No, It wouldn't be (a/an)[**1] HIPAA violation. None of the data on that server would be patient data. It would only hold info about when which staff is working.
[I'm very surprised how many people appear to not have read the question, but I guess I shouldn't be. This is slashdot.]
I'm also surprised how many people don't understand the actually, totally facile nature of the HIPAA guidelines.
HIPAA Guidelines[**2] only apply to patient identified data and its related ilk.
It certainly might be a good idea to see what liability issues could ensue from the server.The most important might be analyzing how/if it could be used as beachhead to attack other equipment on the network, which could lead to a HIPAA breach.
The funniest thing in this whole thread: The levels of anger, hostility, vehemence and what appears to be outright hatred being poured out at this person. I guess its true, most of the people who have time to read slashdot are the incredibly over-worked IT people.
The other funny thing is how absolutist, "black and white" the positions about what HIPAA means, were. Sorry folks - HIPAA is nothing if not malleable. Every state has had to come up with its own version of what the rules mean and virtually all of them got it wrong. [yes, I did go and read the actual legislation. Its been bent way way off course from its original purpose by people within the healthcare system who are using it to get a bigger slice of the institutional budget pie.] Further an entire industry has sprung into existence to help people 'understand' what HIPAA means. And boy are they helping. Helping take tons of money out of the healthcare industry and into their own wallets.
Very little actual good has come out of the HIPAA mandate. Mostly is has been turned into a huge cash-sucking layer of bureaucracy that often does more to impede taking care of people and waste money than it does anything else. Sadly that makes it very little different from much of the rest of the American 'healthcare' industry. Over the years 'healthcare' has become a misnomer. A better name would be 'WeWealthCare' and no, that's not a typo.
**1 Rules are changing, your call: a hippopotamus or an hippopotamus? USA == "a", UK == "an"? **2 they are too poorly written, (vague and generalized nigh unto death), to be called rules.
I can't comment on this dude having a normal memory or otherwise, but he certainly has a pretty closed mind. There's a big difference between a well trained mind and a true photographic memory. Some people just remember *everything*. It's not something they train themselves to do, or use a technique, it's something physically different about their brain that makes it work that way.
That you believe the myth doesn't make you more open minded. *IF* there were true photographic memory, then the prizes at these world memory championships would be scooped up by people that have it. But they're not.
BZZZT! Sorry, you failed to give your answer in the form of a question. The correct answer is "What is someone who doesn't believe in scientifically documented genetic phenomena but instead chooses to make up their own reality and denegrate others who don't believe as they do?"
The reality is that there are both people with strongly trained memories and those who are just happen to have the right mix of genetic traits to have good memory, or unbelievably fantastic memory. In any case the term "Photographic memory" is incorrect. The correct term is "eidetic memory" and it does not lend itself to the types of memory competitions you describe because it is strictly a recall talent, not an organizing talent. The so called memory contests actually require both recall and organizing ability.
There are many different kinds of Eidetic memory talents, one recently documented to exist in eight people is called Hyperthymesia, a condition where the affected individual has a superior autobiographical memory.
Individuals with hyperthymesia can recall events that they have personally experienced. A hyperthymestic person can be asked a date, and describe the events that occurred that day, what the weather was like, and many seemingly trivial details that most people would not be able to recall. They often can recall what day of the week the date fell on, but are not necessarily calendrical calculators as people with autism or savant syndrome sometimes are; the recall is limited to days on a personal "mental calendar".[2] The mental calendar association occurs automatically and obsessively. Unlike some other individuals with superior memory, hyperthymestic individuals do not rely on practiced mnemonic strategies.
Eidetic or photographic memory is popularly defined as the ability to recall images, sounds, or objects in memory with extreme precision and in abundant volume. But the popular term "Photographic memory" and the abilities the public associate with it, are indeed fictional. People with eidetic memory do not have to use any mnemonic strategies to employ their talents, and typically their recall abilities are not sequentially continuous. Instead they can recall specific individual experiences.
Eidetic memory as observed in children is typified by the ability of an individual to study an image for approximately 30 seconds, and maintain a nearly perfect photographic memory of that image for a short time once it has been removed—indeed such eidetickers claim to "see" the image on the blank canvas as vividly and in as perfect detail as if it were still there. Much like any other memory, the intensity of the recall may be subject to several factors such as duration and frequency of exposure to the stimulus, conscious observation, relevance to the person, etc. This fact stands in contrast to the general misinterpretation of the term which assumes a constant and total recall of all events.
Some people who generally have a good memory claim to have eidetic memory. However, there are distinct differences in the manner in which information is processed. People who have a generally capable memory often use mnemonic devices (such as division of an idea into enumerable elements) to retain information while those with eidetic memory remember very specific details, such as where a person was standing, what the person was wearing, etc. They may re
It baffles me that some large email providers like hotmail and AOL don't implement DKIM. The added CPU load is negligible on a modern machine.
If it's "negligible", why don't you pay for them to implement it? Do you really think your small business solution that adequately handles hundreds of messages a day on a single machine will scale to millions of messages a day on a server farm?
You mean like Google groups and Yahoo who both use it? I think Google understands scaling pretty well. I suspect they aren't having any issues with the compute load of DKIM, to the tune of billions of emails.
that since they're BUSINESS lines, they'd be static IPs.
Actually, that's an incorrect assumption.
Actually its not an incorrect assumption, its a reasonable normal assumption: from a comcast web page, note the last item in the feature list: Comcast Business Class Internet \n Blaze new trails with big business features.
Whatever the size of your company, it needs to respond quickly to the needs of customers, communicate reliably with suppliers, and find smarter ways to increase employee productivity. That's why Comcast Business Class Internet offers:
Downloads up to 50Mbps, uploads up to 10Mbps Internet speeds up to 64x faster than T1 Flexible Web hosting options Norton Business Suite security and virus protection Free Microsoft Communication tools ** Static IP addresses **
but then, of course, they are engaging in a not so subtle misrepresentation. following the link to the next page you find out you have to pay extra for a static IP.
