Why does it always need to be said, every time this topic comes up, that Intelligent Design is NOT even a theory? A theory holds a special place in science. It has verifiable data. It's not teenage bong-rip philosophy hour. Gravity is a Theory. Relativity is a Theory. The very idea that the Earth orbits the sun is a Theory. Calling intelligent design a theory lends it way too much credence as an actual scientific model for the development of life.
And again, I'm not sure why it always needs to be said, but where does anyone even get the idea that intelligent design actually contradicts evolution? Frankly, I'm not terribly impressed with a God that just blinks his eyes and makes something happen. However, an intelligence that was able to design such complex systems as, say, all biological life on planet Earth, evolution inclusive... I would be pretty impressed by.
The Universe is full of Miracles and Wonders. What higher purpose do you really need besides exploring the infinite? Being a good person, and worshipping some abstract authority figure seems pretty trivial by comparison, doesn't it?
Actually, I considered this myself, and it occured to me to just write a quickie script to google through all possible SSN's, and store the result for mine. Same for the phone number. Maybe not exhausting all possibilities, but all possibilities within a specified range, or adding it to a randomized list. Just as my fingers hit the keyboard, I started asking myself. Is this *really* a good idea...?:)
And some of us need or expect sleep between noon and 8 PM. Just because you work a 'normal' shift, doesn't mean you get to be the only one entitled to things like hobbies. I work a 9-5 myself, and have no interest in cutting steel, or any of that - I'll stick to WoW, and all that other nerdy crap. But really, now. What a pompous thing to say. When I was working a swing shift, I didn't much care for the fact that people were mowing their lawns at noon. Just because you work a 9-5, doesn't mean your needs and interests are more important than someone else's. Let us know if you have the same opinion when your life is in the hands of a late-night Trauma surgeon who didn't get any sleep that day, because of your Sunday afternoon tailgate party.
1 - If you don't have time to raise your kids, you shouldn't have had them. If you already have, you need to make the time.
2 - Of course there's a logical stopping point to the 'parent more' argument. Your battery example is flawed. Shy of self-defense, there's no legitimate reason to walk up and brain someone with a tire iron. Assault laws are on the books, because there's no legitimate reason to inflict bodily harm on someone who isn't attempting the same vs. you. On the other hand, there's plenty of legitimate reasons for kids to be using myspace, that don't involve activities best kept within the walls of the Catholic Church (Ok, couldn't resist.)
3 - I will decide what freedoms and restrictions my kids have, thank you very much. If I want them to be fully exposed to the internet, and all its predators, having faith that they will make the right decisions - that's between me and my family. I don't need the government placing restrictions on me as a parent, just because others 'can't' do their jobs.
4 - If you don't have basic technical skills, you probably shouldn't be raising children in the information age, either. This is tantamount to illiteracy these days. If you can't turn on a computer, and get basic functionality out of a web browser, you just need to learn. No excuses. Your children will only suffer for your lack of knowledge here, as will you. I know it's an elitist thing to say, but I have to say it anyway. It's 2006 - you MUST be able to operate a computer to function normally in society.
As a 'died (dyed?)-in-the-wool' capitalist as well, I have to point out a couple of things.
First, it may seem like it's been a long time since mobile phones were pervasive in the US, but when you're talking about something with as massive an impact on our communications structure and the telecom business as a whole - obviously a major part of our economy - you'll have to be a little more patient, in waiting for those market forces. It's going to take a while for the dust to settle - possibly to the tune of 7-10 more years.
Does this benefit the consumer? Arguable, but irrelevant in my opinion. There are some chinks in the armor of the theory of free market capitalism. Periodically, competition will not sort itself out in an immediate, clean fashion, and this will be a detriment to consumers. However - it's important, in my opinion, for consumers to just 'suck it up' in those rare instances - and vote with their pocketbooks, perhaps thru boycotts or the like, on getting the market turmoil sorted out. Frankly, most of us probably don't even care at this point, which mobile communications standard we're on - so just don't buy ANYONE'S cell phone until they agree on a standard. It's important that we don't go about imposing Federal regulations in situations where market forces don't initially appear to be doing their job. It sets a bad precedent. It's a wide open invitation to a huge slippery slope.
I hate to be one of those people who say 'One person can make a difference'.. but from recent experience forcing myself to believe this, it seems to be true. I've made various in-roads at the State level here in CA by just keeping the letters coming - I have directly seen policies change as a result of my complaints. The same is true of large corporations.
A high-level DMV representative explained it very nicely and candidly to me. Most people in high-level positions in government or business are actually reasonably ethical. Most still believe in democracy, and the constituent response to a given decision. However, at a given discussion, sitting around the table you have elected officials and their aides, and a bunch of lobbyists. The lobbyists present their case, and the Governor turns to the elected and appointed officials and says, "What about the constituent response." 99% of the time, there is none to speak of. According to this representative - who admittedly could have been blowing smoke - there is a lot of frustration even in the government, because the one thing with real power versus corporate interests is STILL the word of the people, and during committee discussions, they simply don't have a 'word of the people' to present.
I digress. My point is - just because market forces haven't sorted this out, doesn't mean we should be crying for regulation to do it for us. FORCE the market to sort itself out. Make the phone calls. Send the e-mails. Make yourself a huge pain in the ass. Cost them so much money in man-hours responding to your bitching that they cave. It works. Trust me.
