Please sometimes the mods are retarded. I had a message moded as trol when it should have been moded as offtopic, maybe even overrated, but not troll (it wasn't goading anyone). Then again, I had another topic that was picking on canadians, and it got left alone....pfft - at the least picking on canadians should be overrated:)
Obviously, these people are forgetting the role that amateur rocketry played in 9-11.
What rocketry played in 9-11? From my understanding it was three planes that were purposefully crashed into buildings (and the ground).
While I agree safety measures should be taken, it should also not be too extreme. It is easier to buy a legal gun in PA then it is to get passed that rocketry law.
Real terrorists will not be using your local Estes rockets to launch their bombs.
Actually, in all seriousness, what kind of ID do you think he *should* have had? Assuming he didn't drive yet, there's no particular ID that a 17 yr old would even have.
In all honesty, I don't really care about if the kid could board the plane or not. What happend on 9/11 was serious, and just barely a month after it happend people are being lax in their security. I boarded a plane a total of four times on that trip (layovers), and got searched three of those four times. I did so and was VERY happy to help in anyway possible. The kid could have had a passport, state id or drivers license, even a social security card to add to the highschool id - SOMETHING! I can print HS ID's in my own home with a machine that can be bought for less then $50.00 at an office supply store.
When the lives of people are at stake, people going about with the mindset of "Oh it's alright he is young" is total BS. If the kids parents don't like it - they should get with the time's and get him and ID (parents were not present in this case). The kid is almost 18, he would need one (by law) soon anyhow.
There is another saying (more or less), if you are willing to go to the extreme to accomplish something (extreme being killed, caught, etc) then you have a much greater chance of doing it.
Yea he shot the President - when the President was in lower security then normal (walking to his car surrounded by about 8 people is barely any security, especially when a ton of people are surrounding them). But what happend to him? Did he sneak away? Nope - he got busted. Now try and shoot the president AND slink away, that becomes much harder.
Having security, even that which can be circumvented by SOME, is better then not having any security at all. To leave the doors wide open because a few can get passed the locked doors is foolish to say the least.
If we are going to be serious about security follow El Al's proceedures, most of which are deliberately kept very quiet and out of the public view.
If you are going to say we should follow El Al's model, and thusly Israel's model, then you will need to recant your statement about the soldiers with M16's. Israeli airports have soldiers all over the place - agood sniper can do a LOT. Automatic weapons are not needed, and I would rather have one or two innocents dead then 50 dead. But in essence, you are still correct with the rest of your post.
Gov't employees should not be in charge of security, as gov't jobs tend to be lifetime, fluff jobs. It should be in the hand of private sector, who *WILL* be held accountable for any screw-ups. Meaning they will have to pay out of their own pockets if something happens. Thats right, penalize the company for screwing up and they are less likely to do so.
Employ the latest and greatest technology with a combination of tried and true methods. Maximize to an extreme passive tests (i.e. remote cameras) that do not hinder the customers, and use a reasonable amount of evasive tests (finger printing, retinal scans, random searches, etc).
The last time I flew (a month after 9-11) some kid (about 17) was trying to get on the air plane (domestic flight from Philly to LA). His ID was a High school ID and the flight attendents said "oh it's alright he is young." Apparantly they have not seen any Vietnam war movies where the 7 year olds are strapped to bombs...
See what happens, big companies realize that it will cost them more with legal fee's then it will to settle. So they settle. Then the sueing companies make a ton of money and then go after more people. Total BS!!! That is why I think that in B2B court systems, they should run it UK style - if you sue someone and you lose you have to compensate those that you sued for legal fees.
In other news, SCO released training materials on "howTO sue, without having any true legal basis."
You can license this seminar* for the low low cost of your soul.
And when I first read the title of this article I thought they came out with PC devices made for those who are vertically challenged - and then the bells started flying "Do vertically challenged people need specially made computers? Don't they just put it on a desk that fits their size?"
Damn misleading title
If Yahoo came out with an IM client that would work on MSN, AIM, ICQ, etc then I would use it. I actually like the yahoo client better, but it is too limited. 95% of my contacts are on AIM, 4% on yahoo, and 1% on MSN. This does not justify for me to have three separate programs running (I am a minimalist). So I use Trillian (awesome product) because it is one program that works on multiple platforms. When Yahoo decides to do this, then I will use their client.