As for verizoned - well they're still selling like they are the phone company: "Hot Dead Chickens! gett your Hot Dead Chickens! " http://smallbusiness.verizon.com/products/internet/hsi/plans.aspx?tfn=s2&CMP=KNC-SMB_D_P1_CS_Z_Z_U_Z165 note the AD is targeting small businesses like a hair dresser, and then uses terminology like 3/7 mbps/kbps to describe what they are selling. Here the static line is an extra fee option.
Frankly, calling any service "business class internet service" that doesn't include a static IP as the standard base is false advertising as its useless for a business identity, a web server, and email on the internet without a static IP. But hey: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
comcrap and verizoned - both fraudulent by nature. In a truly free market neither would exist, but wired/fibered telecomm will never be a free market and neither of those companies is at all interested in competing in a free market. See "regulatory capture".
Using comcrap's smtp relay via smarthost config limits you to some number of "less than 200" emails per day, after which they silently drop your email to/dev/null. Please note this number is derived from actual experiences.
and I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that Comcast/Verizon have finally started to implement what every other responsible ISP has been doing for a decade.
Again, Business class services from comcrap and verizoned are STATIC IP's, not dynamic. Its the ISP's fault for not keeping up with managing their static vs dynamic IP addresses lists properly and keeping them updated with the various block list services, or for giving the business customer a consumer class IP.
That won't help. The article says "Additionally, a lot of ISPs just started blocking any mail coming from any IP in the address block of cable modems." Even if they could send out from Comcast (or whoever they use) they will most likely be blocked by the receiving server.
Again, this is the ISP's fault for either giving them an IP thats not in their block of static IP, but was instead listed BY the ISP as a dynamic IP and therefore putting that IP on the blocklist, or for giving them an IP that was static but somehow the ISP added it to the Dynamic IP lists.
You have several options. 1) Get a real internet Service provider.
Like who? GoDaddy? Ha ha ha ha ha ! Comcrap and verizoned are two of the largest ISP's in the world, and not just for consumers, for businesses as well.
2) Host mail on a different server such as a vps 3) host mail on a different server and use Fetchmail to pull mail and send mail out bound. 4) Configure your server to send mail through your ISPs send mail server. Receiving mail may be a problem depending on ISP.
There is no sane reason why any typical business should have to route their email through the ISP's mail server, or use some remote server no on their own IP address if they have a business class service. The entire point of business class service is to have a static IP and have "real" internet access, as opposed to what the consumers get. (However, No one can claim that C+V treat their customers in anything resembling a sane fashion. It come closer to rape. )
That means the ISP shouldn't be doing ANYTHING to the businesses traffic and the ISP should be guaranteeing that the IP they have given the business is not in the DUL or any other RBLS of Dynamic IP's
Both comcast and verizon's business services provide static IP addresses, and those addresses are not supposed to be in the dynamic IP blocks which each ISP provides to the various block list services.
If the ISP itself is blocking the outbound port 25 port, and/or reporting the IP they gave you as dynamic, complain bitterly, and sue. Begin the law suit immediately after they don't fix the problem within a few days after a written complaint. Solict other businesses who have been adversely affected and mount a class action.
Enec: - the static IP's given by Comcrap and Verizoned are not in the dynamic IP pools unless those respective companies specifically listed them in the dynamic pools, which they should NEVER do with their business class IP's. The blame here clearly lays at the feet of the respective ISP's eg: Comcrap and Veryzoned.
On Monday February 14, @01:35AM. XPeter said: > You fuckers need to stop with the horrible MS virus jokes, it's old and untrue. > if Linux or OSX had 90% of the market, they'd be much worse off than Windows
XPeter the idea that other operating systems are just as vulnerable as Windows, and would be as equally compromised if they were just "more popular" is incorrect. The problem comes down to an architectural design choice. Because Windows inherited its design from earlier versions of Windows, the ability for a subverted process to be used to gain an illegal privilege escalation is much easier on Windows than it is on many other operating systems, for example, Linux, UNIX, and BSD.
It was written by Rick Moen and does a good job of explaining all aspects of the issue, including what the status of "Linux virii** in the wild" are. This article is fairly comprehensive and is pretty short considering how much ground gets covered. Unlike many Computer science texts, Its very readable and clear in straight forward English. Clear, concise and readable writing is just one of Rick's talents.
Rick has a collection of excellent articles on this and many other issues. Take a look and have yourself a good read.
**Note- Rick hates the word virii. Exactly why isn't quite clear. Part of the reason seems to be that although the word "virii" was clearly Latin and/or Greek inspired/influenced, it was never actually a Latin or a Greek word. And there seems to this notion floating around that unless a word was originally a word in Latin, that it can't become an English word. Thats completely untrue, of course. For example "google"*** was never a word in any language and is now a commonly used verb in English and other languages as well. Latin, being a dead language, cannot change, but English, can and does, and has new words added to it with great frequency. So I stick it in there once in a while just to gently needle him****.:-) [ My gosh, I hope he doesn't get infected with any virii, while I'm needling him.:-) ]
*** google, as a verb, nominated for word of the year in 2002, was also selected as the most useful verb of the year 2002. Sadly "google" wasn't added to large dictionaries (Oxford (OED), Merriam-Webster (MW) ) until 2006, years behind the actual date of usage adoption. Dictionaries are typically years or sometimes decades behind current usage. MW does note the first usage as a verb in 2001, five years before MW added it. Today linguists use Google's(TM) search engine, as well as others to determine when a word has come into usage.
**** All Linguistics texts, as well as many Linguistics books written about language formation and even those written specifically about English, agree that the only authoritative rule for whether something is a word or not, is usage. If multiple people use the same sound for the same meaning, then it is a word. Isn't that just bootyliscious?******
***** The motivation here is basic jealousy....:-)
****** bootylicious: MW added in 2001/2, OED added in 2003
Dogs noses are orders of magnitude more sensitive than ours. To the dog, that bowl smells like food "all the time".
In fact, unless the bowl's made of a material that's completely non-permeable, the dog can smell food on it even after you have washed it in very hot, very soapy water.
according to WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_anatomy#Smell Dogs have nearly 220 million smell-sensitive cells over an area about the size of a pocket handkerchief (compared to 5 million over an area the size of a postage stamp for humans).[12][13] According to nhm.org, dogs can sense odours at concentrations nearly 100 million times lower than humans can.[14] According to Dummies.com, the percentage of the dog's brain that is devoted to analyzing smells is actually 40 times larger than that of a human.[12] Some dog breeds have been selectively bred for excellence in detecting scents, even compared to their canine brethren.
