I do that all the time -- google for a url as a keyword rather than put an address in the location bar. The result is usually high confidence. But then, I know all about SSL, redirection, etc., and the most clever phishing site won't fool me. (Whenever I get one, I go and fill it out, all the way, with amusing (activist) contact information and even go as far as to use test CC numbers that pass MOD10).
> According to Mapquest a trip from San Rafeal to San Francisco would take about 35 minutes
You've never tried to drive through SF proper into the Presidio, and you've definitely never had to find a place to park.
Very pretty place for an office building. You'd never run out of stuff to do within walking distance on your breaks. (Real nice work if you can get it.)
How would you treat someone who spends 8 hours a day playing Beethoven Mozart on the piano? Or someone who spends the same amount of time watching TV? Or reading classic literature?
Why, in particular, does WoW stand out as unacceptable?
The other side of the coin for me, is that I have no problem with things being made in China. They have the big factories. They have the shipping infrastructure. They are able to produce goods such that transportation costs don't eliminate their profits. People I've known who are from China, indicate that the status quo is not actually the sort of abject poverty, slave labor, it's made out to be by certain political agendas.
Last time I shopped at WAL-MART I made a point to check the country of origin of the things I bought. I was surprised: An oil filter made in Israel, printer ink cartridges made in Ireland, printer paper made in Canada, a utility shelf made in the USA, a box of DVD-R's made in Taiwan, scissors made in the USA, a shirt made in Vietnam, a coffee mug made in Thailand, two different kinds of shampoo made in the USA, several house cleaning products made in the USA, some bath towels made in the USA, and a coffee grinder made in France.
Not one single item I bought that day was made in China (I don't care to enter the argument about Taiwan). I wasn't trying to avoid China. I was quite surprised by this. I think more people should actually pay attention, before they spout off about how all products are made in China now.
"but here were 50+ middle aged men and women all just as angry that we were installing systems that other states are thinking of getting rid of."
But... not angry enough to take action. Just angry enough to whine and moan.
It was a caucus meeting? They could have literally taken the leaders out the door, and deposited them on the street, and created an new party structure right there on the spot.
"The underlying social issue here is that the suits were educated and got most of their business experience before computers came into common use."
You sure about that? I'm mid-career, and I've watched a whole generation of suits come and go... They got fresh meat.
I see a more pointed issue. The technical people who think they are such rock stars, rarely manage to find themselves in positions of decision making authority. There are reasons why tech folks are always complaining about "PHB's", and it's *not* just because PHB's are oldskool.
There appears to be much more to it than that.
Still, you can always find some tech person who will tell you his boss, and his boss, etc., are all morons. That superior intelligence never seems to translate into increased authority, though. Why don't you ever read about someone who used his brain, and his superior productivity, and his personal investment in the enterprise, to get himself into a position where he made the decisions about things like software choices and dress codes?
This is something that really bothers me, and I happen to be one of those long-haired, sandal-wearing hippies. But I don't behave as if I'm entitled to anything -- I happen to have created a product that made my employer a lot of money, and the relaxed attitude is one of the ways they show respect for my contribution *and* for my individuality. Respect is earned, not taken for granted.
Here's the problem: Theory X management, and I don't know where the term comes from, but I think you know what it refers to, *works.* Even if you hire only sycophants who will dress like bozo the clown if that's what you order them to do, there's still a sufficiently large pool to select from that it doesn't matter.
Fortunately, I work for a company that doesn't play that game. I've shown up to regional meetings wearing a suit, partly for laughs, and partly because I think I look good in a suit, and the reaction is approximately the same as if I showed up at an EDS meeting or a Congressional hearing wearing a tie-dye and barefoot.
After the second time I did that, I was ordered by my boss not to do it anymore:-) I think I might have been the only person *ever* to show up at one of our offices wearing a tie...
Something else amusing. If your workplace requires fancy dress, expense it! How far you can take this sort of thing depends greatly on how f*cked your manager will be when you quit, and whether he or she realizes this, of course.
Also, don't forget to deduct your business clothes. Even if your company doesn't specifically require a uniform, *always* make a deduction with a few hundred dollars worth of receipts from clothes and shoe stores.
>I can remember when every IBMer was required to wear a white shirt and tie.