What's always sort of bothered me about all the criticism surrounding Myspace lately is the source. I rarely even see it mentioned, except on Fox News, and my local Fox affiliate. (Fox is owned by News Corp, for you cave-dwellers). I also couldn't help but notice that all this criticism started shortly after News Corp's acquisition of Myspace.
For some reason, the phrase 'There's no such thing as bad publicity' suddenly came to mind. Especially in the case of my local Fox affiliate station. I literally watch this because it can occasionally rival the Daily Show for humor value, if you can stop your heart from breaking about the fact that it's being passed off as actual journalism. Just in the words the anchors were using, as they were describing this potential evil known as Myspace.com - it sounded like an advertisement. KTXL Fox 40 has always been extremely ham-handed about the things you know are being whispered on the set before tape starts rolling, which is where I derive the humor value, and also a scrap of insight about what the more subtle news organizations are doing. That being said, Fox 40 has reported on this 'scandal' constantly since the acquisition, and I've heard it mentioned no small number of times on Fox News, either. Now I ask you - what purpose could News Corp and it's affiliates possibly have for attacking a sister company? Driving up hits, perhaps? Shocked, outraged parents signing on to see what the fuss is all about - and more insiduously - children and teenagers who might be prone to looking for explicit sexual material anyway due to things like... oh, I don't know. Being in the range of 14-18 years old. They might as well have said 'Hey, teens! Surf to Myspace.com, and get laid tonight!'.
There may very well be data that contradicts me here, but from personal observation, I haven't seen a whole lot of 6 year olds with myspace profiles. Not that influencing a 15 year old into the sack makes you an upstanding citizen. It just seems that Myspace's target market is the exact group of people that are going to be the most easily coerced into sexual relations. Imagine you're 17 years old, watching Fox News with the parents, with hormones spilling out your ears. Your local anchor tells you about all this explicit material, and potential to 'get a piece', and even throws in that your parents will disapprove! Sounds like a commercial to me. And a rather twisted one at that.
I realize I was painting things with a rather broad brush in my comment, but so was the original poster. Individuals are going to have specific needs, which in some cases may be met by a private office. I probably shouldn't have made presumptions as to the motivations behind the original poster, but the tone of the story really sounded whiny and elitist to me.
Personally, I think a pretty solid answer to the problems of security and productivity lies in telecommuting, provided you plan out your security model appropriately. The odds are I have ADD, as well. I've never been officially diagnosed, but that's because I've never tried - I'm one of those jerks that thinks a little self-control will solve the whole problem - despite having been proved wrong on countless occasions;)
I currently have a private office, which certainly helps the productivity out in my case. There are certain things I do at home to maintain concentration, that just wouldn't be acceptable in the workplace. Chain smoking, for example. Yes, I realize I should come up with a less cancerous method, but my point is you have far more options available to you in terms of maintaining a quiet, productive work environment if you're in complete control over that environment. I don't have any figures to back me up here, but I would assume that putting together a solid telecommuting infrastructure would be far more cost effective than dishing out an office to every Tech Support rep, over the long haul.
The question posed in the story was 'Do IT professionals need private offices?'. I would answer a resounding 'No' to that. There are individuals who would benefit from it, but to make the claim that every IT professional needs an office of their own, and to try to back that up with the argument that a door is somehow going to magically grant you complete data security is bone-headed and whiny.
And just so I don't sound like an elitist whiner myself, I'll point out that I do have a private office right this minute, but it's the first time that's ever been the case in almost 10 years of IT work, and I wouldn't be surprised to find myself sitting in a cubicle again, if the company continues to grow at its current pace.
Maybe it's just me, but I would think that justifying the cost of an office for every IT person with the added layer of physical security you get with a standard tumbler lock on a door is pretty silly. Even if you have an office, you should be securing your critical data, and not depending on a plank of wood to do it for you. If you were really that interested in security, you wouldn't have your critical data on your workstation anyway. These things should be kept in a heavily secured data center of some sort, with extremely limited physical access. Maybe I haven't worked in many places, but I've never seen keycard locks for individual offices anywhere I've been. They've all had an inexpensive, standard key-lock which serves more as a symbolic 'leave me alone' gesture than any kind of security mechanism. Sort of like the lock on a bathroom stall. It really sounds to me like you're working at a growing company that's facing space constraints, and reaching - rather far at that - for a justifcation of your not having to mingle amongst the common folk. God forbid the common CS rep have the ability to pull back the curtain, and expose you as just a man behind a computer, rather than the all-important network God you want to be perceived as.
In terms of the productivity argument, that holds a little more water. It still depends on the maturity level of the person in question, though. Give some hot-shot kid with zero professional experience an office with a door, and watch his productivity soar. Provided you count the number of slashdot posts, and hours spent on Myspace as productivity. In the case of a mature person, an office would probably increase their level of productivity. But if they are that mature, they probably have the ability to sack up, and get their job done in the face of such arduous conditions as being forced to sit in a cubicle.
Someone mentioned that the cost of cubicles is actually not much (or at all) less than that of giving people their own office. I find that pretty suspect, but we'll assume that to be true for the moment. Can someone clear up how this doesn't simply take up more floor space that may not even be available? Is floor space being taken into account in the cost analysis? I would think that if you have to construct a whole new building for every 30 people you hire, you're probably going to save a couple of bucks in just building up a cube city.