Interestingly you can say exactly the same thing about medical Doctors. Ego's the size of -ridiculously large object- and the bigger the ego, the stupider and less scientifically they practice medicine. From a GP all the way "up" ($$$$$) to the surgical specialists, its the same for all of them. God help you if you're not an "average" patient. If you don't fit in their pre-conceived "box" they'll keep stuffing you in and slamming the lid shut until you die, leave their practice or get well on your own. And if you get well on your own, they will take the credit for that.
Whats the actual real error rate for Doctors on diagnoses and treatments? Here's a hint - Its around 50%.
What "profession" gets paid just as much when they are wrong as they do when they are right? Yes, Doctors.
Think this is all nuts? Start keeping track. At each sick visit to a doctor ask these final questions: (And record each answer! )
( Aside: After doing this a while, using a strict "if its not right, then its wrong" scoring rubric, I found my doctors to be around the 50% range. Note that they don't view it this way, they view being wrong as part of the process. [ Note: being wrong means "Follow up visit!" which they charge for as well. gee my mechanic doesn't do that.... Please be aware that I'm not only talking about fatal, near fatal or crippling mistakes made by the doctor, but also about how many things they just get wrong in daily practice even if the mistake results in no injury. Once you see just how bad doctors are most of the time, you may start thinking you want a better system. I know I do!.:-) End Aside)
Questions for every visit: #1 - So what is the diagnosis, what do I have? (doctor must identify the illness or say I don't know (yet). if the latter, the doctor must map out the next part of the diagnostic path for the patient, identifying what the likely "diagnosis candidates" are at this point in time. )
#2 - if the doctor has identified your illness, Ask: "What is the recommended treatment?" or "How is it treated?" follow up with "What are the side effects to this treatment? what percentage of the treated population gets each type of side effect? and How are those side effects treated? Are any of the side effects permanent? can any part of the treatment harm me in any way? Again, record all answers. In fact - really record the session. Watch as your specialist flips out when you tell them you're recording because you're too stressed out to take notes, (or your carpal tunnel is acting up)
#3 - before the next visit, pull out the notes from #1 and #2 and see how well the doctor did against their predictions. if you're not cured yet, repeat #1 and #2 . Also - note how often you have to repeat #1 and #2.:)
Note - if you run into any Harvard educated neurosurgeons who want to put any magnetically affected metals into your neck (* say to repair some disc problems by fusing vertebrae) take the following emergency actions:
#1 - Tase the neurosurgeon heavily until they pass out. #2 - apply a tourniquet to the arm of the Dr's dominant hand. If its not clear which hand is dominant, apply a tourniquet to both. #3 - remove hands from any arm that is tourniquetted, using what ever tools are nearby. Remember neatness is not a goal here, speed and separation are the desired effect. #4 - if no tourniquet material is available, proceed with step 3 and assume that both hands must be removed.
Why: Why don't you want this doctor operating on you - any doctor who even suggests putting ferrous metals ( or any magnetically reactive materials ) inside your body, especially anywhere near the head, is a GOD of clueless-ness. MRI Imaging is one of the best diagnostic imaging tools medicine has. MRI systems are extremely powerful and if your body has any metal in it near the MRI fields, that metal will cook your body from the inside out. [Basically MRI's heat the metal by induction ] So if your body has any ma
Parent's comment is spot on. Please, (if you are so inclined), take a gander at the book "Fat land : how Americans became the fattest people in the world" by Greg Critser.
This book details exactly how the USA's food industries stopped being mainly suppliers of food, but instead learned to market by "addiction stimulation profiles", focusing on how to get people to eat not just more, but much much more. And in the process added chemically prepared materials to the food to enhance those addictive properties and lower costs by replacing nutritious content with junk or waste products.
In my 30+ years of experience in the American High Tech and Finance businesses, I have seen what happens to personal morals and integrity: For most employees who design, or develop products any comments about treating the customer fairly, or "but thats not right" are met with silence, or outright derision. Socially aware employees learn quickly that such statements are career enders and never make them.
In finance and mass market software application companies employees who make such statements, especially more than once, are taken note of and never promoted into management positions that have input on company policy or decision making. Please note that there are many first/second level "management" positions which are simply group leader positions and have no influence on company direction. Employees with good people skills and personal integrity will often be used in these positions because they are respected and liked by their peers but are never promoted beyond those levels. Their careers have dead ended because they have not shown the proper attitude about how to treat/exploit the masses for the benefit of the company.
In companies where scientists are the product developers, like food companies or chemical companies, it is harder to "retrain the employee's thinking" because of the academic emphasis on scientific integrity. Phd's are much harder to redirect into the "proper way of thinking". In these companies the censorship is initially subtle but over time, for a specific employee, can actually become directly confrontational. "Do this or its your job", eg - you will be fired. Note all such companies have employees sign aggressively proprietary NDA's to prevent whistleblowing, (as well as leaking competitive information of course:) )
Over time the end result is that everyone in upper management has the same attitude and the only constraints or requirements on thinking are "Will this make more money for the company?" and "if this is illegal, can we get away with it?".
I'm sure there are exceptions to the above generalizations, especially in other industries. But we should all be aware of the tendency of businesses to this acquire and follow these characteristics. As mentioned in the parent, the Top executives from the largest tobacco companies in the world were willing to go in front of congress, under oath and blatantly lie right to their faces. Further, they had been so completely aware of the actual facts of tobacco's harmful attributes that they made sure that all paper trails, all data that was streamed upward in the company, never ever contained any such claims. The internal social/corporate pressure within each organization was so complete and so well thought out in advance that the entire plan to suppress all such information internally was done completely by word of mouth, off the record, never written down, No incriminating documents at all.
As an interesting corollary, look up the rate of arrests for cocaine use/sale in Silicon Valley and the Massachusetts 128 tech belt and plot those over time and on the same graph, plot the High Tech industry booms and busts. There will be an interesting correspondence. I leave it to the reader to decide what, if anything, it means.
