How do you identify which workers are affected?!? Huh? How do you currently issue them paychecks! You have their names and addresses already! Identifying them really isn't the problem.
It really is not that difficult to implement changes in very well understood systems like payroll systems. The problem is basic incompetence. Nothing more.
I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Likewise I believe in giving blame where blame is due - period. You don't like being embarrassed? Don't do embarrassing things! It's really that simple. People need to be responsible for their own actions and accountable for their own actions. It is, after all, the truest form of who and what they are - how they act and behave. You don't like how you act or behave? You're embarrassed by it? Well then sonny that's your own fault and in your own hands to control. It is exactly your character. encouraging people to hide such things is deceitful. Live your life as you would have other people see it and stop hiding your bad behavior in an attempt to excuse it.
I can never understand when people say "I had a bad experience with a company but I won't tell you their name"!!! What sort of bullshit is that?!? If you had a good experience with company X you'd be recommending them. If you had a bad experience instead you protect them by not disclosing their identity?!? Why!!! Isn't that exactly the kind of information that is useful to the next guy? Isn't that exactly the kind of information that causes companies to clean up their acts? Yet you protect them! And after they treated you bad!!!
The principal is simple - you do good, you get rewarded and praised. You do bad, you get punished and admonished.
No it's not the *whole* point! It's 1/2 of the point! Which is the whole point to the objection! Proving to a visitor that you are you is only one aspect of an SSL connection. It may or may not provide a little bit of reassurance that the web site is what the web site claims to be - for the visitor.
For the web site owner however he might just want to have encrypted traffic. Nobody is harmed by having encrypted traffic.
Sure tell the world that this SSL cert is not signed and can't be trusted for to prove that the owner is who he said he is. But this is no reason to hamper encrypted communications.
Why not? What stops you from saying "Gee this contract is not a good deal for me" and not entering into it? I can see that you should not be able to contract a hit because that involves a victim and a clear violation of law. But these people clearly voluntarily entered into these contracts and nobody was holding a gun to their heads. Now they want to back out like the immoral people that they are.
In no way at all is this standard nor acceptable practice in any company I've been associated with. My standard answer when anybody, I repeat anybody, asks for my password is "I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you". Some times they chuckle but I'm as serious as a heart attack! I would never divulge my password to anybody under any circumstances whatsoever (even court order mind you). If you, as an administrator, cannot become another user then you don't know how to do your job. There's sudo, su or equivalent....
Let me get his straight - he's making $145K in IT and jumped to nurse manager for a whopping $80K!?!?
Sounds like a drastic cut in my book.
But, by all means, if you can't figure out this math then I do seriously suggest you jump to healthcare too. Just let us know which hospital/practice your at so we can avoid it!
Real 100% telecommuting jobs are rare if at all available. And you're trying to say people will get across the country/globe telecommuting jobs? I don't see it happening!
Nonsense! The whole problem stems from the arbitrary distinction between single and compound statements. Let's take the if statement for example. You can do:
if (cond)
<statement>
However if you need more than one statement then you need to use braces. Stupid! Why make this arbitrary distinction between single and compound statements. Stated differently, what if you always considered it a compound statement? Some languages do requiring that you instead terminate such statement so the compiler knows where it ends.
Once you got in your mind that just because you can write the above, you instead won't ever write the above and instead always write compound statements you'll therefore always have the braces. Now you don't need to "line up" any statements because they are always compound and the brace then become syntactical sugar that just get in the way. So now you have:
if (cond) {
<statement> } else {
<statement> }
The "if" and the "} else {" become your delimiting lines and you now just concerned about the statements executed when true and when false. The syntactical sugar of braces is unimportant! What's important is (cond) and the 's as that's what the code is doing. The braces is what the compiler requires to understand what you mean. As a result you concentrate more on what's being done not how it's being done.
Stop trying to pigeon hole people into categories that *you* think they should be in and start allowing them to be themselves fer Christ's sake! There ain't anybody at the door saying "Sorry ma'am but we don't allow women to be scientists". Plenty of women are already scientists - as many as wish to be scientists! Where do you get off forcing people to get into professions that you deem they should be in simply to properly fit under some bell curve?!? Frigging ridiculous!
People need to learn that actions have effects. And I mean the employer needs to learn that in this case. Seems obvious to me that this guy knows more of what he's doing than his coworkers or they'd have the systems back to normal by now.
Anybody else notice that this guy was being fired for being a poor performer yet what he did cannot be figured out by all the other sys admins there? IOW he's smarter than all of them! Perhaps you should fire some of those obviously incompetent sys admins. You have physical access to the box but cannot managed to get in?!? Idiots!
