No, it's the language of a real man instead of a whiney little boy. When you succeed in growing up you will not be "shamed" by it. Part of being a real man is caring about the future of your daughters, nieces etc.
Been there, done that in less than four years when there was no USSR to bail them out. The place used to export food to China and now it's a basket case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
Because as the sole trader with N.K. they can, and do, seriously gouge them on the price of oil and most likely everything else. That's why they put up with such xenophobic nutcases who even hate Chinese. The mother of a friend of mine had to flee the place when she married a man from China because of a large number of death threats from her neighbours. It's probably just as well because she made it out before the place devolved into starvation central in the late 60's.
I, too, however, am beginning to wonder if this whole incident was staged by Sony as a gigantic publicity stunt.
I don't think it started that way but it's being milked as one - also the N.K. angle came in as a late afterthought to what looked like a ransom situation.
I'd say just like you have to accept that those people have access to gold, and take steps, you have to accept that some people will have access to all the sensitive data and take steps. It can be compartmentalised but I'd say at some stage you have to accept that everything has some support staff that can get to it. I don't think that's too far from the view you are expressing.
Wow, sorry you were late to the game. I started using email in 1984, and that was in Wisconsin.
I wasn't late, you were just one of the early adopters. It's just another example of how telecommunications monopolies suck fetid dogs balls and how in a lot of places email access was not available at any price while in others it was long established. Not even the CS undergraduates at a university near me had email in 1994 - it was decided there were too many of them so the email access that earlier classes had was revoked.
What I said was that a forced gender balance makes no sense
Yet we have one. A widening one. It's probably best if we do something about it instead of pretending that there is nothing driving women away from considering IT. Part of the HR bullshit is asking what people's hobbies are etc so we end up with a "better fit" when the reality is encouraging monocultures. Having all female school teachers is just as insane as having all male IT people, and it's far more insidious than that where it may be all males that cheer for the same football team. When your talent pool is drawn from a small pond you can't expect much in the way of results.
There seemed to be a lot going on in Texas (no I'm not from there and never been there), but somehow they dropped the ball and California got the electronics crown.
In 1987 there were slightly more women in the introductory CS classes than men at the University I attended. There was the expectation of it being around equal if not the reality in actual employment. I didn't move into IT until around 2000 (yes, I'm one of those evil engineers that stole your CS jobs without even a cert) so I don't know what the employement situation was before then, but it does seem to have become far less balanced even since 2000. There's a LOT more women in mining than in IT. How weird is that?
White males are overrepresented in tech fields when contrasted with non-white, non-male, or neither-white-nor-male workers.
White males had more options to follow the money, and when the money started turning up in IT they squeezed the women out of the profession. It's a cultural thing which we are perpetuating where employment is by the "best fit" instead of by ability. That's how we ended up with programmer pits filled with chest beating little boys in the shape of men acting like the stockbrokers that geeks used to make fun of - stupidly toxic testosterone culture of gun nut "alpha males" that could barely survive a camping trip. A bit of diversity stops such fucking stupid oneupmanship and makes the workplace a bit less feral. If you have nobody to respect apart from someone exactly like yourself you get stagnant. A few older people, people from completely different fields, people with different upbringings etc keep you out of a rut - and a gender mix stops the place from degenerating into a drunken toga party.
It's a widening gap. When I was an undergraduate the engineering students did CS classes to meet girls, since around 1% of the engineering enrolement was female and CS slightly more then 50%. Now I see far more women around in professional engineering roles than in IT positions - only one in the room of 50+ at an IPv6 thing and she was a sales rep. It's a very dramatic change and not artificial. The "special snowflakes" are the whiney little boys who can't cope with the change being pointed out to them in my opinion. It's depressing that this place is turning into a whiney little boy site where all women are considered inferior instead of one that could respect Admiral Grace Hopper and Marie Curie for what they did.
I thought it was serious until I read that students showed up at Stanford in 1994 barely knowing what email was
That is how it was.
In early 1994 I was writing technical reports with a pen and giving them to a typist. By the end of the year it improved, I could type them up to save on a floppy disk to give to typists who would adjust them to the organisations style and then print them out, then I would glue photographs onto the reports and they would be distributed. I'm not sure if we got email in that year or in 1996 - that's for a group of engineers and scientists supporting electricity generation and distibution for an entire state. So that's a bunch of university graduates, let alone undergraduates, that did not have email. We'd heard of email, we'd seen email, and I knew people who had email in the late 1980s and was jealous - but we did not have access to email at the start of 1994. Even quite a few University CS departments only gave staff and postgraduate students email access.