Trillian in my experience is not perfect - I ALWAYS have a hard time sending/receiving files/pictures from people. Most of the time it doesn't work, sometimes it does.
For the same reason the tech community comes out with patches for holes in programs, why we come out with virus protection, etc.... To try and stop people from doing what we do not want them to do. It may not be permenant, but it will work
Now my question, didn't the gov't come out with a law a while ago forcing AOL to share their IM standards so third party software could integrate with it? And if so, wouldn't this apply to all IM software, including Yahoo?
A quick fix discovered late this evening: Change your Y!IM host from scs.msg.yahoo.com to scs.yahoo.com, port 5050, and it should work. This is on Trillian 0.74H
Duke Nukem Forever is done - it was done at Duke Nukem II. The company that makes Duke Nukem is all laughing at us as there will be no next version....
I remember when this came out. I was accessing local BBS' at the time playing MajorMud!!! The SysOP made me the Doom_OP. Heh, I took one of my mud buddies and we began to work with some networking files (forget the client, but i think it was winsock or something like that) so people could play DOOM on the BBS.
Took us about an hour to get it right (i think; it was a long time ago) but then me and the guy started to play the game. Four or five hours later I get booted off the system, I come back and one of the Chat_OPs appologize's for booting me. Apparantly there was about 25 people all sitting in the "DOOM" chat room waiting for me to announce the game opening and show them how to access it:)
I love DOOM! It really did define the way these FPS games are played, and I would still play Doom 1 or 2 online today, even with the games out there that are far superior to it (i.e. Counter_strike).
Google can't be giving code "back" to the community since the community never owned or helped create Google's code. Google can give us their code, but it cannot be said that they are giving it back. It was never ours. We are not entitled to it.
I never said they were giving back code; I said they will be "'giving back' to the community." The statement "Depending on the code they will show... they will actually be 'giving back' to the community" does not say they are giving code back. I know, as well as most of us, that the code was not created by the open source community.
Stupid nitpicking (dissecting) like this serves ZERO purpose especially when you did it wrong.
Agreed. Unfortunately our gov't is a monopoly;) Hmm anti-trust suit anyone?
In all seriousness, i am sure businesses would rather have happy customers (not even considering keeping them as customers). A happy customer doesn't complain, complaining involves listening, listening requires time, time costs money...oh;)
I firmly believe the world is more positive then negative, so I believe that companies do want their clients happy, but since I am not oblivious to things I also realize people work to make money, and anyone who works because it is fun apparantly already has money (and probably too much of it, so fork it over);)
No, it really is customer service that's the most important. The reason why is because it's the happy customers who keep coming back and recommending the bank to their friends that results in the bank turning a buck. If they truly put profits first at the expense of customer service, their customer base would dwindle as would their profits.
The banks first priority is to make a buck - to make this buck they need to do things, one of which is make the customers happy. The people who work for the bank (from the CEO to the part-time teller) are all there to get paid. The company's shareholders have shares to get paid. The company's biggest desire is to make more money so it can survive. To sugar coat it by saying their biggest concern is customer happiness is either nieave(sp?) and/or corporate bs.
Ok let me put it in other words - if the banks biggest concern was customer happiness, then the bank would give each customer a 0% loan, no matter their credit rating. They would give each person a free checking account that gives them free checks, internet access, etc. DOesn't charge them any fees and pays all bounced checks. The bank doesn't do this, why? Because it is not profitable. That is all there is to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Please sometimes the mods are retarded. I had a message moded as trol when it should have been moded as offtopic, maybe even overrated, but not troll (it wasn't goading anyone). Then again, I had another topic that was picking on canadians, and it got left alone....pfft - at the least picking on canadians should be overrated :)
Not as much as laughing so hard that your sides start to hurt
;-D
Obviously, these people are forgetting the role that amateur rocketry played in 9-11.
What rocketry played in 9-11? From my understanding it was three planes that were purposefully crashed into buildings (and the ground).