For an excellent dramatized story about this, see the movie "The Insider" with Russel Crowe about a reluctant whistleblower in the tobacco industry, This movie also shows how pernicious business influences are and how the famed investigative TV Show "60 minutes" was stopped dead in its tracks just on the eve of a tremendous expose on the industry.
I've been able to read cleartext SSN's out of college's for the past 30 years without ANY authorization, so all I can say is that this is better late than never.
The only refinement I can think of that would improve it is that any MIS/IT/CIO Director who authorizes any form of non-encrypted storage of this type of information should also have to pay a personal fine of $500 per record.
Funny how when its your own money that's on the line your perspective changes.
No the startup does not claim to have busted the famous "adding manpower to a late project makes it later" rule.
Why is this different from the scenario Fred Brooks described in his book (and the death marches many of us have experienced)?
#1 - No critical path dependencies on intern deliverables: The items the interns had to deliver were independent of the main project. While the functionality was desirable, no part of the mainline project would be held up if that functionality was not delivered.
#2 - Fixed endpoint. The intern staff had a fixed period of employment. 1 month, no extensions possible. Software projects almost never have a fixed end date. Yes, they claim to, but the reality is those deadlines are never real.
#3 Staffing: I'm sorry to have to say this but the caliber of the staffing matters. The competition to get into MIT is one of the most intense in the USA, if not the world. Many people are smart enough to get into MIT, but the ones who make the cut are the ones who have focused on MIT as a goal for years before they ever got there and kept working towards that goal steadily, (or are the 0.000000006% of the population that are spectacular geniuses). These people are extremely quick at picking up new ideas and concepts and are the type that only have to hear something once, AND, unlike most people in the world, grasp the implications and inferential relationships of what they have been told/given very quickly. These abilities, combined with MIT's intense technical curriculum which provides both a broad and deep understanding of the underlying technical principles, and an academic environment that requires students to be strongly self-reliant, (most US primary school systems stamp out self reliance rather than enhancing it.) means that the talent pool this startup was drawing on had a superb set of talent, drive, self-initiative, and technical knowledge.
#4 culture The people recruited into the company shared a common set of experiences with each other and also with a number of the already existing full time staff. This "common culture" meant that they were able to instantly relate to their mentors the rest of the company people. It allowed a much better level of communication than one will see in a more randomly sourced population.
There is more to this, and much of it is more complex than I have described here. (no relocation logistics/distractions, no social isolation, existing support group, etc etc etc.... ) but I have gone on long enough.
Please note - none of the above implies perfection or super human abilities of these people, just simple human attributes skewed towards one end of the curve. (And in some cases, really really skewed in their social metrics:-) )
I've met MIT grads who were not able to function outside the academic world and those who were superb and those who were lousy. The above is a general discussion of why the startup was able to do well with this, but does not attempt to cover the true scope of the complexity of the issue. Remember, this is Slashdot.
I have to disagree, but I thank you for partially supporting my position. There are very few "real world" environments which are both "large" and able to get by only on software which has been packaged in msi format. [[what you are calling the "Windows installer system" which is a fine label.]] From my real world experiences, Financial firms, HMO's, Insurance companies, Large Corporations, Call centers and the like, which all can be quite large, very distinctly do not have nice neat environments like the one you describe.
They try to. They know it would greatly simplify their existence if they could. But reality intrudes.
If IT were driving the business, there is a chance the environment could be simplified, but, alas, businesses that are driven by their IT depts rather than by their business, don't stay in business.:)
A few other points: SLA - ? provided by who and to who? The IT Dept has an SLA with the rest of the company? And it prohibts the business the company is in from requiring anything not supported by the existing group policy software? That will last right up to the first "not supportable" item that has a negative revenue affect. At that point management will override the SLA, or throw it out completely.
"IN any complex environment" was the first premise of my statement. Are you saying then, that most large scale
environments today are not complex? Great. I guess we can start reducing the IT budgets and headcounts. Most people who think Windows administration is easier to do than *NIX administration just haven't ever seen how easily automated administering a large network of *NIX systems can be. Having the ability to login to any remote system has existed for roughly 30 years. And automating remote adminsitration has been there almost that long. As for locking things down, that too has been built in since the beginning of *NIX multi-user capabilities. These capabilities (and nice stuff like the new windows powershell [ Finally! ] ) are very nice additions to Windows that are mostly or partially inspired by analogues that existed in *NIX (and other) traditions, in some cases for decades before Windows acquired them. Again, I congratulate Microsoft on their ability to add in ideas from other places. I'm just surprised it took as long as it did.
Microsoft clearly isn't dumb, but the company's actual policy of "Churn to earn", [[ try to get every customer to buy a new Windows license every three years ]] has always forced then to work on flash before actual useful needs. Tell me how many times did they re-invent (and rename) the COM system? 5? or was it six? and where is it now?
I suspect your allegation is true only when specific, narrow conditiosn are in place. Those conditions might include things like, comparing one version of windows platform against multiple versions of UNIX, Not being required to do anything not already supported by the capabilities in the group policy system, or the windows installer system, and not having to use any software that is not packaged with the MSI system, and others.
In any complex environment, I suspect the allegation will fail. In those environments size would make the issue(s) worse. However, I do congratulate MS for addrressing many issues in the adminjstrative domain in recent years, now they are only 20 years behind in security.
its probably modded flamebait because he's not right. There is some support for each of those areas in vim, possibly excepting integrated debugging (depending on how you define integrated debugging, that is:) )
It appears no one/few checked out the rules for leaving comments on that forum. the jerk violated the rules, then did it again at least once. (other versions of the story have it being done multiple times). When you abuse a site, expect the site to try to stop you anyway they can.
You're posting vulgar, sexually oriented comments from your workplace? Sorry - you just violated the standard workplace rules about sexually harassing activities that are now standard practice in corporate America.
Oh - you work at a school?
Well then, You not only violated the working policies but you also (in today's freaked out America where everything is terrorism ) just turned on the "public pedophile/child abuser frenzy mode". [even if you're not a pedophile]. You will be gone from that school in moments and if you resist or try to fight it, the local community will burn you in Effigy. ( a small but nearby town).
yes its all hypersenstive crapola but that's the way it is in the new politically Palinized (formerly "Bushified") America. Politically based emotional manipulation will turn everything into a fear-based Hysteria-of-the-mobs event.