That's why Jackie Chan refused to work with American directors for a few decades. Even though his own early efforts were pretty bad as movies he didn't do the quick cut crap where the stunt may as well not have happened and could have been done like stop motion photography.
Keep in mind that Slashdot is social media from before we called it that. The major difference with most things called that is it has aliases instead of the complely fucking braindead stalkergasm concept of forcing the kiddies to use their real names after we've been telling them for years not to give out their real name to strangers on the net.
it was generally believed that only a 20 hour miniseries
To me the BBC radio version is the gold standard and what the books should have been edited down to. No God-Mode Mary Sue trickster who could have solved everything but did not bother, and nobody thought less of him for it.
Suspense is attempted mostly by a series of last-minute saves and switches
That's like watching a Godzilla movie and complaining that it has an anti-nuclear message.
I haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies in full yet, but I know to expect an action movie. I wonder what this reviewer thinks of the SuperMoses movie? Put off by too much action hero stuff in action hero movies?
You got to trust them between audits though don't you? You also have to trust the auditors. Once again, if you can't trust the people with physical access to the equipment with the data on it then you have the wrong people. It doesn't matter how many people you've got, if you have a lot of people all you can do is trust them with a limited amount each.
I suppose a perception problem here is from people coming into the middle layer of workplace on graduation instead of doing low level jobs as a teenager or student and so not getting an understanding of workplaces from several levels. I may have to be blunt. Whoever cleans that place has the keys to the kingdom and can fuck the place over with theft, arson etc in any room, and has plenty of time after hours to break into any room that they don't have a key to, so you have to be able to trust them not to do such things. The same applies to people with the keys to the kingdom of computer networks, server rooms etc. That's one of the reasons system administrators get compared with janitors, they require the same level of trust so you need people that can be trusted in such a role. There is no effective way to watch them apart from after the fact so depending on audits is not enough.
There is plenty of solutions out there to do this and all this secured from the admins themselves.
There are plenty of salesman that promise such things, however, who is going to have the access to set it up and then how are any of these things going to stop someone with physical access to the equipment? You have to trust somebody in the chain. Just like that guy you've never thought of who cleans the floor with a bunch of keys in his pocket is trusted with full access to the entire building.
So my entire points are: Somebody is going to be able to get access to anything you can think of in the place, data and/or physical. Those people had better be people that you can trust.
It applies everywhere. All you can do in large places is divide it into compartments and have decent supervision.
If you're trying to make some kind of reference to a government-run helicopter operation,
Let's see now:
ticket for the last chopper seat out is akin to war profiteering
If it's not obvious from that context I'm going to laugh at you a great deal.
Am I comfortable with what? That society rejects prostitution?
I was very obviously providing an example of the unscrupulous preying on the desperate - the entire point of this thread as you know. I'm staring to think now that you are deliberately being obtuse and pretending to be far more stupid than you are just to try to pretend that there is no pressure from society, morality etc and jsut some form of "pure" economics. You are not fooling anyone, not even yourself I'm sure.
The case I'm describing was an actress pretending to be a nurse giving a verbal account of an atrocity - so no such excuse of reality being boring for the camera, and stupidly counterproductive. It was ineptly done, easily exposed and it made people question real events. It's the sort of bullshit that breeds 9/11 "truethers" who have worked out that they've seen some propaganda lies and now assume real reports are lies, leading to an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality and some really weird conspiracy theories (the real conspiracy by Bin Laden etc is apparently not enough for them).
N.K. basically has a "business model" of holding up a sign up saying "will not nuke Seoul for food". They send a few shells over every now and again to show it's not a bluff, and that even if it is called they can threaten to trash other cities after levelling Seoul. That's the first thing to consider before posting something simplistic like the above. It may be an utter basket case but it's not going away if we ignore it, it will get worse.
And it even specifically says the talks were about Sony and other studios helping them with, what can only be described as, propaganda.
Most likely situation normal and ongoing instead of something new. Remember that the WMD stuff came out of a PR company. The Kuwait hospital atrocity thing a decade earlier was a performance from an actress - very bizzare since they had real atrocities just as bad that could have been used instead of cooked up PR.
Sort of but not. I'd say it's civilian American criminals trying to shift the blame to N.K. instead of government employed ones.
Then there's the beatup because pretending that it's OMG! CyBeRwAr turned up to 11 means more funding and empire building for a few people in the FBI and similar who seem to be making noise without adult supervision.