I agree that there is probably a degree of management elitism in most cases, that keeps the peons in their cubes, and the Directors in their offices, but oh well. Suck it up, and get your job done, or go find a new one. Apparently you weren't so distracted by your co-workers that you couldn't post an inane story on Slashdot.
This statement is getting ridiculous. In any thread that even vaguely mentions Microsoft (And many that don't.) Someone rants about how everyone on Slashdot is anti-Microsoft.
Am I the only one reading the comments? Or just the only one noticing that for every Microsoft-basher, there's someone jumping into Bill Gates' corner. Granted, there might be a marginally higher population of [Insert trendy alternate OS here] fanboys than MS ones, but come on. I see/tons/ of Highly-Moderated comments that favor Microsoft on any given issue. Considering the comments are moderated by the slashdot readership, one has to assume that not everyone here is a MS basher, doesn't one?
Bottom Line: Microsoft is not entirely evil, nor entirely good. Intelligent people will not label them as such. Rational, right-thinking people will examine each story/issue/what have you, and make judgements accordingly.
Hopefully this will turn out to be a minor issue in the long run, but I've run into some issues voting here in California.
On my registration form, I listed a mailing address that differed from that of my residence. I received my voter registration card in the mail, which gave me a polling place a few blocks from my listed residence. The card includes a note saying that since I'm a late registrant, I will not be receiving a sample ballot. No big deal. My mind is made up for the presidency, and I've done my homework regarding the local ballot measures. I'm also not a Florida resident, so I presumed I could figure out the ballot without seeing a sample. (Ok, cheap shot.)
Lo and behold, though, yesterday I receive a sample ballot after all. Complete with a polling place listed on the back. Only trouble is, it differs from the one on my voter registration card. It's not even in the same county. The local measures were the wrong ones, and there was a spot for Mayor of a town I don't even live in. Confusion arises.
So I go down to polling place #1. This is where I'm a resident, and as I understand it, that's the relevant issue at hand. I could theoretically have had them mail be a ballot overseas, if my legal residence was here in Northern California. I stood in line for quite a while, actually.. which was good to see. I finally get to the front of the line, and there's 3 poll workers doing their thing. I mention the ambiguity to them, and the 3 poll workers check their roll call sheets, or whatever the appropriate term is. Turns out I'm on only one of these 3, theoretically identical roll call sheets. Poll worker #3, who doesn't look like he's even old enough to vote, reasons, 'Well, you're on/my/ sheet, so you must be in the right place.' Unconvinced, I give them the ol' 'BBL' and drive down the road to polling place #2.
Again, I wait in a rather long line, and when I arrive at the front, it turns out I'm on all of the roll call sheets there, thus calling our pimply-faced friend's judgement into question.
So as I type, I'm trying to get through to the voter registrar's office, to see about clearing this up. Thus far, all I've received is the message, 'We're sorry, all of our representatives are helping other voters, please hold..' yada yada. Followed by 15 minutes of dead air. Followed by a dialtone. Hopefully, the registrar's office is just busy, and this isn't a ${Party} conspiracy to discount my vote.;)
What concerns me most about this though, is that I just IMed a friend telling them what was going on, and she mentioned that several people at her job are going through the same thing....
Hopefully this will straighten itself out. Anyone have any other brilliant suggestions besides the registrar's office, and possibly that 866 number that keeps getting mentioned?
How does one accidentally microwave anything, let alone digital media? Parent was modded insightful, but I have to wonder if they were trying to be funny. Seriously. I'm wondering if I'm missing something obvious here...
Or maybe the editors (and readers) were getting sick of this 'pointless drivel' infesting every other topic of discussion, and were making an honest effort to try to centralize it.
I always wonder about comments like this. 'If Saddam didn't have weapons, then why didn't he just let the UN do the inspections?'
I wonder about these comments especially considering the sources (No specific reference to poster intended). They're usually the same 'free-as-in-speech' libertarian ${foo}-wing whackos that don't want their computers wiretapped, even though they presumably don't have any child pornography, or terrorist ties to hide.
What if the UN decided they wanted to start inspecting our weapons? Admittedly, this is pure speculation, but while we openly admit to having WMDs ourselves, I imagine that we're developing even more destructive technologies that we aren't announcing to the UN, or the rest of the world. There isn't much chance of the U.S. inviting delegates from other nations, hostile or not, to inspect our defensive capabilities. I also imagine that you could unite most Americans of any political ideology under a banner prohibiting such a thing.
So why didn't Saddam let UN inspectors into Iraq? I don't actually know. However, I do consider it entirely possible that it's because despite his murderous behavior, he was leading his country - at least in this respect - in what he felt was an appropriate manner, and in the best interest of his own national security.
I just find it rather hypocritical that privacy advocates recoil in horror when they hear a statement like, 'If you've got nothing to hide, then there's no reason not to let the nice men in black search your house.' Then turn around and say 'If Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have let the inspectors in.' Again, for the record, this was not meant as an attack on the parent poster, but his comment started me thinking along these lines.