WP, while a useful web site, tends to promote "popular opinion" into "psuedo fact". As long as enough people who edit WP believe something to be true, the entries about that item will promote the popular belief as fact. Eventually, due to WP's popularity, the psuedo fact becomes accepted as an actual fact.
Example: according to linguistics, there are no rules about what words can be added to the English language. Indeed English is the least pure, most widely hybrized language on the planet and new words are added to it daily. For example the verb "slashdotted":-) or the verb "google" etc.. Nowhere are there any rules saying "these specific things cannot be added to the english language because they don't meet criteria 'x'." According to linguistics, the only rules used to determine if something is actually a word or not are these two:
A: Is the word being used?
B: Is the meaning of the word as used agreed on?
If those two requirements are metthen the word in question is a legitimate word.
The example peevologists hate the most: "virii" (yes, it meets the requirements. Therefore it is a word, despite being desperately hated by peevologists:-) So use it often!;-)
Fortunately even the mainstream peevologists are realizing that language just isn't used the way the 18th century grammarians (who started the whole myth of "standard english) think it ought to be used. In fact it wasn't used that way back then, and never has been from then until now. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507EFDA113AF93BA2575BC0A9649C8B63
The biggest issue with peevology is that many copy editors have been mis-educated about these very issues and go forth laying waste to perfectly good writing because they (incorrectly) believe said writing is not following "the rules". (the article refers to prescriptivists who have some overlap with peevologists but are generally less harmful, just annoying.)
I was walking across campus with a friend and we came upon half a dozen theoretical linguists committing unprovoked physical assault on a defenseless prescriptivist. My friend was shocked. Sh
> "Suzy, it's your night to do the dishes. Johnny, gather and take out the trash. Joey, we need four primal fires."
You clearly don't have any kids...:-)
9:30 PM Thursday Night
"Mom! I NEED 25 CUPCAKES AND 2 PRIMAL FIRES FOR SCHOOL TOMORROW!" "Oh my God Steven, Why didn't you tell me earlier?" "I FORGOT 'TILL JUST NOW!" (begins wailing)....
3 AM
Steven has been asleep since 10:00 PM, Mom has just logged off his account for the night and can now (totally exhausted and drained) go to sleep for 3, well deserved, (but totally inadequate), hours of sleep.
Slashdot Mirror
> Wouldn't this also be a HIPAA violation?
No, It wouldn't be (a/an)[**1] HIPAA violation. None of the data on that server would be patient data. It would only hold info about when which staff is working.
[I'm very surprised how many people appear to not have read the question, but I guess I shouldn't be. This is slashdot.]
I'm also surprised how many people don't understand the actually, totally facile nature of the HIPAA guidelines.
HIPAA Guidelines[**2] only apply to patient identified data and its related ilk.
It certainly might be a good idea to see what liability issues could ensue from the server.The most important might be analyzing how/if it could be used as beachhead to attack other equipment on the network, which could lead to a HIPAA breach.
The funniest thing in this whole thread: The levels of anger, hostility, vehemence and what appears to be outright hatred being poured out at this person. I guess its true, most of the people who have time to read slashdot are the incredibly over-worked IT people.
The other funny thing is how absolutist, "black and white" the positions about what HIPAA means, were. Sorry folks - HIPAA is nothing if not malleable. Every state has had to come up with its own version of what the rules mean and virtually all of them got it wrong. [yes, I did go and read the actual legislation. Its been bent way way off course from its original purpose by people within the healthcare system who are using it to get a bigger slice of the institutional budget pie.] Further an entire industry has sprung into existence to help people 'understand' what HIPAA means. And boy are they helping. Helping take tons of money out of the healthcare industry and into their own wallets.
Very little actual good has come out of the HIPAA mandate. Mostly is has been turned into a huge cash-sucking layer of bureaucracy that often does more to impede taking care of people and waste money than it does anything else. Sadly that makes it very little different from much of the rest of the American 'healthcare' industry. Over the years 'healthcare' has become a misnomer. A better name would be 'WeWealthCare' and no, that's not a typo.
**1 Rules are changing, your call: a hippopotamus or an hippopotamus? USA == "a", UK == "an"?
**2 they are too poorly written, (vague and generalized nigh unto death), to be called rules.
I can't comment on this dude having a normal memory or otherwise, but he certainly has a pretty closed mind. There's a big difference between a well trained mind and a true photographic memory. Some people just remember *everything*. It's not something they train themselves to do, or use a technique, it's something physically different about their brain that makes it work that way.
That you believe the myth doesn't make you more open minded. *IF* there were true photographic memory, then the prizes at these world memory championships would be scooped up by people that have it. But they're not.
BZZZT! Sorry, you failed to give your answer in the form of a question. The correct answer is "What is someone who doesn't believe in scientifically documented genetic phenomena but instead chooses to make up their own reality and denegrate others who don't believe as they do?"
The reality is that there are both people with strongly trained memories and those who are just happen to have the right mix of genetic traits to have good memory, or unbelievably fantastic memory. In any case the term "Photographic memory" is incorrect. The correct term is "eidetic memory" and it does not lend itself to the types of memory competitions you describe because it is strictly a recall talent, not an organizing talent. The so called memory contests actually require both recall and organizing ability.
There are many different kinds of Eidetic memory talents, one recently documented to exist in eight people is called Hyperthymesia, a condition where the affected individual has a superior autobiographical memory.
Individuals with hyperthymesia can recall events that they have personally experienced. A hyperthymestic person can be asked a date, and describe the events that occurred that day, what the weather was like, and many seemingly trivial details that most people would not be able to recall. They often can recall what day of the week the date fell on, but are not necessarily calendrical calculators as people with autism or savant syndrome sometimes are; the recall is limited to days on a personal "mental calendar".[2] The mental calendar association occurs automatically and obsessively. Unlike some other individuals with superior memory, hyperthymestic individuals do not rely on practiced mnemonic strategies.