Not just a white shirt and tie, but also a *jacket* which you had to *wear*, you could not just hang it up in your office. Even the service reps that had offices at the client's place had to follow this. Saw it with my own eyes. We were the client, and we didn't have it much better. It was an oil exploration and producing company in Texas, I won't name it, but it had a mythical winged horse for a trademark. My workday started at 7:30 AM, and I was routinely told that meant I was expected to be there at 7:15. I've come to realize that this schedule is actually a biological incompatability, and I simply do not produce well in that time frame. There was a great deal of flexibility in the dress code, so long as it included leather shoes, slacks, a solid-colored button down shirt, and a tie. This was to work in a data center with restricted access, for a records management system. Toward the end of my career at Mumble Oil, I actually stirred up controversy by growing my hair past my shoulders. My manager routinely criticized my appearance, even as I consistently delivered far more quality than they were paying for, and I actually believe they were surprised to see me go, which I did at the first real opportunity to work in my chosen field.
The funniest thing? Soon after I left, that company got *harshly* bought out by another big oil company, that I won't name, but it was formerly known as Esso. Many of those who saw it coming, went to Houston, to work for an energy marketer called Enron... I'm not religious, but I would believe some greater power was watching out for me there.
No doubt at all, there are managers who are far more interested in what you're wearing and how your hair looks, than anything else about you. And this attitude is predominate in the corporate world. The unfortunate thing is, that style of management seems to actually have a positive impact on the bottom line, so it remains the status quo. On the other hand, anybody that comes into my office wearing a tie gets fired on the spot:-)
>We didn't. The Republicans have been blatantly stealing elections at least since 2000.
That's a little less frightening to believe, than to think the situation might actually be an expression of the will of the voters, wouldn't you say? Scares me. Fix voting and you'll still have large land areas dominated by people who don't actually live in the same society as the urban people.
>It is clearly the accumulation...that is causing the vehement opposition to the > administration's action.
Actually, my point is more that there *isn't* much opposition to the administration, bits of rhetoric here and the occasional protest rally there, aside.
It's a fallacy to think that there is anything which the current administration cannot get away with, law or no law. The outrage is already to the threshold where people are talking in terms of "impeaching the President", which is the ultimate consequence short of a violent coup... And it is not going to happen.
So what do people imagine the current administration cannot do? Obviously there are outrageous things they could do which might affect the loyalty of the military system that keeps them in power, or that could sever the ties to the financial supporters, but they aren't going to do anything of that nature.
The people aren't going to act, at least not in significant numbers, and certainly not with real hostility. Congress isn't going to destroy this government, not even if the House turns over to the opposition party next January. And other countries aren't going to band together to wage war against the US, not to liberate Iraq from the US, and absolutely not in response to US *domestic* policy.
So tell me again, what is it that stops the executive administration from operating precisely as a term-limited dictatorship?
The real fun starts when this administration hands over all this newly asserted power to the next one -- equally likely to be a liberal democrat or a moderate republican. Either way, somebody new gets all this amazing unprecedented power that nobody ever seems to have discovered before Bush.
If Bush has a legacy, that's it: The President of the United States, formerly believed to be under severe constraints, actually has unlimited power as long as he can protect himself from assassinations and as long as he has a strongly aligned partisan majority in both houses of congress. Even when most of the people in the country are vehemently (but not violently) opposed to his government, and even when there is a widespread belief that he should be removed from office, it has no meaning at all, and certainly is no contraint on the president's actions, either in making domestic policy, or in waging wars of aggression. Even if the money to fight these wars is borrowed from five generations in the future, he gets away with it. Lives another day. Isn't removed from power. Has a military that continues to follow orders from the chain of command, as opposed to turning against it. Faces no military or economic opposition from any other nation. That sort of thing. Get it?
Slashdot Mirror
I do that all the time -- google for a url as a keyword rather than put an address in the location bar. The result is usually high confidence. But then, I know all about SSL, redirection, etc., and the most clever phishing site won't fool me. (Whenever I get one, I go and fill it out, all the way, with amusing (activist) contact information and even go as far as to use test CC numbers that pass MOD10).
> It's probably already backed up
After what happened to Wallace and Grommit, it had better be.
More interesting than their historic real estate, would be exactly *how* they backup this amazing amount of data.
> According to Mapquest a trip from San Rafeal to San Francisco would take about 35 minutes
You've never tried to drive through SF proper into the Presidio, and you've definitely never had to find a place to park.
Very pretty place for an office building. You'd never run out of stuff to do within walking distance on your breaks. (Real nice work if you can get it.)