While I agree safety measures should be taken, it should also not be too extreme. It is easier to buy a legal gun in PA then it is to get passed that rocketry law.
Real terrorists will not be using your local Estes rockets to launch their bombs.
Actually, in all seriousness, what kind of ID do you think he *should* have had? Assuming he didn't drive yet, there's no particular ID that a 17 yr old would even have.
In all honesty, I don't really care about if the kid could board the plane or not. What happend on 9/11 was serious, and just barely a month after it happend people are being lax in their security. I boarded a plane a total of four times on that trip (layovers), and got searched three of those four times. I did so and was VERY happy to help in anyway possible. The kid could have had a passport, state id or drivers license, even a social security card to add to the highschool id - SOMETHING! I can print HS ID's in my own home with a machine that can be bought for less then $50.00 at an office supply store.
When the lives of people are at stake, people going about with the mindset of "Oh it's alright he is young" is total BS. If the kids parents don't like it - they should get with the time's and get him and ID (parents were not present in this case). The kid is almost 18, he would need one (by law) soon anyhow.
There is another saying (more or less), if you are willing to go to the extreme to accomplish something (extreme being killed, caught, etc) then you have a much greater chance of doing it.
Yea he shot the President - when the President was in lower security then normal (walking to his car surrounded by about 8 people is barely any security, especially when a ton of people are surrounding them). But what happend to him? Did he sneak away? Nope - he got busted. Now try and shoot the president AND slink away, that becomes much harder.
Having security, even that which can be circumvented by SOME, is better then not having any security at all. To leave the doors wide open because a few can get passed the locked doors is foolish to say the least.
If we are going to be serious about security follow El Al's proceedures, most of which are deliberately kept very quiet and out of the public view.
If you are going to say we should follow El Al's model, and thusly Israel's model, then you will need to recant your statement about the soldiers with M16's. Israeli airports have soldiers all over the place - agood sniper can do a LOT. Automatic weapons are not needed, and I would rather have one or two innocents dead then 50 dead. But in essence, you are still correct with the rest of your post.
Gov't employees should not be in charge of security, as gov't jobs tend to be lifetime, fluff jobs. It should be in the hand of private sector, who *WILL* be held accountable for any screw-ups. Meaning they will have to pay out of their own pockets if something happens. Thats right, penalize the company for screwing up and they are less likely to do so.
Employ the latest and greatest technology with a combination of tried and true methods. Maximize to an extreme passive tests (i.e. remote cameras) that do not hinder the customers, and use a reasonable amount of evasive tests (finger printing, retinal scans, random searches, etc).
The last time I flew (a month after 9-11) some kid (about 17) was trying to get on the air plane (domestic flight from Philly to LA). His ID was a High school ID and the flight attendents said "oh it's alright he is young." Apparantly they have not seen any Vietnam war movies where the 7 year olds are strapped to bombs...
See what happens, big companies realize that it will cost them more with legal fee's then it will to settle. So they settle. Then the sueing companies make a ton of money and then go after more people. Total BS!!! That is why I think that in B2B court systems, they should run it UK style - if you sue someone and you lose you have to compensate those that you sued for legal fees.
In other news, SCO released training materials on "howTO sue, without having any true legal basis."
You can license this seminar* for the low low cost of your soul.
*Seminar's are patent pending by SCO.
Take a picture of some smoking hot babe - that should get the aliens a thinking.
Aww stop complaining you limey bastard, you get to enter this contest...well you are limey are you? Hmm? If not, then no HAH!
P.S. For those that lack a funny bone, it's a joke!
Jeri Hall
I won't say which places, of course. I'll be nice. (unless you ask nicely)
Canada?
The Producers do not accept any responsibility for late or lost entries due to the Internet. Proof of sending is not proof of receipt
What return receipt doesn't count anymore?
And when I first read the title of this article I thought they came out with PC devices made for those who are vertically challenged - and then the bells started flying "Do vertically challenged people need specially made computers? Don't they just put it on a desk that fits their size?"
