I have a good friend that almost died in the twin towers bombing. I know how his wife, daughter and son waited in horror until they received his call. I have family that served in Iraq. I have put up with heightened security at my company when we were worried that our building might be on some kind of "bombing list", and I have had to console my kids about going to work. I have every reason to be incensed by terrorists, but I will aim my outbursts toward those that deserve it.
Yes, there are fanatic Islamic terrorists who happen to be Arabs. Yes, the Arabic nations are predominately Islamic. Western nations are predominately Judeo-Christian and don't seem to understand alot of the Islamic culture. Western people (and western media) wield the ignorance surrounding that culture like a verbal sword.
Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma Bomber for those who first programmed in java) was around long before the "Arab terrorists" reared their heads and surprisingly enough had nothing to do with Islam. A number of other fanatic people and groups have blown up things long before the Arabs were brought into the media like this. Christian fanatics have been blowing up abortion clinics for years. Western nations have had a long history of terrorizing people based on race, creed and nationality. You can look to the Catholic/Protostant conflicts in Ireland, race issues in the US, or how about that German Nazi movement in the 40's. If you want to really go back, the crusades was obvious stupidity aimed in the exact opposite direction.
We have fortunately, as a culture, generally moved beyond that shortsighted view but it still pops up with this kind of garbage once in a while. We can't afford to associate the actions of a group of braindead psychopaths with a single nation, culture, race or even creed. These twisted people pop up in every culture and nation. All this proves is that stupid people are universal.
At the risk of being labeled a troll: Do you even have any idea what the terrorists have stated concerning WHY they are doing what they have done? Has the media addressed why they are so pissed at the west or even more shocking, suggested ideas that we might be a little more cautious of our media and corporations trampling other people's values and culture in our race for money? I may not agree with them but at least I have some interest to know. It is easy to point fingers but it is quite possible that there are "grains of truth at the core" of their attacks on the west also. (preflame: obviously not to validate the extreme violence and loss of life - just not to be oblivious)
The western media caters to its own opinion of what the public wants and does not portray Arabic nations with any balance. When was the last time that you saw a piece on something good happening in the Arabic world? Do you really think that nothing good ever happens there? These are moms and dads with kids and most of them (if the one Muslim family in my neighborhood are any indication) are caring, sharing people with high values that are struggling to teach their kids values and responsibility, and trying to make ends meet. They do denounce terrorist activities ("shut up, sit down, and stop killing people"), fight against them and even cooperate with other countries to stop these international criminals. The fact that you haven't heard these denouncements is probably more revealing than anything else.
The terrorist are morons. He can't stop them or even expect them to be anything else. But he has enough belief in humanity to expect more of the western media and is saddened by his disapointment.
You are dead wrong in one thing: Not everyone is bright enough to figure out that "not every arab supports the terrorists". People who post on Slashdot for the most part, enjoy thinking. A large percentage of the populous however don't. They just react and follow media like sheep. The media will happily pass off its responsibility to balanced journalism as "just giving the people
Read more on the site.
I won't say that I necessarily agree with him but the dilation effects are not sufficient evidence of true time variability.
Was the "dilation" due to actual variation of time or something else that affected the measurement.
That doesn't mean that "time" actually slowed. Could motion through space have a direct physical effect on matter to slow change? The argument could be made that cold slows time. Some things happen slower when cold. I can swing a clock around on a rope, find that the clock didn't advance because the spring in the mechanism couldn't compensate for additional centrifical force and proclaim that swinging on a rope can stop time. Then upon further review, revise that to say that centrifical force and possibly gravity slows time.
The point here is that all of this is mathematical theory based on assumptions. Very accepted assumptions I grant you but assumptions nonetheless. And in some areas, the math can be interpreted either way. This person is attacking the assumptions and basis that the theories are built on. Einstein himself had to rework some of the math principles to find his conclusions.
Keeping an open mind to detractors of current popular theory (argumentum ad populum) is vital to true science. If we assume that detractors are idiots, we place ourselves in the awkward situation of being closed minded drones due to dogma rather than with people like Einstein who challenged the norm and were willing to be wrong if it found the truth.
BTW, in reviewing the site, there are strong insinuations that the author may be quite the opposite of an Intelligent Design advocate. (argumentum ad hominem)
The things I'm going to say could panic some people's pet incentives but still need to be said so I'm ready for a little backlash.
The best technical people aren't motivated by the same things as salesmen and managers. Sales people (in general) can use their personality and people skills to win money. The eye is on the money and the skills develop to support that. That is fine, business needs that. However, managers tend to reflect owners desire for the business to make money and apply incentives like everyone were salesmen. Managers (in general) are eye on the money/budget with business skills. (before I get blasted for this - yes, I know there are other incentives for each job, have done each and enjoyed the other benefits - doesn't change the needed business focus)
No salesman would *EVER* invest the time and effort to develop the skills of a techie for just the money. No one would twist their brain that badly just for the pay that techs get.