Eidetic or photographic memory is popularly defined as the ability to recall images, sounds, or objects in memory with extreme precision and in abundant volume. But the popular term "Photographic memory" and the abilities the public associate with it, are indeed fictional. People with eidetic memory do not have to use any mnemonic strategies to employ their talents, and typically their recall abilities are not sequentially continuous. Instead they can recall specific individual experiences.
Eidetic memory as observed in children is typified by the ability of an individual to study an image for approximately 30 seconds, and maintain a nearly perfect photographic memory of that image for a short time once it has been removed—indeed such eidetickers claim to "see" the image on the blank canvas as vividly and in as perfect detail as if it were still there. Much like any other memory, the intensity of the recall may be subject to several factors such as duration and frequency of exposure to the stimulus, conscious observation, relevance to the person, etc. This fact stands in contrast to the general misinterpretation of the term which assumes a constant and total recall of all events.
Some people who generally have a good memory claim to have eidetic memory. However, there are distinct differences in the manner in which information is processed. People who have a generally capable memory often use mnemonic devices (such as division of an idea into enumerable elements) to retain information while those with eidetic memory remember very specific details, such as where a person was standing, what the person was wearing, etc. They may re
.
If it's "negligible", why don't you pay for them to implement it? Do you really think your small business solution that adequately handles hundreds of messages a day on a single machine will scale to millions of messages a day on a server farm?
You mean like Google groups and Yahoo who both use it? I think Google understands scaling pretty well. I suspect they aren't having any issues with the compute load of DKIM, to the tune of billions of emails.
Actually, that's an incorrect assumption.
Actually its not an incorrect assumption, its a reasonable normal assumption:
from a comcast web page, note the last item in the feature list:
Comcast Business Class Internet \n Blaze new trails with big business features.
Whatever the size of your company, it needs to respond quickly to the needs of customers, communicate reliably with suppliers, and find smarter ways to increase employee productivity. That's why Comcast Business Class Internet offers:
Downloads up to 50Mbps, uploads up to 10Mbps
Internet speeds up to 64x faster than T1
Flexible Web hosting options
Norton Business Suite security and virus protection
Free Microsoft Communication tools
** Static IP addresses **
http://business.comcast.com/internet/index.aspx
but then, of course, they are engaging in a not so subtle misrepresentation. following the link to the next page you find out you have to pay extra for a static IP.
As for verizoned - well they're still selling like they are the phone company: "Hot Dead Chickens! gett your Hot Dead Chickens! "
http://smallbusiness.verizon.com/products/internet/hsi/plans.aspx?tfn=s2&CMP=KNC-SMB_D_P1_CS_Z_Z_U_Z165
note the AD is targeting small businesses like a hair dresser, and then uses terminology like 3/7 mbps/kbps to describe what they are selling.
Here the static line is an extra fee option.
Frankly, calling any service "business class internet service" that doesn't include a static IP as the standard base is false advertising as its useless for a business identity, a web server, and email on the internet without a static IP. But hey: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
comcrap and verizoned - both fraudulent by nature. In a truly free market neither would exist, but wired/fibered telecomm will never be a free market and neither of those companies is at all interested in competing in a free market. See "regulatory capture".
Using comcrap's smtp relay via smarthost config limits you to some number of "less than 200" emails per day, after which they silently drop your email to /dev/null. Please note this number is derived from actual experiences.
Not exactly a business class service.
and I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that Comcast/Verizon have finally started to implement what every other responsible ISP has been doing for a decade.
Uhm, hey Rip Van Winkle, don't nap so long next time. They've been doing it for at least 7 years.
http://www.zdnet.com/news/comcast-takes-hard-line-against-spam/136518
Again, Business class services from comcrap and verizoned are STATIC IP's, not dynamic. Its the ISP's fault for not keeping up with managing their static vs dynamic IP addresses lists properly and keeping them updated with the various block list services, or for giving the business customer a consumer class IP.
That won't help. The article says "Additionally, a lot of ISPs just started blocking any mail coming from any IP in the address block of cable modems." Even if they could send out from Comcast (or whoever they use) they will most likely be blocked by the receiving server.
Again, this is the ISP's fault for either giving them an IP thats not in their block of static IP, but was instead listed BY the ISP as a dynamic IP and therefore putting that IP on the blocklist, or for giving them an IP that was static but somehow the ISP added it to the Dynamic IP lists.
You have several options.
1) Get a real internet Service provider.
Like who? GoDaddy? Ha ha ha ha ha ! Comcrap and verizoned are two of the largest ISP's in the world, and not just for consumers, for businesses as well.
2) Host mail on a different server such as a vps
3) host mail on a different server and use Fetchmail to pull mail and send mail out bound.
4) Configure your server to send mail through your ISPs send mail server. Receiving mail may be a problem depending on ISP.
There is no sane reason why any typical business should have to route their email through the ISP's mail server, or use some remote server no on their own IP address if they have a business class service. The entire point of business class service is to have a static IP and have "real" internet access, as opposed to what the consumers get. (However, No one can claim that C+V treat their customers in anything resembling a sane fashion. It come closer to rape. )
That means the ISP shouldn't be doing ANYTHING to the businesses traffic and the ISP should be guaranteeing that the IP they have given the business is not in the DUL or any other RBLS of Dynamic IP's
Both comcast and verizon's business services provide static IP addresses, and those addresses are not supposed to be in the dynamic IP blocks which each ISP provides to the various block list services.
If the ISP itself is blocking the outbound port 25 port, and/or reporting the IP they gave you as dynamic, complain bitterly, and sue. Begin the law suit immediately after they don't fix the problem within a few days after a written complaint. Solict other businesses who have been adversely affected and mount a class action.
Enec: - the static IP's given by Comcrap and Verizoned are not in the dynamic IP pools unless those respective companies specifically listed them in the dynamic pools, which they should NEVER do with their business class IP's. The blame here clearly lays at the feet of the respective ISP's eg: Comcrap and Veryzoned.
On Monday February 14, @01:35AM. XPeter said:
> You fuckers need to stop with the horrible MS virus jokes, it's old and untrue.
> if Linux or OSX had 90% of the market, they'd be much worse off than Windows
XPeter
the idea that other operating systems are just as vulnerable as Windows, and would be as equally compromised if they were just "more popular" is incorrect. The problem comes down to an architectural design choice. Because Windows inherited its design from earlier versions of Windows, the ability for a subverted process to be used to gain an illegal privilege escalation is much easier on Windows than it is on many other operating systems, for example, Linux, UNIX, and BSD.