So more the case of "patriotically" waving the flag falsely and rattling sabres than actual false flag. The downside is such warmongering pricks don't seem to realise that their stupid fake war games may inspire the very thin skinned North Korea to fire shells at parts of South Korea and kill a few people. They have done that every now and again.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's the language of a real man instead of a whiney little boy. When you succeed in growing up you will not be "shamed" by it.
Part of being a real man is caring about the future of your daughters, nieces etc.
Been there, done that in less than four years when there was no USSR to bail them out.
The place used to export food to China and now it's a basket case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
Because as the sole trader with N.K. they can, and do, seriously gouge them on the price of oil and most likely everything else.
That's why they put up with such xenophobic nutcases who even hate Chinese. The mother of a friend of mine had to flee the place when she married a man from China because of a large number of death threats from her neighbours. It's probably just as well because she made it out before the place devolved into starvation central in the late 60's.
I don't think it started that way but it's being milked as one - also the N.K. angle came in as a late afterthought to what looked like a ransom situation.
Fair enough, though we do get a few unwanted details at times. Thanks for reminding me why I never had anything to do with IRC.
Yes, but we do get a bit of the latter at times, plus astroturf and blind political bullshit.
I'd say just like you have to accept that those people have access to gold, and take steps, you have to accept that some people will have access to all the sensitive data and take steps. It can be compartmentalised but I'd say at some stage you have to accept that everything has some support staff that can get to it. I don't think that's too far from the view you are expressing.
I wasn't late, you were just one of the early adopters. It's just another example of how telecommunications monopolies suck fetid dogs balls and how in a lot of places email access was not available at any price while in others it was long established.
Not even the CS undergraduates at a university near me had email in 1994 - it was decided there were too many of them so the email access that earlier classes had was revoked.
Yet we have one. A widening one. It's probably best if we do something about it instead of pretending that there is nothing driving women away from considering IT.
Part of the HR bullshit is asking what people's hobbies are etc so we end up with a "better fit" when the reality is encouraging monocultures. Having all female school teachers is just as insane as having all male IT people, and it's far more insidious than that where it may be all males that cheer for the same football team. When your talent pool is drawn from a small pond you can't expect much in the way of results.
Why take it personally when the problem is the peer group?
There seemed to be a lot going on in Texas (no I'm not from there and never been there), but somehow they dropped the ball and California got the electronics crown.
In 1987 there were slightly more women in the introductory CS classes than men at the University I attended. There was the expectation of it being around equal if not the reality in actual employment. I didn't move into IT until around 2000 (yes, I'm one of those evil engineers that stole your CS jobs without even a cert) so I don't know what the employement situation was before then, but it does seem to have become far less balanced even since 2000. There's a LOT more women in mining than in IT. How weird is that?
White males had more options to follow the money, and when the money started turning up in IT they squeezed the women out of the profession.
It's a cultural thing which we are perpetuating where employment is by the "best fit" instead of by ability. That's how we ended up with programmer pits filled with chest beating little boys in the shape of men acting like the stockbrokers that geeks used to make fun of - stupidly toxic testosterone culture of gun nut "alpha males" that could barely survive a camping trip.
A bit of diversity stops such fucking stupid oneupmanship and makes the workplace a bit less feral. If you have nobody to respect apart from someone exactly like yourself you get stagnant. A few older people, people from completely different fields, people with different upbringings etc keep you out of a rut - and a gender mix stops the place from degenerating into a drunken toga party.
It's a widening gap.
When I was an undergraduate the engineering students did CS classes to meet girls, since around 1% of the engineering enrolement was female and CS slightly more then 50%. Now I see far more women around in professional engineering roles than in IT positions - only one in the room of 50+ at an IPv6 thing and she was a sales rep. It's a very dramatic change and not artificial. The "special snowflakes" are the whiney little boys who can't cope with the change being pointed out to them in my opinion. It's depressing that this place is turning into a whiney little boy site where all women are considered inferior instead of one that could respect Admiral Grace Hopper and Marie Curie for what they did.
That is how it was.
In early 1994 I was writing technical reports with a pen and giving them to a typist. By the end of the year it improved, I could type them up to save on a floppy disk to give to typists who would adjust them to the organisations style and then print them out, then I would glue photographs onto the reports and they would be distributed. I'm not sure if we got email in that year or in 1996 - that's for a group of engineers and scientists supporting electricity generation and distibution for an entire state.