The best technical people don't give a crap about money beyond a point. As a technical person, I need enough money to support my family, have a cool (note that word) house, eat well, provide my toys, and make me feel appreciated. I personally have grown to hate bonuses because they feel too much like putting a price on my pride. I dump heart and soul into something just to have someone that doesn't know squat about what genius I invested say "here's $5, that thing you created is sure nice". I might as well have my wife say "I had a great time tonight dear, here's $10 - if you can do even better next week, I might give you $15..." You want to give me more money? Great! Don't quantify my work with it.
You want to give me something that means more? Give me something that isn't quantified. Ease the pain of my addiction to technology. Give me something that makes it up to my wife and kids that they lose me in thought to figuring out a sticky algorithm at the dinner table. Give me time off with them. Give me toys that will amuse me with something other than work. Give me something to do with the arts or food or travel. Something that gets me out of my rut so I can come back and freshly jump back into it with vigor.
I love my work, am addicted to it and would do it even if I didn't have to get paid for it. (notes - 1:not the same as if I wasn't paid for it 2:I wouldn't do it for free for you but I sure would for open source or for myself)
Don't saddle me with crap that doesn't give me the buzz that I get from my tech stuff. I'm not here to wheel and deal, piss testosterone, compete for leader of the pack, meet deadlines, conquer the world and play political games. I want to create, show off, see cool stuff and work with other people that understand that. I want immediate gratification from my work - to see my stuff do what I told it to. I want the end user to squeal with delight like a little kid when they see that my work just did more than they expected. I want my peers to say "that is so cool! how did you do that?" I want see stuff that my peers do that blow my mind and give me ideas.
All that being said and having been a manager, the best things IMHO that you can do to motivate your tech employees is...
don't attach cash bonuses to specific things - if the company profits, share the wealth straight up based on pay scale
send your employees home when they need to go but don't leave
have them work together where they share their cool stuff
let them in on the presentations to the end user to see the reactions
give non quantitative rewards that don't feel like a pay off
give time off
don't take time away from their family/hobbies/social life to reward them (I agree with the guy that said lunches are better than dinners)
be creative with ways to show them off (and not by forcing them to document their own achievements)
be quick to give them credit to upper management (don't worry about them stealing your management job, most don't want it and probably would
I just took back a brand new HP scanner because it wouldn't talk to my Linux and I bought a comparable priced Epson because they open up their specs to the public.
The message to hardware manufacturers is simple - we want to give you money for hardware - please include the information to use your hardware on whatever system we have. I don't need the 3 cd's of software included in your packaging, just give me the interface specs handwritten on a napkin in the package and I will happily give you my money! Please, one manufacturer, dump your licensing purchases and software design overhead and try releasing a product with full specs, maybe some rough interface code, and see how fast the open source community makes interfaces for every OS available (even the more popular ones)
...but good for the earth/self/society/company/religious views?
The real question is not whether people are fundamentally good. I can't say that I have ever met anyone that truly did evil things just because they were evil. They always believe that they are accomplishing some good thing. Even if just for themselves.
The real problem lies in deciding to "choose the greater good". Choosing good profits over good ethics, clubbing that baby seal to get that beautiful coat, tearing down some trees to house people, shooting that violent guy to feed my family, doing anything to keep my "street cred", telling the kids that the deceased puppy ran away, keeping that woman "in line" because my family is falling apart.
Even people that go out after revenge think that they are justified.
The best people that I have met truly believe in "choosing the least harm". If you can make a huge profit by harming a few people, make a small profit by harming fewer people or barely break even by harming none - which do you choose?
The people running Microsoft see penalties from antitrust and broken ethics as a cost of doing business, with the greater good being what is good for Microsoft profits.
People are fundamentally good, but sometimes severely misdirected. Ultimately, the determination of good/bad person is based on what mark their actions left on the world and the individuals' lives that were touched.
Psychology isn't an invention to rule the populous, it is only commentary from observation of the populous. The variety of coping abilities among people is virtually infinite. People don't have to constantly look for new things, especially when they don't expect the new things to bring them any kind of satisfaction.
People would continue to live in the same day to day manner that they do now. Suicidal people would tend to not look for longer lives, thrill seekers would get as bored as they are now with their lives, people who look for gratification at the expense of their long term benefit would still try to do the same. Drugs, smoking, overeating, lack of excercise, depression, vices, would have a more profound effect in visibly damaging quality of life.