Here is an excellent article you can read about the differences :
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus
It was written by Rick Moen and does a good job of explaining all aspects of the issue, including what the status of "Linux virii** in the wild" are.
This article is fairly comprehensive and is pretty short considering how much ground gets covered. Unlike many Computer science texts, Its very readable and clear in straight forward English. Clear, concise and readable writing is just one of Rick's talents.
Rick has a collection of excellent articles on this and many other issues. Take a look and have yourself a good read.
**Note- Rick hates the word virii. Exactly why isn't quite clear. Part of the reason seems to be that although the word "virii" was clearly Latin and/or Greek inspired/influenced, it was never actually a Latin or a Greek word. And there seems to this notion floating around that unless a word was originally a word in Latin, that it can't become an English word. Thats completely untrue, of course. For example "google"*** was never a word in any language and is now a commonly used verb in English and other languages as well. Latin, being a dead language, cannot change, but English, can and does, and has new words added to it with great frequency. So I stick it in there once in a while just to gently needle him****. :-) [ My gosh, I hope he doesn't get infected with any virii, while I'm needling him. :-) ]
*** google, as a verb, nominated for word of the year in 2002, was also selected as the most useful verb of the year 2002. Sadly "google" wasn't added to large dictionaries (Oxford (OED), Merriam-Webster (MW) ) until 2006, years behind the actual date of usage adoption. Dictionaries are typically years or sometimes decades behind current usage. MW does note the first usage as a verb in 2001, five years before MW added it. Today linguists use Google's(TM) search engine, as well as others to determine when a word has come into usage.
**** All Linguistics texts, as well as many Linguistics books written about language formation and even those written specifically about English, agree that the only authoritative rule for whether something is a word or not, is usage. If multiple people use the same sound for the same meaning, then it is a word. Isn't that just bootyliscious?******
***** The motivation here is basic jealousy.... :-)
****** bootylicious: MW added in 2001/2, OED added in 2003
Dogs noses are orders of magnitude more sensitive than ours.
To the dog, that bowl smells like food "all the time".
In fact, unless the bowl's made of a material that's completely non-permeable,
the dog can smell food on it even after you have washed it in very hot, very soapy water.
according to WP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_anatomy#Smell
Dogs have nearly 220 million smell-sensitive cells over an area about the size of a pocket handkerchief (compared to 5 million over an area the size of a postage stamp for humans).[12][13] According to nhm.org, dogs can sense odours at concentrations nearly 100 million times lower than humans can.[14] According to Dummies.com, the percentage of the dog's brain that is devoted to analyzing smells is actually 40 times larger than that of a human.[12] Some dog breeds have been selectively bred for excellence in detecting scents, even compared to their canine brethren.
Interestingly you can say exactly the same thing about medical Doctors. Ego's the size of -ridiculously large object- and the bigger the ego, the stupider and less scientifically they practice medicine. From a GP all the way "up" ($$$$$) to the surgical specialists, its the same for all of them. God help you if you're not an "average" patient. If you don't fit in their pre-conceived "box" they'll keep stuffing you in and slamming the lid shut until you die, leave their practice or get well on your own. And if you get well on your own, they will take the credit for that.
Whats the actual real error rate for Doctors on diagnoses and treatments? Here's a hint - Its around 50%.
What "profession" gets paid just as much when they are wrong as they do when they are right? Yes, Doctors.
Think this is all nuts? Start keeping track. At each sick visit to a doctor ask these final questions: (And record each answer! )
( Aside: After doing this a while, using a strict "if its not right, then its wrong" scoring rubric, I found my doctors to be around the 50% range. Note that they don't view it this way, they view being wrong as part of the process. [ Note: being wrong means "Follow up visit!" which they charge for as well. gee my mechanic doesn't do that.... Please be aware that I'm not only talking about fatal, near fatal or crippling mistakes made by the doctor, but also about how many things they just get wrong in daily practice even if the mistake results in no injury. Once you see just how bad doctors are most of the time, you may start thinking you want a better system. I know I do!. :-) End Aside)
Questions for every visit:
#1 - So what is the diagnosis, what do I have? (doctor must identify the illness or say I don't know (yet). if the latter, the doctor must map out the next part of the diagnostic path for the patient, identifying what the likely "diagnosis candidates" are at this point in time. )
#2 - if the doctor has identified your illness, Ask: "What is the recommended treatment?" or "How is it treated?" follow up with "What are the side effects to this treatment? what percentage of the treated population gets each type of side effect? and How are those side effects treated? Are any of the side effects permanent? can any part of the treatment harm me in any way? Again, record all answers. In fact - really record the session. Watch as your specialist flips out when you tell them you're recording because you're too stressed out to take notes, (or your carpal tunnel is acting up)
#3 - before the next visit, pull out the notes from #1 and #2 and see how well the doctor did against their predictions. if you're not cured yet, repeat #1 and #2 . Also - note how often you have to repeat #1 and #2. :)
Note - if you run into any Harvard educated neurosurgeons who want to put any magnetically affected metals into your neck (* say to repair some disc problems by fusing vertebrae) take the following emergency actions:
#1 - Tase the neurosurgeon heavily until they pass out.
#2 - apply a tourniquet to the arm of the Dr's dominant hand. If its not clear which hand is dominant, apply a tourniquet to both.
#3 - remove hands from any arm that is tourniquetted, using what ever tools are nearby. Remember neatness is not a goal here, speed and separation are the desired effect.
#4 - if no tourniquet material is available, proceed with step 3 and assume that both hands must be removed.
Why: Why don't you want this doctor operating on you - any doctor who even suggests putting ferrous metals ( or any magnetically reactive materials ) inside your body, especially anywhere near the head, is a GOD of clueless-ness. MRI Imaging is one of the best diagnostic imaging tools medicine has. MRI systems are extremely powerful and if your body has any metal in it near the MRI fields, that metal will cook your body from the inside out. [Basically MRI's heat the metal by induction ] So if your body has any ma
Parent's comment is spot on. Please, (if you are so inclined), take a gander at the book "Fat land : how Americans became the fattest people in the world" by Greg Critser.