Did anyone say this was going to be the sole basis upon which to base their vote? Of course not. I don't know about anyone else, but I read a statement by a presidential candidate about his stance on an issue. One which is of particular concern to a lot of 'geeks'. I did not read 'Vote for John Kerry, because he might ease some of the draconian restrictions on digital media.'
I wouldn't vote for or against a candidate based on his stance on any single issue. You know, unless he was in favor of say, dropping nuclear weapons on every non-democratic country worldwide, but that's beside the point.
Personally, I don't see terrorism as all that big an issue. I see it as an issue that plays out well on Television, and other media. The most handy statistic I'm able to find is an estimated 18,029 good old-fashioned homicides occurred in 1997. Even assuming the insane, that homicides dropped by a full 25% since then, you're looking at ~13,000 murders. Between triple and quadruple the number of people killed in the single terrorist attack on domestic soil, in the past 3 years. The odds of my being killed in an automobile accident are staggeringly higher than being killed in a terrorist attack, but I don't see either candidate making automotive safety a part of their campaign platform.
My point is, you can't base your vote on a single issue. And some of the so-called 'hot-button' issues really aren't as hot as they appear to be. To be honest, I am more concerned with copyright law run amok than terrorism. The odds are stacked heavily against my being involved in a terrorist attack. Copyright law, however, has a real, palpable effect on my life every day. Terrorism would not have that effect, if the talking heads would just shut up about it for 2 minutes, and report some actual news.
I've no long-winded response to this neccessarily, other than to say that unfortunately, idealism is often confused for ignorance. Frequently, the same sorts of people demonstrate both. As a teenager, I had a lot of 'ideals' that I now chalk up to ignorance of the world around me. However, the spirit of your post, and the previous post I'm 100% in agreement with.
And to those who replied with 'You ignorant flame-baiting troll!' Try backing your own crap up with some facts, before you start slinging it.
How are we going to provide absolute security to users, when we can't even get it on our high-end systems?
Absolute security is an inherent impossibility in any situation.
That said, I think the idea is sound, and the comparison drawn to a driver's liscence is fair. However, as is also pointed out, who is going to implement this? I think we've basically got 2 hypothetical choices.
- The Government
- The ISP
In the first case, we clearly do not want the government making the decisions about who gets online, and who does not. In the second case, we'd have ISPs whose revenue streams depended on people actually passing the test - which rather defeats the purpose.
I think what we have here is a beautiful pipe dream. I'd love to live in a world where some magical, benevolent overseeing body decided who could get online, who could drive, and who could procreate.. possibly even who should be allowed to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide. But the fact is, no authority exists on this planet that could be trusted to implement this in any fashion other than a complete travesty.
I don't know if anyone else is dissing him, but I certainly wouldn't be upset with anyone who did.
I haven't cared enough to document every single piece of complete misinformation I've seen from him, but there have been plenty.
The most glaring example I can think of off the top of my head:
In the following article Cringely slams Earthlink for a lot of really good reasons, but then follows it up with:
Total Access 2003 trashes your e-mail, can't import favorites into the new browser, and it has automatic updates, which means Earthlink can load anything else it likes onto your system at any time. And it can't be uninstalled.
No Earthlink software has ever had an uninstall, so why should this?
Every single assertation in this paragraph + 1 sentence is 100% factually untrue, and can easily be proven as such by anyone with a free CD from Best Buy - except for the fact that the EULA technically does give Earthlink the right to install whatever they want.
That said, Cringely does occasionally make some solid, informative (and informed) points. I give his comments about the same weight as I do any other slashdot commentary. Sometimes he's informative, interesting, and insightful. Others, he's a troll:)
So, MSBlast came in on ports 135, 137, 139. The next big vulnerability will come in on some other well known port, and the ISP's response will be to block it because 'You don't need it.' Before too long, we'll be left with ports 80, 110, and 5508 (or whatever it is that AIM uses).
Dumbing down the internet because Ma and Pa Kettle 'shouldn't have to' understand it is not the answer. What I think would go MILES toward solving the problem is simply educating these same users not on how to/use/ their computers, but simply pointing out which vendors provide the various different components on their machine. A clear understanding of a fact that we geeks take absolutely for granted is 100% missing from end users. End Users do not realize the difference between the hardware manufacturer, the OS vendor, and their ISP. It's all just 'the computer' to them. Even 'dumb' end users can understand this with a little time. These same people manage to pay an electric bill, a mortgage, and various different credit card companies without getting them mixed up.
Frequently, I hear the frustration about how consumers will not vote with their wallet. As soon as we can demonstrate the role of the ISP vs. that of the OS vendor, everyone will be much better off. People don't vote with their wallets, quite simply, because they have no idea who is on the ballot.
But more to the original point, systematically blocking out every port - even allowing for an 'opt-out' feature brings us perilously close to the Internet of the Future that we all fear - a completely passive, proprietary communications medium. Remember when the radio was supposed to knit the global community closer together, by enabling anyone to communicate over the airwaves? Take a look at Clearchannel's market share, and behold the future of the internet if we support policies like this, even in the name of 'security.'
I especially liked his point about the 'normal support channels'. In fact, I was just mulling over the same thought last night. What seems to be really missing from a user-appreciable desktop Linux experience is not so much technological, but personal. If Aunt Flo can't call up her next-door neighbor, and get a quick answer about something on her OS, we'll never see any rapid adoption.