Shame on me for never playing these games, or else I'd recognize them as essentially decorations of the classic 'Hamurabi' :-)
Don't get me wrong -- I spent many, many hours playing Hamurabi in the 70s.
Rats ate 200 bushels
How would you treat someone who spends 8 hours a day playing Beethoven Mozart on the piano?
Or someone who spends the same amount of time watching TV? Or reading classic literature?
Why, in particular, does WoW stand out as unacceptable?
> Have you ever been to republican caucus?
:-)
That's one of those "do you still jack off in the woodshed" questions
"Truth: Without foreign suppliers, the U.S. is incapable of providing its own population's necessities."
I suspect that you and I have a different list of "necessities."
The other side of the coin for me, is that I have no problem with things being made in China. They have the big factories. They have the shipping infrastructure. They are able to produce goods such that transportation costs don't eliminate their profits. People I've known who are from China, indicate that the status quo is not actually the sort of abject poverty, slave labor, it's made out to be by certain political agendas.
Last time I shopped at WAL-MART I made a point to check the country of
origin of the things I bought. I was surprised: An oil filter made in
Israel, printer ink cartridges made in Ireland, printer paper made in
Canada, a utility shelf made in the USA, a box of DVD-R's made in
Taiwan, scissors made in the USA, a shirt made in Vietnam, a coffee mug
made in Thailand, two different kinds of shampoo made in the USA,
several house cleaning products made in the USA, some bath towels made
in the USA, and a coffee grinder made in France.
Not one single item I bought that day was made in China (I don't care
to enter the argument about Taiwan). I wasn't trying to avoid China.
I was quite surprised by this. I think more people should actually
pay attention, before they spout off about how all products are made in
China now.
The 50 cent vending machine coffee is $1.00, and it grinds fresh beans and brews very consistently.
"but here were 50+ middle aged men and women all just as angry that we were installing systems that other states are thinking of getting rid of."
But... not angry enough to take action. Just angry enough to whine and moan.
It was a caucus meeting? They could have literally taken the leaders out the door, and deposited them on the street, and created an new party structure right there on the spot.
"It does seem that the Diebold machine is weak if there is no way to restore to default level without a specialist flying in for $40K."
Hey, from the contractor's point of view that's not a weakness at all!
>I believe now out of print - published in 1994 - "Applied Cryptography".
Schneier out of print? No way. It's not only a "best seller", it's also used as a textbook in many university programs.
"The underlying social issue here is that the suits were educated and got most of their business experience before computers came into common use."
You sure about that? I'm mid-career, and I've watched a whole generation of suits come and go... They got fresh meat.
I see a more pointed issue. The technical people who think they are such rock stars, rarely manage to find themselves in positions of decision making authority. There are reasons why tech folks are always complaining about "PHB's", and it's *not* just because PHB's are oldskool.
There appears to be much more to it than that.
Still, you can always find some tech person who will tell you his boss, and his boss, etc., are all morons. That superior intelligence never seems to translate into increased authority, though. Why don't you ever read about someone who used his brain, and his superior productivity, and his personal investment in the enterprise, to get himself into a position where he made the decisions about things like software choices and dress codes?
This is something that really bothers me, and I happen to be one of those long-haired, sandal-wearing hippies. But I don't behave as if I'm entitled to anything -- I happen to have created a product that made my employer a lot of money, and the relaxed attitude is one of the ways they show respect for my contribution *and* for my individuality. Respect is earned, not taken for granted.
> Sucess is measured by the marketing and bean counter types
If you deliver beans for them to count, they won't give a rat's ass what you wear. These people tend to realize fertilizer smells.
>Fuck 'em! Let 'em crash!
Here's the problem: Theory X management, and I don't know where the term comes from, but I think you know what it refers to, *works.* Even if you hire only sycophants who will dress like bozo the clown if that's what you order them to do, there's still a sufficiently large pool to select from that it doesn't matter.
Fortunately, I work for a company that doesn't play that game. I've shown up to regional meetings wearing a suit, partly for laughs, and partly because I think I look good in a suit, and the reaction is approximately the same as if I showed up at an EDS meeting or a Congressional hearing wearing a tie-dye and barefoot.
After the second time I did that, I was ordered by my boss not to do it anymore
Something else amusing. If your workplace requires fancy dress, expense it! How far you can take this sort of thing depends greatly on how f*cked your manager will be when you quit, and whether he or she realizes this, of course.
