's 40 years old, and he's more than competent with computers. He knew exactly what he's doing, and he knows what he's doing when he obfuscates the issue by saying that he logged into systems that didn't have a password. It's ridiculous to assume from his flippant answer that all of the thousands of systems he hacked into had no passwords. Keep in mind by his own admission he was scouring file systems for evidence of UFOs. How many file systems do you know don't require any authentication whatsoever?
before you broke into port 80 and pirated all of this text and graphics to your computer
Talk about horrible, totally irrelevant, and not remotely applicable analogies. Anyone with half a brain and even moderate computer skills knows that using a web browser to access unprotected content is one thing. Telnetting into a machine, password or no, is a completely different matter.
Finally, I have no idea why it's popular to defend people with no life that are amused by causing damage to systems they don't own and know they shouldn't be accessing.