As cheesy as the movie was, there is some insight to be found in "Groundhog day". Some people will find long term satisfaction in spending time with other people, descendants, doing gardening, research, developing talents, art, new careers.
I personally have way more interests than I have time to ever delve into them. If I could raise my kids and have 2-10 lifetimes after that, I wouldn't have any trouble filling my time and thoroughly enjoying it. If I could spend that time with my wife as well, and enjoy my current health, even more so. People who would turn to the kind of things that were quoted to look for a thrill would quickly find that it didn't satisfy either. Most long lived people would figure it out before ever having to try it.
I would love to see what kind of perspective living a thousand years could give someone. Psychology would have new insight that the paltry 100 years we currently live cannot give.
How about a propylene glycol based coolant?
There are a number of products that appear to have less than 2 microSiemens/cm conductivity and sell for closer to the price of antifreeze - also non toxic, good viscosity and come close to water for thermal transference. (~80%) Pricing seems to vary from $10/gallon to $120/gal.
Bullshit right back. What rules does a government have over another country's citizens? What rules are over any government? Answer: what the citizens/power block of the government decides.
The "rules" should apply. And quite frankly, I agree that there should be rules concerning this type of thing.
However, if you have someone in your prison that your citizens or those in power of your government don't like/care about/want dead, and the other governments that you are negotiating with don't care and the opposing force has nothing to exchange or even adheres to the rules themselves, what rules do you have to adhere to? Who enforces them. Who can dictate what the rules should be?
Your opinion of what the rules are and who they apply to doesn't mean anything to the real world. The power is in the populous and those that can oppress the populous. Generally the power in the populous is better used than that of the oppressors, but it is far from perfect. Maybe what you are looking for is a theocracy or worldwide dictatorship so the populace always agrees on the ultimate good and adheres to it under penalty from a god/dictator. Of course, that would probably make the current prisoners dead and open all kinds of corruption of religious fanatics or dictator oppression. Until that happens, we are stuck depending on the insufficient morality of the public.
Great... so now I open my mouth and get sucked into a political dispute... oh, well... here goes...
To step back from specific countries involved in the current debate, there is one understanding that seems to be missing here...
There are no rules that a government follows. Only duty to it's citizens(or power base) and negotiations with other governments.
The rights and freedoms that are being disputed here are based on the rights that a country claims for it's own citizens. Due process is only guaranteed to the citizens of the country via that country's constitution, laws, etc. with the power of that society, in mass, to enforce that law upon itself.
A constitution and "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to citizens within a country, not POW's (or whatever you may call them).
All the rest of the POW, geneva convention, etc, is only supported in a treaty manner between various countries.
In this case, the country/combatants that would/could dispute the US stance doesn't respect the treaties either. There is no "you treat our people with respect and we will treat yours with the same"(unless you think that the US should chop off it's prisoners heads).
Third party allied countries that could exert influence to change the conditions don't have enough influence/interest to make a change. Non-allied countries don't find enough violation to pick a side.
After the dispute settles and the new government is making desicions for it's people about it's own people. They may make a stance for the treatment of it's citizens/war criminals. Or, given enough press, the citizens of the US or other countries with influence may dispute the treatment of the incarcerated. There may even be some kind of trial. But it won't be based on the values that US holds for it's own citizens.
Does it suck? yep.
Is it fair? when does fair ever make a difference in politics or international relations?
Will it change?
No. This situation exists and always had at those levels of government and power. Fortunately, it is better than it used to be in history.
The only thing that will change it is the attitude of the citizens, proliferation of information and the influence of the citizens on their government. In the US (or UK, any other open democracy), those things are not as high as they should be, higher than many countries, and definately higher than they are in the countries that have been in dispute with.
Certification is better than walking in off the street saying "I can do that". I means that you at least have had proper procedures and knowledge pass in front of your eyes and spit back out on a test.
Validated experience on a resume is better.
Certification with experience is best.
Bottom line is... if you have the experience and can pass the exams, why not do it to cover all bases. If you know the stuff, it should be easy for you.
Not unlike the benefit of any schooling - the boss knows that you have at least had some basics covered.
I would go one step further, it is quite possible that this has nothing to do with selling product given their current market standing, that SCO needs to produce something within a certain period of time to maintain some legal position or that they need to fill contract obligations. And the fact that it contains GPL software could be establishing / continuing with some kind of precident or begging for a reaction that will refuel the media battle. I wouldn't be to quick to dismiss the shrewdness of lawyers willing to take a case with the potential and risks of the SCO lawsuit.
...or it could just be that they are truly that naive.
Actually, in a twisted way, she is responding to her constituency. Parents these days will tell you how society has let them down, the schools failed them, didn't teach their children, and all the other ways that everyone failed to parent their children for them.