Also, don't forget to deduct your business clothes. Even if your company doesn't specifically require a uniform, *always* make a deduction with a few hundred dollars worth of receipts from clothes and shoe stores.
>I can remember when every IBMer was required to wear a white shirt and tie.
Not just a white shirt and tie, but also a *jacket* which you had to *wear*, you could not just hang it up in your office. Even the service reps that had offices at the client's place had to follow this. Saw it with my own eyes. We were the client, and we didn't have it much better. It was an oil exploration and producing company in Texas, I won't name it, but it had a mythical winged horse for a trademark. My workday started at 7:30 AM, and I was routinely told that meant I was expected to be there at 7:15. I've come to realize that this schedule is actually a biological incompatability, and I simply do not produce well in that time frame. There was a great deal of flexibility in the dress code, so long as it included leather shoes, slacks, a solid-colored button down shirt, and a tie. This was to work in a data center with restricted access, for a records management system. Toward the end of my career at Mumble Oil, I actually stirred up controversy by growing my hair past my shoulders. My manager routinely criticized my appearance, even as I consistently delivered far more quality than they were paying for, and I actually believe they were surprised to see me go, which I did at the first real opportunity to work in my chosen field.
The funniest thing? Soon after I left, that company got *harshly* bought out by another big oil company, that I won't name, but it was formerly known as Esso. Many of those who saw it coming, went to Houston, to work for an energy marketer called Enron... I'm not religious, but I would believe some greater power was watching out for me there.
Your people, no doubt, deliver results, to the same folks who have thrown money down the pit of well-dressed con-men in the past.
> This sounds like FUD to me.
:-)
No doubt at all, there are managers who are far more interested in what you're wearing and how your hair looks, than anything else about you. And this attitude is predominate in the corporate world. The unfortunate thing is, that style of management seems to actually have a positive impact on the bottom line, so it remains the status quo. On the other hand, anybody that comes into my office wearing a tie gets fired on the spot
> I think you mean Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing?
Yes, my mistake. Still, filed under "M", not under "3" or "T".
>3com.com and 3m.com are technically invalid...
In old-school records management, 3Com is filed under "T", and 3M is filed under "M" (The name of the company is "Minnesota Mining and Minerals".
>We didn't. The Republicans have been blatantly stealing elections at least since 2000.
That's a little less frightening to believe, than to think the situation might actually be an expression of the will of the voters, wouldn't you say? Scares me. Fix voting and you'll still have large land areas dominated by people who don't actually live in the same society as the urban people.
>It is clearly the accumulation ...that is causing the vehement opposition to the
> administration's action.
Actually, my point is more that there *isn't* much opposition to the administration, bits of rhetoric here and the occasional protest rally there, aside.
It's a fallacy to think that there is anything which the current administration cannot get away with, law or no law. The outrage is already to the threshold where people are talking in terms of "impeaching the President", which is the ultimate consequence short of a violent coup... And it is not going to happen.
So what do people imagine the current administration cannot do? Obviously there are outrageous things they could do which might affect the loyalty of the military system that keeps them in power, or that could sever the ties to the financial supporters, but they aren't going to do anything of that nature.
The people aren't going to act, at least not in significant numbers, and certainly not with real hostility. Congress isn't going to destroy this government, not even if the House turns over to the opposition party next January. And other countries aren't going to band together to wage war against the US, not to liberate Iraq from the US, and absolutely not in response to US *domestic* policy.
So tell me again, what is it that stops the executive administration from operating precisely as a term-limited dictatorship?
The real fun starts when this administration hands over all this newly asserted power to the next one -- equally likely to be a liberal democrat or a moderate republican. Either way, somebody new gets all this amazing unprecedented power that nobody ever seems to have discovered before Bush.
If Bush has a legacy, that's it: The President of the United States, formerly believed to be under severe constraints, actually has unlimited power as long as he can protect himself from assassinations and as long as he has a strongly aligned partisan majority in both houses of congress. Even when most of the people in the country are vehemently (but not violently) opposed to his government, and even when there is a widespread belief that he should be removed from office, it has no meaning at all, and certainly is no contraint on the president's actions, either in making domestic policy, or in waging wars of aggression.
Even if the money to fight these wars is borrowed from five generations in the future, he gets away with it. Lives another day. Isn't removed from power. Has a military that continues to follow orders from the chain of command, as opposed to turning against it. Faces no military or economic opposition from any other nation. That sort of thing. Get it?