Unless we own our personal information, we will have no privacy and no freedom. If I know *EVERYTHING* about you and have a few henchmen, then I can surely control you and eliminate your freedom. No one is perfect. You must have some weakness that can be approached. Some way to be bribed? Or surely you've made some embarrassing mistakes that could be leveraged against you? What's your hook? Gambling? Booze? Whatever it is, if I know enough about you, then I can eventually make you do whatever I want.
Actually no you can't. You assume that 1) people have vices and 2) people have vices that they are embarrassed about enough about that you can use it against them. But what if the person in question couldn't give a rat's ass if you expose the fact that he gambles, or boozes, or whatever? Then your "power" sir falls apart! You see I don't care if you know I booze or gamble (I do both). Trick is live your life so that you are not ashamed and nobody can shame you!
Is there a solution? Yes. We must own our personal data. It cannot belong to the companies to buy and sell like oil futures and shares in gold mines. The strongest form of ownership is possession--the famous 9 points of the law. Once you have possession, then it is up to the other side to show they have some claim on your personal property (in the form of information in this case).
Actually you already own your information - even if stored on their computer systems. And while possession might make your case a bit stronger, many times you cannot stop them from storing such information on their systems too.
If any company wants to store some information about me, they should be required to store it on *MY* computer.
Quite simply that ain't gonna happen. For one, not everybody has a computer. Secondly, you're requiring that said computer be connected to the Internet, powered up and can be communicated with. Finally, I'd say only about 5% of computer users know how to set up any such services with the vast majority of them clueless and will simply host their "information" on other companies servers. This is not much different that what's going on today.
They can sign it so that I can't tamper with it. That's a trivial aspect. However, whenever they want to *USE* my information, they should be required to tell me why. This can mostly be automated in the form of my personal privacy preferences, and for most queries there is no reason I should stop them--but I should always be free to change my mind.
What will happen is what is happening - companies will simply draft up an agreement that states they can freely use your information and you can decide whether or not you wish to agree. You can choose not to agree - just like you can right now. But then you don't get the service. Then all companies will behave similarly and viola! You got exactly what we have now! Read the fine print in your agreement with your bank or credit card company. You've already agreed!
And, you really can stop it whenever you want! Simply stop doing business with that company and probably 90% of the companies out there, buy a shack in Montana and live in the woods. People do it.
(I only see one other alternative that preserves any personal freedom. That would be the total exposure of everyone's personal information. It would be a kind of war, but at least all of us could be on a kind of equal footing. Yet however much I would like to know the full truth about Dubya Bush, I don't think that's going to happen.)
You're living under two delusions here: The first is the idea that people in America here in the 21st century care at all about personal freedom or freedoms in general! They don't. They barely give it lip service anymore.
The other delusion you are living under here is the pompous presumption that anybody cares about you or your personal data! They do if they can rip you off (i.e. financial data) but otherwise I'm sorry to say - you're uninteresting. (And yes I know I'm uninteresting too - but I don't care).
I'm betting that 90% of the code you write is not covered by any non-disclosure agreement at all. The code you write is yours! While your employer may lay claim to the use of your code, unless explicitly prohibited I see no problem with displaying your code. It's not like you're selling it! In order to claim copyright infringement the company would need to demonstrate that they were harmed in some way. Granted full disclosure of patented, proprietary stuff, yeah, that might be actionable. But some small code snipped demonstrating coding ability? They'd be hard pressed to make a case against you.
Apple cannot even manage to get simple things like Bluetooth Stereo headsets to work and copy and paste. The masses turning into Apple fanboys - it's sickening...
Script it!
I wrote a script that would take like 40,000 of the spammer email addresses I collected along they way and, ahem, "opted" them all "out" of receiving such offers!:-)
The reason they don't respond is that it's not a problem, rather it is ignorance on your part. What is important is the page your query is sent to and whether or not *that* is https, *not* whether or not the current page you are on is https.
The hysteria about security created by the ignorant is amazing and fuels a billion dollar marketplace. Become part of the solution, the educated, instead of spreading FUD!
Really? At some point it has to come down to trusting something, even if it is Sarbanes Oxley (which is probably the most moronic compilation of rules ever assembled)....
Screw that! Just tell 'em: "Yeah I know. I forgot my password. I can't get in either". What the fuck are they gonna do? How can they tell you haven't forgotten your password?
Slashdot Mirror
How do you identify which workers are affected?!? Huh? How do you currently issue them paychecks! You have their names and addresses already! Identifying them really isn't the problem.
It really is not that difficult to implement changes in very well understood systems like payroll systems. The problem is basic incompetence. Nothing more.