(irony)Someone has to take a stand and bring in the villiage to provide parenting for these children and the parents are sending a message to their representatives that they won't stand for society's failure at this.(/irony)
BTW - to head off any flaming, I have 5 children that I home-parent (yes, I'm one of those psycho parenting fundamentalists) It works for me.
I have a neighbor who's children were never taught the basic laws of not trespassing, respect of other people's property and laws dealing with fundamental consideration for others. The police have been out many times to fulfill society's obligation to teach these kids, but the police seem poorly suited for the job. I wouldn't have any problem with parents being forced to take parenting classes after the 3rd time that their kid has the police called on them. If it were my kid, I would happily go to the class even if I felt it was unjustified just to know that somewhere, some parent that really needs it is forced to go too.
If I truly want the government to stay out of my personal life, I respect the society laws in dealing with other people and teach my children to do the same so no one has to step in and do it for me. Then everyone can leave me the hell alone. I call it parenting.
It is from the LDS Church site because I prefer to find out information from the perspective of the believers in an openminded way than to entertain every outraged misconception of the populace.
(read: I'll never find out what a Toyota owner loves about his car from a Ford dealership)
the wireless connection is advertised by broadcasting the SID, then permission is granted by DHCP, the service is not metered and some places offer bandwidth for free.
This is more like - many people and companies are offering free outlets at the curb, electricity is unlimited access at a monthly fee but may pull down the voltage in your house if too much is used, you have an outlet on the curb and the person using the outlet asked permission from your daughter who said "yes". Is that stealing then?
The difference between a hacker breaking into a network and the "dumb hacker" on an open network - is that with a secured network, a code that is not offered to the public, it must be cracked or it says "no" to a connection - this infers a lack of permission. An open network that advertises it's sid and gives an ip address to anyone that asks infers granting of permission.
An additional point is - if any open network is assumed to be private property, how do I otherwise offer my free internet access point to the public and let them know they can use it? What is the viewable difference between a default open network and an offered service to the public given over the airwaves? Should I be concerned that I might be listening to illegal radio if it is freely broadcast?
I agree that the analogy is not completely accurate, but a better analogy can't be found easily.
splitter on stealing cable: direct property is damaged and interfered with and no permission was asked to use the access. Specific contract limitations on rebroadcast and usage of cable with cable company extension cord to stealing power: electricity is metered and therefore has a direct cost for usage. cordless phone: no parallel service, outside usage interupts inside usage, possible unencryption of privacy codes. possible metered service with long distance.
Since permission is granted in the form of DHCP and advertising in the form of transmitted SID code, it may be more like putting cable or power outlets at the curb with a small sign preprinted on the box by the company that installed the outlets that says "lift the lid to use power/cable" and no locks. No implicit offer but no posted restrictions either and available in public area but visibly associated with a property.
Two points here are: 1) unencrypted satellite transmissions are perfectly legal to receive if you have the equipment, are not circumventing any security on the transmissions and are not retransmitting them in any way. 2) you don't have 2 way communication with the satellite to request and be granted access to the transmission (aka permission).
...oh, and almost forgot. SSL will encrypt communications before they hit the physical layer so your traffic can't be read. So it can be a benefit even if the physical layer is compromised.
The sad thing is that for a interview with a brilliant man immersed in details, the article is complete fluff.
This could have been a very interesting article if a little detail was given concerning what issues he has with Linux.
Instead the article relies on vague opinions, sweeping accusations, a bit of bragging and a quote by a computer professor that he dropped Linux because of a single comment he saw in the code.
So much promise, too pathetic.
We need articles that can really generate interesting dialog and journalists that write better than Jerry Springer transcripts.
I know that a comment can be marked as a troll, but what about an entire article!?
I took the time to read this article and haven't seen this kind of crap taken seriously even when written in slashdot comments.
The article is starts right off with the statement that the author is going to abuse terminology...
For the purpose of this column I'm going to use the word "Linux" to refer to the group of people who support it and the open-source initiatives that surround it.
... then ties "Linux" to all kinds of malicious activity loosely tied to the open source community and unrelated to any of the principles.
And he does follow through on the promise to twist, abuse and pervert every possible viewpoint, conveniently ignoring whatever obvious flaws exist in logic or ethics of the viewpoints.
It implies that harrassment and character assassination are legitamate forms of journalism and rebuttal is censorship. It shows SCO as an oppressed innocent with no regard to an validity of claim. It makes vague conspiracy allusions
It speciously tries to link the technology sector to the manufacturing sector implying that unions could form soley because there are lots of people, power and organization.
All to make the point that FOSS believers might stop thinking for themselves and follow the directions of a corrupted union that could gain control of the mindless mass.