Damn misleading title
If Yahoo came out with an IM client that would work on MSN, AIM, ICQ, etc then I would use it. I actually like the yahoo client better, but it is too limited. 95% of my contacts are on AIM, 4% on yahoo, and 1% on MSN. This does not justify for me to have three separate programs running (I am a minimalist). So I use Trillian (awesome product) because it is one program that works on multiple platforms. When Yahoo decides to do this, then I will use their client.
Trillian in my experience is not perfect - I ALWAYS have a hard time sending/receiving files/pictures from people. Most of the time it doesn't work, sometimes it does.
For the same reason the tech community comes out with patches for holes in programs, why we come out with virus protection, etc.... To try and stop people from doing what we do not want them to do. It may not be permenant, but it will work
Now my question, didn't the gov't come out with a law a while ago forcing AOL to share their IM standards so third party software could integrate with it? And if so, wouldn't this apply to all IM software, including Yahoo?
A quick fix discovered late this evening: Change your Y!IM host from scs.msg.yahoo.com to scs.yahoo.com, port 5050, and it should work. This is on Trillian 0.74H
/.
Works for me now!!! Thanks
"Grumble grumble, stoopid Yahoo."
Duke Nukem Forever is done - it was done at Duke Nukem II. The company that makes Duke Nukem is all laughing at us as there will be no next version....
I remember when this came out. I was accessing local BBS' at the time playing MajorMud!!! The SysOP made me the Doom_OP. Heh, I took one of my mud buddies and we began to work with some networking files (forget the client, but i think it was winsock or something like that) so people could play DOOM on the BBS. :)
Took us about an hour to get it right (i think; it was a long time ago) but then me and the guy started to play the game. Four or five hours later I get booted off the system, I come back and one of the Chat_OPs appologize's for booting me. Apparantly there was about 25 people all sitting in the "DOOM" chat room waiting for me to announce the game opening and show them how to access it
I love DOOM! It really did define the way these FPS games are played, and I would still play Doom 1 or 2 online today, even with the games out there that are far superior to it (i.e. Counter_strike).
Google can't be giving code "back" to the community since the community never owned or helped create Google's code. Google can give us their code, but it cannot be said that they are giving it back. It was never ours. We are not entitled to it.
... they will actually be 'giving back' to the community" does not say they are giving code back. I know, as well as most of us, that the code was not created by the open source community.
I never said they were giving back code; I said they will be "'giving back' to the community." The statement "Depending on the code they will show
Stupid nitpicking (dissecting) like this serves ZERO purpose especially when you did it wrong.
Agreed. Unfortunately our gov't is a monopoly ;) Hmm anti-trust suit anyone? ;) ;)
In all seriousness, i am sure businesses would rather have happy customers (not even considering keeping them as customers). A happy customer doesn't complain, complaining involves listening, listening requires time, time costs money...oh
I firmly believe the world is more positive then negative, so I believe that companies do want their clients happy, but since I am not oblivious to things I also realize people work to make money, and anyone who works because it is fun apparantly already has money (and probably too much of it, so fork it over)
"the burning and blinding of an optical system, or cutting an [airplane's] wing off, or causing a fire that results in an explosion."
As terrorists around the world turn and say "Hmm, interesting, can't wait to see one on the black market."
Let's not help al Queda or other such organizations shall we?
"You want joules? How about these jewels, right here, eh!?"
No, it really is customer service that's the most important. The reason why is because it's the happy customers who keep coming back and recommending the bank to their friends that results in the bank turning a buck. If they truly put profits first at the expense of customer service, their customer base would dwindle as would their profits.
The banks first priority is to make a buck - to make this buck they need to do things, one of which is make the customers happy. The people who work for the bank (from the CEO to the part-time teller) are all there to get paid. The company's shareholders have shares to get paid. The company's biggest desire is to make more money so it can survive. To sugar coat it by saying their biggest concern is customer happiness is either nieave(sp?) and/or corporate bs.
Ok let me put it in other words - if the banks biggest concern was customer happiness, then the bank would give each customer a 0% loan, no matter their credit rating. They would give each person a free checking account that gives them free checks, internet access, etc. DOesn't charge them any fees and pays all bounced checks. The bank doesn't do this, why? Because it is not profitable. That is all there is to it.