I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Likewise I believe in giving blame where blame is due - period. You don't like being embarrassed? Don't do embarrassing things! It's really that simple. People need to be responsible for their own actions and accountable for their own actions. It is, after all, the truest form of who and what they are - how they act and behave. You don't like how you act or behave? You're embarrassed by it? Well then sonny that's your own fault and in your own hands to control. It is exactly your character. encouraging people to hide such things is deceitful. Live your life as you would have other people see it and stop hiding your bad behavior in an attempt to excuse it.
I can never understand when people say "I had a bad experience with a company but I won't tell you their name"!!! What sort of bullshit is that?!? If you had a good experience with company X you'd be recommending them. If you had a bad experience instead you protect them by not disclosing their identity?!? Why!!! Isn't that exactly the kind of information that is useful to the next guy? Isn't that exactly the kind of information that causes companies to clean up their acts? Yet you protect them! And after they treated you bad!!!
The principal is simple - you do good, you get rewarded and praised. You do bad, you get punished and admonished.
No it's not the *whole* point! It's 1/2 of the point! Which is the whole point to the objection! Proving to a visitor that you are you is only one aspect of an SSL connection. It may or may not provide a little bit of reassurance that the web site is what the web site claims to be - for the visitor.
For the web site owner however he might just want to have encrypted traffic. Nobody is harmed by having encrypted traffic.
Sure tell the world that this SSL cert is not signed and can't be trusted for to prove that the owner is who he said he is. But this is no reason to hamper encrypted communications.
True monopolies only exist with government support. Socialist systems never work as they are opposed to true human nature.
Why not? What stops you from saying "Gee this contract is not a good deal for me" and not entering into it? I can see that you should not be able to contract a hit because that involves a victim and a clear violation of law. But these people clearly voluntarily entered into these contracts and nobody was holding a gun to their heads. Now they want to back out like the immoral people that they are.
In no way at all is this standard nor acceptable practice in any company I've been associated with. My standard answer when anybody, I repeat anybody, asks for my password is "I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you". Some times they chuckle but I'm as serious as a heart attack! I would never divulge my password to anybody under any circumstances whatsoever (even court order mind you). If you, as an administrator, cannot become another user then you don't know how to do your job. There's sudo, su or equivalent....
Why do you insist that I leave you a number? Ever heard of caller ID? Geeze!
Definitely.
Let me get his straight - he's making $145K in IT and jumped to nurse manager for a whopping $80K!?!?
Sounds like a drastic cut in my book.
But, by all means, if you can't figure out this math then I do seriously suggest you jump to healthcare too. Just let us know which hospital/practice your at so we can avoid it!
Real 100% telecommuting jobs are rare if at all available. And you're trying to say people will get across the country/globe telecommuting jobs? I don't see it happening!
Nonsense! The whole problem stems from the arbitrary distinction between single and compound statements. Let's take the if statement for example. You can do:
if (cond)
<statement>
However if you need more than one statement then you need to use braces. Stupid! Why make this arbitrary distinction between single and compound statements. Stated differently, what if you always considered it a compound statement? Some languages do requiring that you instead terminate such statement so the compiler knows where it ends.
Once you got in your mind that just because you can write the above, you instead won't ever write the above and instead always write compound statements you'll therefore always have the braces. Now you don't need to "line up" any statements because they are always compound and the brace then become syntactical sugar that just get in the way. So now you have:
if (cond) {
<statement>
} else {
<statement>
}
The "if" and the "} else {" become your delimiting lines and you now just concerned about the statements executed when true and when false. The syntactical sugar of braces is unimportant! What's important is (cond) and the 's as that's what the code is doing. The braces is what the compiler requires to understand what you mean. As a result you concentrate more on what's being done not how it's being done.
Stop trying to pigeon hole people into categories that *you* think they should be in and start allowing them to be themselves fer Christ's sake! There ain't anybody at the door saying "Sorry ma'am but we don't allow women to be scientists". Plenty of women are already scientists - as many as wish to be scientists! Where do you get off forcing people to get into professions that you deem they should be in simply to properly fit under some bell curve?!? Frigging ridiculous!
People need to learn that actions have effects. And I mean the employer needs to learn that in this case. Seems obvious to me that this guy knows more of what he's doing than his coworkers or they'd have the systems back to normal by now.
Anybody else notice that this guy was being fired for being a poor performer yet what he did cannot be figured out by all the other sys admins there? IOW he's smarter than all of them! Perhaps you should fire some of those obviously incompetent sys admins. You have physical access to the box but cannot managed to get in?!? Idiots!