This is so superficial that it is pathetic. Make horrible allegations against a group to get noteriety and point at any rebuttal saying "see! I told you they are bullies"
I fully expect the next column this guy puts out to go in depth into "how the 'Linux' attacked me for exposing them!"
If we are going to post articles that attack something, at least pick things that are thought provoking, not mindless drivel like this.
If he can produce even a moderately effective proof-of-concept exploit (which apparently he has), someone with a little malicious creativity will find out a way to abuse it.
Also as a security professional, any gap, niche or irregularity in core security processes needs to be taken seriously even if nothing ever pans out in a real exploit.
As far as the attention grab, I don't begrudge the guy at all. If the exploit is bogus, he will have advertised to the world "I'm an idiot - don't hire me!". If it is valid, he has shown his worth and deserves some support.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a good friend that almost died in the twin towers bombing. I know how his wife, daughter and son waited in horror until they received his call. I have family that served in Iraq. I have put up with heightened security at my company when we were worried that our building might be on some kind of "bombing list", and I have had to console my kids about going to work. I have every reason to be incensed by terrorists, but I will aim my outbursts toward those that deserve it.
Yes, there are fanatic Islamic terrorists who happen to be Arabs. Yes, the Arabic nations are predominately Islamic. Western nations are predominately Judeo-Christian and don't seem to understand alot of the Islamic culture. Western people (and western media) wield the ignorance surrounding that culture like a verbal sword.
Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma Bomber for those who first programmed in java) was around long before the "Arab terrorists" reared their heads and surprisingly enough had nothing to do with Islam. A number of other fanatic people and groups have blown up things long before the Arabs were brought into the media like this. Christian fanatics have been blowing up abortion clinics for years. Western nations have had a long history of terrorizing people based on race, creed and nationality. You can look to the Catholic/Protostant conflicts in Ireland, race issues in the US, or how about that German Nazi movement in the 40's. If you want to really go back, the crusades was obvious stupidity aimed in the exact opposite direction.
We have fortunately, as a culture, generally moved beyond that shortsighted view but it still pops up with this kind of garbage once in a while. We can't afford to associate the actions of a group of braindead psychopaths with a single nation, culture, race or even creed. These twisted people pop up in every culture and nation.
All this proves is that stupid people are universal.
At the risk of being labeled a troll: Do you even have any idea what the terrorists have stated concerning WHY they are doing what they have done? Has the media addressed why they are so pissed at the west or even more shocking, suggested ideas that we might be a little more cautious of our media and corporations trampling other people's values and culture in our race for money? I may not agree with them but at least I have some interest to know. It is easy to point fingers but it is quite possible that there are "grains of truth at the core" of their attacks on the west also. (preflame: obviously not to validate the extreme violence and loss of life - just not to be oblivious)
The western media caters to its own opinion of what the public wants and does not portray Arabic nations with any balance. When was the last time that you saw a piece on something good happening in the Arabic world? Do you really think that nothing good ever happens there? These are moms and dads with kids and most of them (if the one Muslim family in my neighborhood are any indication) are caring, sharing people with high values that are struggling to teach their kids values and responsibility, and trying to make ends meet. They do denounce terrorist activities ("shut up, sit down, and stop killing people"), fight against them and even cooperate with other countries to stop these international criminals. The fact that you haven't heard these denouncements is probably more revealing than anything else.
The terrorist are morons. He can't stop them or even expect them to be anything else. But he has enough belief in humanity to expect more of the western media and is saddened by his disapointment.
You are dead wrong in one thing: Not everyone is bright enough to figure out that "not every arab supports the terrorists". People who post on Slashdot for the most part, enjoy thinking. A large percentage of the populous however don't. They just react and follow media like sheep. The media will happily pass off its responsibility to balanced journalism as "just giving the people
I won't say that I necessarily agree with him but the dilation effects are not sufficient evidence of true time variability.
Was the "dilation" due to actual variation of time or something else that affected the measurement.
That doesn't mean that "time" actually slowed. Could motion through space have a direct physical effect on matter to slow change? The argument could be made that cold slows time. Some things happen slower when cold. I can swing a clock around on a rope, find that the clock didn't advance because the spring in the mechanism couldn't compensate for additional centrifical force and proclaim that swinging on a rope can stop time. Then upon further review, revise that to say that centrifical force and possibly gravity slows time.
The point here is that all of this is mathematical theory based on assumptions. Very accepted assumptions I grant you but assumptions nonetheless. And in some areas, the math can be interpreted either way. This person is attacking the assumptions and basis that the theories are built on. Einstein himself had to rework some of the math principles to find his conclusions.