Remember, just because users have phone or e-mail based tech support available, it doesn't mean they want to use it. Most people tend to be intimidated and/or embarrassed about making that phone call, and will usually put it off until they've Really screwed things up.
Maybe they all got modded down, but I'm noticing a disturbing lack of conspiracy theories, for the slashdot crowd.
Personally, I see this as more of the same TIA/PATRIOT nonsense we've been enduring since 9/11. I find it far more likely that the GWB / Ashcroft crowd is using this as a tool for our own 'National Security'. Of the following 2 scenarios, which seems more likely given the practices we've seen from the current US administration?
A> Washington truly and deeply cares for the plight of the Iranian citizen, and the censorship they're subjected to by their oppressive government, despite showing no such concern for its own citizens.
B> Washington provides 'anonymous' internet access, in order to monitor the browsing activities of 'potential terrorists'. (Read: Everyone in Iran). All in the name of national security of course.
Considering the US's track record on things like this, I'm personally voting for B. Total Information Awareness really said it all for me. The United States Government has decided that privacy is the antithesis of freedom and security. I find it really hard to take this act at face value, considering the US's current stance on Internet Anonymity.
Slashdot Mirror
And again, I'm not sure why it always needs to be said, but where does anyone even get the idea that intelligent design actually contradicts evolution? Frankly, I'm not terribly impressed with a God that just blinks his eyes and makes something happen. However, an intelligence that was able to design such complex systems as, say, all biological life on planet Earth, evolution inclusive... I would be pretty impressed by.
The Universe is full of Miracles and Wonders. What higher purpose do you really need besides exploring the infinite? Being a good person, and worshipping some abstract authority figure seems pretty trivial by comparison, doesn't it?
Actually, I considered this myself, and it occured to me to just write a quickie script to google through all possible SSN's, and store the result for mine. Same for the phone number. Maybe not exhausting all possibilities, but all possibilities within a specified range, or adding it to a randomized list. Just as my fingers hit the keyboard, I started asking myself. Is this *really* a good idea...? :)
And some of us need or expect sleep between noon and 8 PM. Just because you work a 'normal' shift, doesn't mean you get to be the only one entitled to things like hobbies. I work a 9-5 myself, and have no interest in cutting steel, or any of that - I'll stick to WoW, and all that other nerdy crap. But really, now. What a pompous thing to say. When I was working a swing shift, I didn't much care for the fact that people were mowing their lawns at noon. Just because you work a 9-5, doesn't mean your needs and interests are more important than someone else's. Let us know if you have the same opinion when your life is in the hands of a late-night Trauma surgeon who didn't get any sleep that day, because of your Sunday afternoon tailgate party.
1 - If you don't have time to raise your kids, you shouldn't have had them. If you already have, you need to make the time.
2 - Of course there's a logical stopping point to the 'parent more' argument. Your battery example is flawed. Shy of self-defense, there's no legitimate reason to walk up and brain someone with a tire iron. Assault laws are on the books, because there's no legitimate reason to inflict bodily harm on someone who isn't attempting the same vs. you. On the other hand, there's plenty of legitimate reasons for kids to be using myspace, that don't involve activities best kept within the walls of the Catholic Church (Ok, couldn't resist.)
3 - I will decide what freedoms and restrictions my kids have, thank you very much. If I want them to be fully exposed to the internet, and all its predators, having faith that they will make the right decisions - that's between me and my family. I don't need the government placing restrictions on me as a parent, just because others 'can't' do their jobs.
4 - If you don't have basic technical skills, you probably shouldn't be raising children in the information age, either. This is tantamount to illiteracy these days. If you can't turn on a computer, and get basic functionality out of a web browser, you just need to learn. No excuses. Your children will only suffer for your lack of knowledge here, as will you. I know it's an elitist thing to say, but I have to say it anyway. It's 2006 - you MUST be able to operate a computer to function normally in society.
First, it may seem like it's been a long time since mobile phones were pervasive in the US, but when you're talking about something with as massive an impact on our communications structure and the telecom business as a whole - obviously a major part of our economy - you'll have to be a little more patient, in waiting for those market forces. It's going to take a while for the dust to settle - possibly to the tune of 7-10 more years.
Does this benefit the consumer? Arguable, but irrelevant in my opinion. There are some chinks in the armor of the theory of free market capitalism. Periodically, competition will not sort itself out in an immediate, clean fashion, and this will be a detriment to consumers. However - it's important, in my opinion, for consumers to just 'suck it up' in those rare instances - and vote with their pocketbooks, perhaps thru boycotts or the like, on getting the market turmoil sorted out. Frankly, most of us probably don't even care at this point, which mobile communications standard we're on - so just don't buy ANYONE'S cell phone until they agree on a standard. It's important that we don't go about imposing Federal regulations in situations where market forces don't initially appear to be doing their job. It sets a bad precedent. It's a wide open invitation to a huge slippery slope.
I hate to be one of those people who say 'One person can make a difference'.. but from recent experience forcing myself to believe this, it seems to be true. I've made various in-roads at the State level here in CA by just keeping the letters coming - I have directly seen policies change as a result of my complaints. The same is true of large corporations.