So that's a bunch of university graduates, let alone undergraduates, that did not have email. We'd heard of email, we'd seen email, and I knew people who had email in the late 1980s and was jealous - but we did not have access to email at the start of 1994. Even quite a few University CS departments only gave staff and postgraduate students email access.
That's why Jackie Chan refused to work with American directors for a few decades. Even though his own early efforts were pretty bad as movies he didn't do the quick cut crap where the stunt may as well not have happened and could have been done like stop motion photography.
Keep in mind that Slashdot is social media from before we called it that.
The major difference with most things called that is it has aliases instead of the complely fucking braindead stalkergasm concept of forcing the kiddies to use their real names after we've been telling them for years not to give out their real name to strangers on the net.
To me the BBC radio version is the gold standard and what the books should have been edited down to. No God-Mode Mary Sue trickster who could have solved everything but did not bother, and nobody thought less of him for it.
That's like watching a Godzilla movie and complaining that it has an anti-nuclear message.
I haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies in full yet, but I know to expect an action movie.
I wonder what this reviewer thinks of the SuperMoses movie? Put off by too much action hero stuff in action hero movies?
Once again, if you can't trust the people with physical access to the equipment with the data on it then you have the wrong people. It doesn't matter how many people you've got, if you have a lot of people all you can do is trust them with a limited amount each.
I suppose a perception problem here is from people coming into the middle layer of workplace on graduation instead of doing low level jobs as a teenager or student and so not getting an understanding of workplaces from several levels. I may have to be blunt. Whoever cleans that place has the keys to the kingdom and can fuck the place over with theft, arson etc in any room, and has plenty of time after hours to break into any room that they don't have a key to, so you have to be able to trust them not to do such things. The same applies to people with the keys to the kingdom of computer networks, server rooms etc. That's one of the reasons system administrators get compared with janitors, they require the same level of trust so you need people that can be trusted in such a role.
There is no effective way to watch them apart from after the fact so depending on audits is not enough.
There are plenty of salesman that promise such things, however, who is going to have the access to set it up and then how are any of these things going to stop someone with physical access to the equipment? You have to trust somebody in the chain. Just like that guy you've never thought of who cleans the floor with a bunch of keys in his pocket is trusted with full access to the entire building.
So my entire points are:
Somebody is going to be able to get access to anything you can think of in the place, data and/or physical.
Those people had better be people that you can trust.
It applies everywhere. All you can do in large places is divide it into compartments and have decent supervision.
Let's see now:
If it's not obvious from that context I'm going to laugh at you a great deal.
I was very obviously providing an example of the unscrupulous preying on the desperate - the entire point of this thread as you know. I'm staring to think now that you are deliberately being obtuse and pretending to be far more stupid than you are just to try to pretend that there is no pressure from society, morality etc and jsut some form of "pure" economics. You are not fooling anyone, not even yourself I'm sure.
The case I'm describing was an actress pretending to be a nurse giving a verbal account of an atrocity - so no such excuse of reality being boring for the camera, and stupidly counterproductive.
It was ineptly done, easily exposed and it made people question real events.
It's the sort of bullshit that breeds 9/11 "truethers" who have worked out that they've seen some propaganda lies and now assume real reports are lies, leading to an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality and some really weird conspiracy theories (the real conspiracy by Bin Laden etc is apparently not enough for them).
N.K. basically has a "business model" of holding up a sign up saying "will not nuke Seoul for food". They send a few shells over every now and again to show it's not a bluff, and that even if it is called they can threaten to trash other cities after levelling Seoul.
That's the first thing to consider before posting something simplistic like the above.
It may be an utter basket case but it's not going away if we ignore it, it will get worse.
Most likely situation normal and ongoing instead of something new.
Remember that the WMD stuff came out of a PR company. The Kuwait hospital atrocity thing a decade earlier was a performance from an actress - very bizzare since they had real atrocities just as bad that could have been used instead of cooked up PR.
Actually it didn't. The Russians were used to real madmen.
Sort of but not.
I'd say it's civilian American criminals trying to shift the blame to N.K. instead of government employed ones.
Then there's the beatup because pretending that it's OMG! CyBeRwAr turned up to 11 means more funding and empire building for a few people in the FBI and similar who seem to be making noise without adult supervision.
So more the case of "patriotically" waving the flag falsely and rattling sabres than actual false flag.
The downside is such warmongering pricks don't seem to realise that their stupid fake war games may inspire the very thin skinned North Korea to fire shells at parts of South Korea and kill a few people. They have done that every now and again.