Keeping an open mind to detractors of current popular theory (argumentum ad populum) is vital to true science. If we assume that detractors are idiots, we place ourselves in the awkward situation of being closed minded drones due to dogma rather than with people like Einstein who challenged the norm and were willing to be wrong if it found the truth.
BTW, in reviewing the site, there are strong insinuations that the author may be quite the opposite of an Intelligent Design advocate. (argumentum ad hominem)
The best technical people aren't motivated by the same things as salesmen and managers. Sales people (in general) can use their personality and people skills to win money. The eye is on the money and the skills develop to support that. That is fine, business needs that. However, managers tend to reflect owners desire for the business to make money and apply incentives like everyone were salesmen. Managers (in general) are eye on the money/budget with business skills. (before I get blasted for this - yes, I know there are other incentives for each job, have done each and enjoyed the other benefits - doesn't change the needed business focus)
No salesman would *EVER* invest the time and effort to develop the skills of a techie for just the money. No one would twist their brain that badly just for the pay that techs get.
The best technical people don't give a crap about money beyond a point. As a technical person, I need enough money to support my family, have a cool (note that word) house, eat well, provide my toys, and make me feel appreciated. I personally have grown to hate bonuses because they feel too much like putting a price on my pride. I dump heart and soul into something just to have someone that doesn't know squat about what genius I invested say "here's $5, that thing you created is sure nice". I might as well have my wife say "I had a great time tonight dear, here's $10 - if you can do even better next week, I might give you $15..." You want to give me more money? Great! Don't quantify my work with it.
You want to give me something that means more? Give me something that isn't quantified. Ease the pain of my addiction to technology. Give me something that makes it up to my wife and kids that they lose me in thought to figuring out a sticky algorithm at the dinner table. Give me time off with them. Give me toys that will amuse me with something other than work. Give me something to do with the arts or food or travel. Something that gets me out of my rut so I can come back and freshly jump back into it with vigor.
I love my work, am addicted to it and would do it even if I didn't have to get paid for it.
(notes - 1:not the same as if I wasn't paid for it 2:I wouldn't do it for free for you but I sure would for open source or for myself)
Don't saddle me with crap that doesn't give me the buzz that I get from my tech stuff. I'm not here to wheel and deal, piss testosterone, compete for leader of the pack, meet deadlines, conquer the world and play political games. I want to create, show off, see cool stuff and work with other people that understand that. I want immediate gratification from my work - to see my stuff do what I told it to. I want the end user to squeal with delight like a little kid when they see that my work just did more than they expected. I want my peers to say "that is so cool! how did you do that?" I want see stuff that my peers do that blow my mind and give me ideas.
All that being said and having been a manager, the best things IMHO that you can do to motivate your tech employees is...
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
I absolutely concure!
I just took back a brand new HP scanner because it wouldn't talk to my Linux and I bought a comparable priced Epson because they open up their specs to the public.
The message to hardware manufacturers is simple - we want to give you money for hardware - please include the information to use your hardware on whatever system we have. I don't need the 3 cd's of software included in your packaging, just give me the interface specs handwritten on a napkin in the package and I will happily give you my money! Please, one manufacturer, dump your licensing purchases and software design overhead and try releasing a product with full specs, maybe some rough interface code, and see how fast the open source community makes interfaces for every OS available (even the more popular ones)
The real question is not whether people are fundamentally good. I can't say that I have ever met anyone that truly did evil things just because they were evil. They always believe that they are accomplishing some good thing. Even if just for themselves.
The real problem lies in deciding to "choose the greater good". Choosing good profits over good ethics, clubbing that baby seal to get that beautiful coat, tearing down some trees to house people, shooting that violent guy to feed my family, doing anything to keep my "street cred", telling the kids that the deceased puppy ran away, keeping that woman "in line" because my family is falling apart.
Even people that go out after revenge think that they are justified.
The best people that I have met truly believe in "choosing the least harm". If you can make a huge profit by harming a few people, make a small profit by harming fewer people or barely break even by harming none - which do you choose?
The people running Microsoft see penalties from antitrust and broken ethics as a cost of doing business, with the greater good being what is good for Microsoft profits.
People are fundamentally good, but sometimes severely misdirected. Ultimately, the determination of good/bad person is based on what mark their actions left on the world and the individuals' lives that were touched.
Psychology isn't an invention to rule the populous, it is only commentary from observation of the populous. The variety of coping abilities among people is virtually infinite. People don't have to constantly look for new things, especially when they don't expect the new things to bring them any kind of satisfaction.
People would continue to live in the same day to day manner that they do now. Suicidal people would tend to not look for longer lives, thrill seekers would get as bored as they are now with their lives, people who look for gratification at the expense of their long term benefit would still try to do the same. Drugs, smoking, overeating, lack of excercise, depression, vices, would have a more profound effect in visibly damaging quality of life.