A high-level DMV representative explained it very nicely and candidly to me. Most people in high-level positions in government or business are actually reasonably ethical. Most still believe in democracy, and the constituent response to a given decision. However, at a given discussion, sitting around the table you have elected officials and their aides, and a bunch of lobbyists. The lobbyists present their case, and the Governor turns to the elected and appointed officials and says, "What about the constituent response." 99% of the time, there is none to speak of. According to this representative - who admittedly could have been blowing smoke - there is a lot of frustration even in the government, because the one thing with real power versus corporate interests is STILL the word of the people, and during committee discussions, they simply don't have a 'word of the people' to present.
I digress. My point is - just because market forces haven't sorted this out, doesn't mean we should be crying for regulation to do it for us. FORCE the market to sort itself out. Make the phone calls. Send the e-mails. Make yourself a huge pain in the ass. Cost them so much money in man-hours responding to your bitching that they cave. It works. Trust me.
For some reason, the phrase 'There's no such thing as bad publicity' suddenly came to mind. Especially in the case of my local Fox affiliate station. I literally watch this because it can occasionally rival the Daily Show for humor value, if you can stop your heart from breaking about the fact that it's being passed off as actual journalism. Just in the words the anchors were using, as they were describing this potential evil known as Myspace.com - it sounded like an advertisement. KTXL Fox 40 has always been extremely ham-handed about the things you know are being whispered on the set before tape starts rolling, which is where I derive the humor value, and also a scrap of insight about what the more subtle news organizations are doing. That being said, Fox 40 has reported on this 'scandal' constantly since the acquisition, and I've heard it mentioned no small number of times on Fox News, either. Now I ask you - what purpose could News Corp and it's affiliates possibly have for attacking a sister company? Driving up hits, perhaps? Shocked, outraged parents signing on to see what the fuss is all about - and more insiduously - children and teenagers who might be prone to looking for explicit sexual material anyway due to things like... oh, I don't know. Being in the range of 14-18 years old. They might as well have said 'Hey, teens! Surf to Myspace.com, and get laid tonight!'.
There may very well be data that contradicts me here, but from personal observation, I haven't seen a whole lot of 6 year olds with myspace profiles. Not that influencing a 15 year old into the sack makes you an upstanding citizen. It just seems that Myspace's target market is the exact group of people that are going to be the most easily coerced into sexual relations. Imagine you're 17 years old, watching Fox News with the parents, with hormones spilling out your ears. Your local anchor tells you about all this explicit material, and potential to 'get a piece', and even throws in that your parents will disapprove! Sounds like a commercial to me. And a rather twisted one at that.
Personally, I think a pretty solid answer to the problems of security and productivity lies in telecommuting, provided you plan out your security model appropriately. The odds are I have ADD, as well. I've never been officially diagnosed, but that's because I've never tried - I'm one of those jerks that thinks a little self-control will solve the whole problem - despite having been proved wrong on countless occasions ;)
I currently have a private office, which certainly helps the productivity out in my case. There are certain things I do at home to maintain concentration, that just wouldn't be acceptable in the workplace. Chain smoking, for example. Yes, I realize I should come up with a less cancerous method, but my point is you have far more options available to you in terms of maintaining a quiet, productive work environment if you're in complete control over that environment. I don't have any figures to back me up here, but I would assume that putting together a solid telecommuting infrastructure would be far more cost effective than dishing out an office to every Tech Support rep, over the long haul.
The question posed in the story was 'Do IT professionals need private offices?'. I would answer a resounding 'No' to that. There are individuals who would benefit from it, but to make the claim that every IT professional needs an office of their own, and to try to back that up with the argument that a door is somehow going to magically grant you complete data security is bone-headed and whiny.
And just so I don't sound like an elitist whiner myself, I'll point out that I do have a private office right this minute, but it's the first time that's ever been the case in almost 10 years of IT work, and I wouldn't be surprised to find myself sitting in a cubicle again, if the company continues to grow at its current pace.
In terms of the productivity argument, that holds a little more water. It still depends on the maturity level of the person in question, though. Give some hot-shot kid with zero professional experience an office with a door, and watch his productivity soar. Provided you count the number of slashdot posts, and hours spent on Myspace as productivity. In the case of a mature person, an office would probably increase their level of productivity. But if they are that mature, they probably have the ability to sack up, and get their job done in the face of such arduous conditions as being forced to sit in a cubicle.
Someone mentioned that the cost of cubicles is actually not much (or at all) less than that of giving people their own office. I find that pretty suspect, but we'll assume that to be true for the moment. Can someone clear up how this doesn't simply take up more floor space that may not even be available? Is floor space being taken into account in the cost analysis? I would think that if you have to construct a whole new building for every 30 people you hire, you're probably going to save a couple of bucks in just building up a cube city.
I agree that there is probably a degree of management elitism in most cases, that keeps the peons in their cubes, and the Directors in their offices, but oh well. Suck it up, and get your job done, or go find a new one. Apparently you weren't so distracted by your co-workers that you couldn't post an inane story on Slashdot.
Am I the only one reading the comments? Or just the only one noticing that for every Microsoft-basher, there's someone jumping into Bill Gates' corner. Granted, there might be a marginally higher population of [Insert trendy alternate OS here] fanboys than MS ones, but come on. I see /tons/ of Highly-Moderated comments that favor Microsoft on any given issue. Considering the comments are moderated by the slashdot readership, one has to assume that not everyone here is a MS basher, doesn't one?