Unless we own our personal information, we will have no privacy and no freedom. If I know *EVERYTHING* about you and have a few henchmen, then I can surely control you and eliminate your freedom. No one is perfect. You must have some weakness that can be approached. Some way to be bribed? Or surely you've made some embarrassing mistakes that could be leveraged against you? What's your hook? Gambling? Booze? Whatever it is, if I know enough about you, then I can eventually make you do whatever I want.
Actually no you can't. You assume that 1) people have vices and 2) people have vices that they are embarrassed about enough about that you can use it against them. But what if the person in question couldn't give a rat's ass if you expose the fact that he gambles, or boozes, or whatever? Then your "power" sir falls apart! You see I don't care if you know I booze or gamble (I do both). Trick is live your life so that you are not ashamed and nobody can shame you!
Is there a solution? Yes. We must own our personal data. It cannot belong to the companies to buy and sell like oil futures and shares in gold mines. The strongest form of ownership is possession--the famous 9 points of the law. Once you have possession, then it is up to the other side to show they have some claim on your personal property (in the form of information in this case).
Actually you already own your information - even if stored on their computer systems. And while possession might make your case a bit stronger, many times you cannot stop them from storing such information on their systems too.
If any company wants to store some information about me, they should be required to store it on *MY* computer.
Quite simply that ain't gonna happen. For one, not everybody has a computer. Secondly, you're requiring that said computer be connected to the Internet, powered up and can be communicated with. Finally, I'd say only about 5% of computer users know how to set up any such services with the vast majority of them clueless and will simply host their "information" on other companies servers. This is not much different that what's going on today.
They can sign it so that I can't tamper with it. That's a trivial aspect. However, whenever they want to *USE* my information, they should be required to tell me why. This can mostly be automated in the form of my personal privacy preferences, and for most queries there is no reason I should stop them--but I should always be free to change my mind.
What will happen is what is happening - companies will simply draft up an agreement that states they can freely use your information and you can decide whether or not you wish to agree. You can choose not to agree - just like you can right now. But then you don't get the service. Then all companies will behave similarly and viola! You got exactly what we have now! Read the fine print in your agreement with your bank or credit card company. You've already agreed! And, you really can stop it whenever you want! Simply stop doing business with that company and probably 90% of the companies out there, buy a shack in Montana and live in the woods. People do it.
(I only see one other alternative that preserves any personal freedom. That would be the total exposure of everyone's personal information. It would be a kind of war, but at least all of us could be on a kind of equal footing. Yet however much I would like to know the full truth about Dubya Bush, I don't think that's going to happen.)
You're living under two delusions here: The first is the idea that people in America here in the 21st century care at all about personal freedom or freedoms in general! They don't. They barely give it lip service anymore. The other delusion you are living under here is the pompous presumption that anybody cares about you or your personal data! They do if they can rip you off (i.e. financial data) but otherwise I'm sorry to say - you're uninteresting. (And yes I know I'm uninteresting too - but I don't care).
I'm betting that 90% of the code you write is not covered by any non-disclosure agreement at all. The code you write is yours! While your employer may lay claim to the use of your code, unless explicitly prohibited I see no problem with displaying your code. It's not like you're selling it! In order to claim copyright infringement the company would need to demonstrate that they were harmed in some way. Granted full disclosure of patented, proprietary stuff, yeah, that might be actionable. But some small code snipped demonstrating coding ability? They'd be hard pressed to make a case against you.
Apple cannot even manage to get simple things like Bluetooth Stereo headsets to work and copy and paste. The masses turning into Apple fanboys - it's sickening...
Script it! I wrote a script that would take like 40,000 of the spammer email addresses I collected along they way and, ahem, "opted" them all "out" of receiving such offers! :-)
You're a fucking conspiracy theory idiot! I'd like to see you do any better.
The reason they don't respond is that it's not a problem, rather it is ignorance on your part. What is important is the page your query is sent to and whether or not *that* is https, *not* whether or not the current page you are on is https. The hysteria about security created by the ignorant is amazing and fuels a billion dollar marketplace. Become part of the solution, the educated, instead of spreading FUD!
Really? At some point it has to come down to trusting something, even if it is Sarbanes Oxley (which is probably the most moronic compilation of rules ever assembled)....
open http://slashdot.org/ does nothing for me.
Psst. Scientology's not true!
If you're in court then what is said there is a matter of public record - unless purposely suppressed.
Simply say you forgot it. What can they do then? Nothing. You're not required to have perfect memory.
Screw that! Just tell 'em: "Yeah I know. I forgot my password. I can't get in either". What the fuck are they gonna do? How can they tell you haven't forgotten your password?