As cheesy as the movie was, there is some insight to be found in "Groundhog day". Some people will find long term satisfaction in spending time with other people, descendants, doing gardening, research, developing talents, art, new careers.
I personally have way more interests than I have time to ever delve into them. If I could raise my kids and have 2-10 lifetimes after that, I wouldn't have any trouble filling my time and thoroughly enjoying it. If I could spend that time with my wife as well, and enjoy my current health, even more so. People who would turn to the kind of things that were quoted to look for a thrill would quickly find that it didn't satisfy either. Most long lived people would figure it out before ever having to try it.
I would love to see what kind of perspective living a thousand years could give someone. Psychology would have new insight that the paltry 100 years we currently live cannot give.
How about a propylene glycol based coolant?
There are a number of products that appear to have less than 2 microSiemens/cm conductivity and sell for closer to the price of antifreeze - also non toxic, good viscosity and come close to water for thermal transference. (~80%) Pricing seems to vary from $10/gallon to $120/gal.
What rules are over any government?
Answer: what the citizens/power block of the government decides.
The "rules" should apply. And quite frankly, I agree that there should be rules concerning this type of thing.
However, if you have someone in your prison that your citizens or those in power of your government don't like/care about/want dead, and the other governments that you are negotiating with don't care and the opposing force has nothing to exchange or even adheres to the rules themselves, what rules do you have to adhere to? Who enforces them. Who can dictate what the rules should be?
Your opinion of what the rules are and who they apply to doesn't mean anything to the real world. The power is in the populous and those that can oppress the populous. Generally the power in the populous is better used than that of the oppressors, but it is far from perfect. Maybe what you are looking for is a theocracy or worldwide dictatorship so the populace always agrees on the ultimate good and adheres to it under penalty from a god/dictator. Of course, that would probably make the current prisoners dead and open all kinds of corruption of religious fanatics or dictator oppression. Until that happens, we are stuck depending on the insufficient morality of the public.
To step back from specific countries involved in the current debate, there is one understanding that seems to be missing here...
There are no rules that a government follows. Only duty to it's citizens(or power base) and negotiations with other governments.
The rights and freedoms that are being disputed here are based on the rights that a country claims for it's own citizens. Due process is only guaranteed to the citizens of the country via that country's constitution, laws, etc. with the power of that society, in mass, to enforce that law upon itself.
A constitution and "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to citizens within a country, not POW's (or whatever you may call them).
All the rest of the POW, geneva convention, etc, is only supported in a treaty manner between various countries.
In this case, the country/combatants that would/could dispute the US stance doesn't respect the treaties either. There is no "you treat our people with respect and we will treat yours with the same"(unless you think that the US should chop off it's prisoners heads).
Third party allied countries that could exert influence to change the conditions don't have enough influence/interest to make a change. Non-allied countries don't find enough violation to pick a side.
After the dispute settles and the new government is making desicions for it's people about it's own people. They may make a stance for the treatment of it's citizens/war criminals. Or, given enough press, the citizens of the US or other countries with influence may dispute the treatment of the incarcerated. There may even be some kind of trial. But it won't be based on the values that US holds for it's own citizens.
Does it suck?
yep.
Is it fair?
when does fair ever make a difference in politics or international relations?
Will it change?
No. This situation exists and always had at those levels of government and power. Fortunately, it is better than it used to be in history.
The only thing that will change it is the attitude of the citizens, proliferation of information and the influence of the citizens on their government. In the US (or UK, any other open democracy), those things are not as high as they should be, higher than many countries, and definately higher than they are in the countries that have been in dispute with.
Validated experience on a resume is better.
Certification with experience is best.
Bottom line is... if you have the experience and can pass the exams, why not do it to cover all bases. If you know the stuff, it should be easy for you.
Not unlike the benefit of any schooling - the boss knows that you have at least had some basics covered.
...or it could just be that they are truly that naive.
Interesting concept - postal slashdotting.
(irony)Someone has to take a stand and bring in the villiage to provide parenting for these children and the parents are sending a message to their representatives that they won't stand for society's failure at this.(/irony)
BTW - to head off any flaming, I have 5 children that I home-parent (yes, I'm one of those psycho parenting fundamentalists) It works for me.
I have a neighbor who's children were never taught the basic laws of not trespassing, respect of other people's property and laws dealing with fundamental consideration for others. The police have been out many times to fulfill society's obligation to teach these kids, but the police seem poorly suited for the job. I wouldn't have any problem with parents being forced to take parenting classes after the 3rd time that their kid has the police called on them. If it were my kid, I would happily go to the class even if I felt it was unjustified just to know that somewhere, some parent that really needs it is forced to go too.