Bottom Line: Microsoft is not entirely evil, nor entirely good. Intelligent people will not label them as such. Rational, right-thinking people will examine each story/issue/what have you, and make judgements accordingly.
Microsoft-bashers: Shut up
Microsoft-basher-bashers: Shut up
Hey, look at it this way. Maybe after a few trips to a prison shower, enlarged penises might not sound like such an attractive prospect.
On my registration form, I listed a mailing address that differed from that of my residence. I received my voter registration card in the mail, which gave me a polling place a few blocks from my listed residence. The card includes a note saying that since I'm a late registrant, I will not be receiving a sample ballot. No big deal. My mind is made up for the presidency, and I've done my homework regarding the local ballot measures. I'm also not a Florida resident, so I presumed I could figure out the ballot without seeing a sample. (Ok, cheap shot.)
Lo and behold, though, yesterday I receive a sample ballot after all. Complete with a polling place listed on the back. Only trouble is, it differs from the one on my voter registration card. It's not even in the same county. The local measures were the wrong ones, and there was a spot for Mayor of a town I don't even live in. Confusion arises.
So I go down to polling place #1. This is where I'm a resident, and as I understand it, that's the relevant issue at hand. I could theoretically have had them mail be a ballot overseas, if my legal residence was here in Northern California. I stood in line for quite a while, actually.. which was good to see. I finally get to the front of the line, and there's 3 poll workers doing their thing. I mention the ambiguity to them, and the 3 poll workers check their roll call sheets, or whatever the appropriate term is. Turns out I'm on only one of these 3, theoretically identical roll call sheets. Poll worker #3, who doesn't look like he's even old enough to vote, reasons, 'Well, you're on /my/ sheet, so you must be in the right place.' Unconvinced, I give them the ol' 'BBL' and drive down the road to polling place #2.
Again, I wait in a rather long line, and when I arrive at the front, it turns out I'm on all of the roll call sheets there, thus calling our pimply-faced friend's judgement into question.
So as I type, I'm trying to get through to the voter registrar's office, to see about clearing this up. Thus far, all I've received is the message, 'We're sorry, all of our representatives are helping other voters, please hold..' yada yada. Followed by 15 minutes of dead air. Followed by a dialtone. Hopefully, the registrar's office is just busy, and this isn't a ${Party} conspiracy to discount my vote. ;)
What concerns me most about this though, is that I just IMed a friend telling them what was going on, and she mentioned that several people at her job are going through the same thing....
Hopefully this will straighten itself out. Anyone have any other brilliant suggestions besides the registrar's office, and possibly that 866 number that keeps getting mentioned?
"No ma'am. That's not how you burn a CD. The CD burner is a component located in your computer."
"No ma'am. That's the monitor. The computer is the little grey box that the monitor plugs into."
"*sigh* Yes ma'am. Microwave on high for 2 minutes, or until product begins sparking. Give us a call back if it still doesn't work."
How does one accidentally microwave anything, let alone digital media? Parent was modded insightful, but I have to wonder if they were trying to be funny. Seriously. I'm wondering if I'm missing something obvious here...
Just a thought.
I always wonder about comments like this. 'If Saddam didn't have weapons, then why didn't he just let the UN do the inspections?'
I wonder about these comments especially considering the sources (No specific reference to poster intended). They're usually the same 'free-as-in-speech' libertarian ${foo}-wing whackos that don't want their computers wiretapped, even though they presumably don't have any child pornography, or terrorist ties to hide.
What if the UN decided they wanted to start inspecting our weapons? Admittedly, this is pure speculation, but while we openly admit to having WMDs ourselves, I imagine that we're developing even more destructive technologies that we aren't announcing to the UN, or the rest of the world. There isn't much chance of the U.S. inviting delegates from other nations, hostile or not, to inspect our defensive capabilities. I also imagine that you could unite most Americans of any political ideology under a banner prohibiting such a thing.
So why didn't Saddam let UN inspectors into Iraq? I don't actually know. However, I do consider it entirely possible that it's because despite his murderous behavior, he was leading his country - at least in this respect - in what he felt was an appropriate manner, and in the best interest of his own national security.
I just find it rather hypocritical that privacy advocates recoil in horror when they hear a statement like, 'If you've got nothing to hide, then there's no reason not to let the nice men in black search your house.' Then turn around and say 'If Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have let the inspectors in.' Again, for the record, this was not meant as an attack on the parent poster, but his comment started me thinking along these lines.
Thank you and goodnight.
I wouldn't vote for or against a candidate based on his stance on any single issue. You know, unless he was in favor of say, dropping nuclear weapons on every non-democratic country worldwide, but that's beside the point.
Personally, I don't see terrorism as all that big an issue. I see it as an issue that plays out well on Television, and other media. The most handy statistic I'm able to find is an estimated 18,029 good old-fashioned homicides occurred in 1997. Even assuming the insane, that homicides dropped by a full 25% since then, you're looking at ~13,000 murders. Between triple and quadruple the number of people killed in the single terrorist attack on domestic soil, in the past 3 years. The odds of my being killed in an automobile accident are staggeringly higher than being killed in a terrorist attack, but I don't see either candidate making automotive safety a part of their campaign platform.