If I truly want the government to stay out of my personal life, I respect the society laws in dealing with other people and teach my children to do the same so no one has to step in and do it for me. Then everyone can leave me the hell alone. I call it parenting.
It is from the LDS Church site because I prefer to find out information from the perspective of the believers in an openminded way than to entertain every outraged misconception of the populace.
(read: I'll never find out what a Toyota owner loves about his car from a Ford dealership)
LDS baptisms for the dead
the wireless connection is advertised by broadcasting the SID, then permission is granted by DHCP, the service is not metered and some places offer bandwidth for free.
This is more like - many people and companies are offering free outlets at the curb, electricity is unlimited access at a monthly fee but may pull down the voltage in your house if too much is used, you have an outlet on the curb and the person using the outlet asked permission from your daughter who said "yes". Is that stealing then?
The difference between a hacker breaking into a network and the "dumb hacker" on an open network - is that with a secured network, a code that is not offered to the public, it must be cracked or it says "no" to a connection - this infers a lack of permission. An open network that advertises it's sid and gives an ip address to anyone that asks infers granting of permission.
An additional point is - if any open network is assumed to be private property, how do I otherwise offer my free internet access point to the public and let them know they can use it? What is the viewable difference between a default open network and an offered service to the public given over the airwaves? Should I be concerned that I might be listening to illegal radio if it is freely broadcast?
splitter on stealing cable: direct property is damaged and interfered with and no permission was asked to use the access. Specific contract limitations on rebroadcast and usage of cable with cable company
extension cord to stealing power: electricity is metered and therefore has a direct cost for usage.
cordless phone: no parallel service, outside usage interupts inside usage, possible unencryption of privacy codes. possible metered service with long distance.
Since permission is granted in the form of DHCP and advertising in the form of transmitted SID code, it may be more like putting cable or power outlets at the curb with a small sign preprinted on the box by the company that installed the outlets that says "lift the lid to use power/cable" and no locks.
No implicit offer but no posted restrictions either and available in public area but visibly associated with a property.
Two points here are: 1) unencrypted satellite transmissions are perfectly legal to receive if you have the equipment, are not circumventing any security on the transmissions and are not retransmitting them in any way. 2) you don't have 2 way communication with the satellite to request and be granted access to the transmission (aka permission).
...oh, and almost forgot. SSL will encrypt communications before they hit the physical layer so your traffic can't be read. So it can be a benefit even if the physical layer is compromised.
The physical layer is always unsecure if you are on the internet. Wireless needs to be treated as an open internet access and firewalled, always.
This could have been a very interesting article if a little detail was given concerning what issues he has with Linux.
Instead the article relies on vague opinions, sweeping accusations, a bit of bragging and a quote by a computer professor that he dropped Linux because of a single comment he saw in the code.
So much promise, too pathetic.
We need articles that can really generate interesting dialog and journalists that write better than Jerry Springer transcripts.
I took the time to read this article and haven't seen this kind of crap taken seriously even when written in slashdot comments.
The article is starts right off with the statement that the author is going to abuse terminology...
And he does follow through on the promise to twist, abuse and pervert every possible viewpoint, conveniently ignoring whatever obvious flaws exist in logic or ethics of the viewpoints.
It implies that harrassment and character assassination are legitamate forms of journalism and rebuttal is censorship. It shows SCO as an oppressed innocent with no regard to an validity of claim. It makes vague conspiracy allusions
It speciously tries to link the technology sector to the manufacturing sector implying that unions could form soley because there are lots of people, power and organization.
All to make the point that FOSS believers might stop thinking for themselves and follow the directions of a corrupted union that could gain control of the mindless mass.
This is so superficial that it is pathetic. Make horrible allegations against a group to get noteriety and point at any rebuttal saying "see! I told you they are bullies"
I fully expect the next column this guy puts out to go in depth into "how the 'Linux' attacked me for exposing them!"
If we are going to post articles that attack something, at least pick things that are thought provoking, not mindless drivel like this.
I found 316 items - many of them actual projectors.
It wouldn't surprise me it blew because he pierced the battery but it could also have been amplified by the airspace exploding as well.
From my own experience, that can cause quite an explosion if it is in a contained space.
If he can produce even a moderately effective proof-of-concept exploit (which apparently he has), someone with a little malicious creativity will find out a way to abuse it.
Also as a security professional, any gap, niche or irregularity in core security processes needs to be taken seriously even if nothing ever pans out in a real exploit.
As far as the attention grab, I don't begrudge the guy at all. If the exploit is bogus, he will have advertised to the world "I'm an idiot - don't hire me!". If it is valid, he has shown his worth and deserves some support.