My point is, you can't base your vote on a single issue. And some of the so-called 'hot-button' issues really aren't as hot as they appear to be. To be honest, I am more concerned with copyright law run amok than terrorism. The odds are stacked heavily against my being involved in a terrorist attack. Copyright law, however, has a real, palpable effect on my life every day. Terrorism would not have that effect, if the talking heads would just shut up about it for 2 minutes, and report some actual news.
I've no long-winded response to this neccessarily, other than to say that unfortunately, idealism is often confused for ignorance. Frequently, the same sorts of people demonstrate both. As a teenager, I had a lot of 'ideals' that I now chalk up to ignorance of the world around me. However, the spirit of your post, and the previous post I'm 100% in agreement with.
And to those who replied with 'You ignorant flame-baiting troll!' Try backing your own crap up with some facts, before you start slinging it.
Absolute security is an inherent impossibility in any situation.
That said, I think the idea is sound, and the comparison drawn to a driver's liscence is fair. However, as is also pointed out, who is going to implement this? I think we've basically got 2 hypothetical choices.
- The Government
- The ISP
In the first case, we clearly do not want the government making the decisions about who gets online, and who does not. In the second case, we'd have ISPs whose revenue streams depended on people actually passing the test - which rather defeats the purpose.
I think what we have here is a beautiful pipe dream. I'd love to live in a world where some magical, benevolent overseeing body decided who could get online, who could drive, and who could procreate.. possibly even who should be allowed to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide. But the fact is, no authority exists on this planet that could be trusted to implement this in any fashion other than a complete travesty.
I don't know if anyone else is dissing him, but I certainly wouldn't be upset with anyone who did.
I haven't cared enough to document every single piece of complete misinformation I've seen from him, but there have been plenty.
The most glaring example I can think of off the top of my head:
In the following article Cringely slams Earthlink for a lot of really good reasons, but then follows it up with:
Every single assertation in this paragraph + 1 sentence is 100% factually untrue, and can easily be proven as such by anyone with a free CD from Best Buy - except for the fact that the EULA technically does give Earthlink the right to install whatever they want.
That said, Cringely does occasionally make some solid, informative (and informed) points. I give his comments about the same weight as I do any other slashdot commentary. Sometimes he's informative, interesting, and insightful. Others, he's a troll :)
Exactly.
So, MSBlast came in on ports 135, 137, 139. The next big vulnerability will come in on some other well known port, and the ISP's response will be to block it because 'You don't need it.' Before too long, we'll be left with ports 80, 110, and 5508 (or whatever it is that AIM uses).
Dumbing down the internet because Ma and Pa Kettle 'shouldn't have to' understand it is not the answer. What I think would go MILES toward solving the problem is simply educating these same users not on how to /use/ their computers, but simply pointing out which vendors provide the various different components on their machine. A clear understanding of a fact that we geeks take absolutely for granted is 100% missing from end users. End Users do not realize the difference between the hardware manufacturer, the OS vendor, and their ISP. It's all just 'the computer' to them. Even 'dumb' end users can understand this with a little time. These same people manage to pay an electric bill, a mortgage, and various different credit card companies without getting them mixed up.
Frequently, I hear the frustration about how consumers will not vote with their wallet. As soon as we can demonstrate the role of the ISP vs. that of the OS vendor, everyone will be much better off. People don't vote with their wallets, quite simply, because they have no idea who is on the ballot.
But more to the original point, systematically blocking out every port - even allowing for an 'opt-out' feature brings us perilously close to the Internet of the Future that we all fear - a completely passive, proprietary communications medium. Remember when the radio was supposed to knit the global community closer together, by enabling anyone to communicate over the airwaves? Take a look at Clearchannel's market share, and behold the future of the internet if we support policies like this, even in the name of 'security.'
I especially liked his point about the 'normal support channels'. In fact, I was just mulling over the same thought last night. What seems to be really missing from a user-appreciable desktop Linux experience is not so much technological, but personal. If Aunt Flo can't call up her next-door neighbor, and get a quick answer about something on her OS, we'll never see any rapid adoption. Remember, just because users have phone or e-mail based tech support available, it doesn't mean they want to use it. Most people tend to be intimidated and/or embarrassed about making that phone call, and will usually put it off until they've Really screwed things up.
Maybe they all got modded down, but I'm noticing a disturbing lack of conspiracy theories, for the slashdot crowd.
Personally, I see this as more of the same TIA/PATRIOT nonsense we've been enduring since 9/11. I find it far more likely that the GWB / Ashcroft crowd is using this as a tool for our own 'National Security'. Of the following 2 scenarios, which seems more likely given the practices we've seen from the current US administration?
A> Washington truly and deeply cares for the plight of the Iranian citizen, and the censorship they're subjected to by their oppressive government, despite showing no such concern for its own citizens.
B> Washington provides 'anonymous' internet access, in order to monitor the browsing activities of 'potential terrorists'. (Read: Everyone in Iran). All in the name of national security of course.
Considering the US's track record on things like this, I'm personally voting for B. Total Information Awareness really said it all for me. The United States Government has decided that privacy is the antithesis of freedom and security. I find it really hard to take this act at face value, considering the US's current stance on Internet Anonymity.