This book details exactly how the USA's food industries stopped being mainly suppliers of food, but instead learned to market by "addiction stimulation profiles", focusing on how to get people to eat not just more, but much much more. And in the process added chemically prepared materials to the food to enhance those addictive properties and lower costs by replacing nutritious content with junk or waste products.
In my 30+ years of experience in the American High Tech and Finance businesses, I have seen what happens to personal morals and integrity: For most employees who design, or develop products any comments about treating the customer fairly, or "but thats not right" are met with silence, or outright derision. Socially aware employees learn quickly that such statements are career enders and never make them.
In finance and mass market software application companies employees who make such statements, especially more than once, are taken note of and never promoted into management positions that have input on company policy or decision making. Please note that there are many first/second level "management" positions which are simply group leader positions and have no influence on company direction. Employees with good people skills and personal integrity will often be used in these positions because they are respected and liked by their peers but are never promoted beyond those levels. Their careers have dead ended because they have not shown the proper attitude about how to treat/exploit the masses for the benefit of the company.
In companies where scientists are the product developers, like food companies or chemical companies, it is harder to "retrain the employee's thinking" because of the academic emphasis on scientific integrity. Phd's are much harder to redirect into the "proper way of thinking". In these companies the censorship is initially subtle but over time, for a specific employee, can actually become directly confrontational. "Do this or its your job", eg - you will be fired. Note all such companies have employees sign aggressively proprietary NDA's to prevent whistleblowing, (as well as leaking competitive information of course :) )
Over time the end result is that everyone in upper management has the same attitude and the only constraints or requirements on thinking are "Will this make more money for the company?" and "if this is illegal, can we get away with it?".
I'm sure there are exceptions to the above generalizations, especially in other industries. But we should all be aware of the tendency of businesses to this acquire and follow these characteristics. As mentioned in the parent, the Top executives from the largest tobacco companies in the world were willing to go in front of congress, under oath and blatantly lie right to their faces. Further, they had been so completely aware of the actual facts of tobacco's harmful attributes that they made sure that all paper trails, all data that was streamed upward in the company, never ever contained any such claims. The internal social/corporate pressure within each organization was so complete and so well thought out in advance that the entire plan to suppress all such information internally was done completely by word of mouth, off the record, never written down, No incriminating documents at all.
As an interesting corollary, look up the rate of arrests for cocaine use/sale in Silicon Valley and the Massachusetts 128 tech belt and plot those over time and on the same graph, plot the High Tech industry booms and busts. There will be an interesting correspondence. I leave it to the reader to decide what, if anything, it means.
For an excellent dramatized story about this, see the movie "The Insider" with Russel Crowe about a reluctant whistleblower in the tobacco industry, This movie also shows how pernicious business influences are and how the famed investigative TV Show "60 minutes" was stopped dead in its tracks just on the eve of a tremendous expose on the industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappeling
I've been able to read cleartext SSN's out of college's for the past 30 years without ANY authorization, so all I can say is that this is better late than never.
The only refinement I can think of that would improve it is that any MIS/IT/CIO Director who authorizes any form of non-encrypted storage of this type of information should also have to pay a personal fine of $500 per record.
Funny how when its your own money that's on the line your perspective changes.
No the startup does not claim to have busted the famous "adding manpower to a late project makes it later" rule.
Why is this different from the scenario Fred Brooks described in his book (and the death marches many of us have experienced)?
#1 - No critical path dependencies on intern deliverables:
The items the interns had to deliver were independent of the main project. While the functionality was desirable, no part of the mainline project would be held up if that functionality was not delivered.
#2 - Fixed endpoint.
The intern staff had a fixed period of employment. 1 month, no extensions possible. Software projects almost never have a fixed end date. Yes, they claim to, but the reality is those deadlines are never real.
#3 Staffing:
I'm sorry to have to say this but the caliber of the staffing matters. The competition to get into MIT is one of the most intense in the USA, if not the world. Many people are smart enough to get into MIT, but the ones who make the cut are the ones who have focused on MIT as a goal for years before they ever got there and kept working towards that goal steadily, (or are the 0.000000006% of the population that are spectacular geniuses). These people are extremely quick at picking up new ideas and concepts and are the type that only have to hear something once, AND, unlike most people in the world, grasp the implications and inferential relationships of what they have been told/given very quickly. These abilities, combined with MIT's intense technical curriculum which provides both a broad and deep understanding of the underlying technical principles, and an academic environment that requires students to be strongly self-reliant, (most US primary school systems stamp out self reliance rather than enhancing it.) means that the talent pool this startup was drawing on had a superb set of talent, drive, self-initiative, and technical knowledge.
#4 culture
The people recruited into the company shared a common set of experiences with each other and also with a number of the already existing full time staff. This "common culture" meant that they were able to instantly relate to their mentors the rest of the company people. It allowed a much better level of communication than one will see in a more randomly sourced population.
There is more to this, and much of it is more complex than I have described here. (no relocation logistics/distractions, no social isolation, existing support group, etc etc etc .... ) but I have gone on long enough.
Please note - none of the above implies perfection or super human abilities of these people, just simple human attributes skewed towards one end of the curve. (And in some cases, really really skewed in their social metrics :-) )
I've met MIT grads who were not able to function outside the academic world and those who were superb and those who were lousy. The above is a general discussion of why the startup was able to do well with this, but does not attempt to cover the true scope of the complexity of the issue. Remember, this is Slashdot.
I have to disagree, but I thank you for partially supporting my position. There are very few "real world" environments which are both "large" and able to get by only on software which has been packaged in msi format.
[[what you are calling the "Windows installer system" which is a fine label.]]
From my real world experiences, Financial firms, HMO's, Insurance companies, Large Corporations, Call centers and the like, which all can be quite large, very distinctly do not have nice neat environments like the one you describe.
They try to. They know it would greatly simplify their existence if they could. But reality intrudes.
If IT were driving the business, there is a chance the environment could be simplified, but, alas, businesses that are driven by their IT depts rather than by their business, don't stay in business. :)
A few other points:
SLA - ? provided by who and to who? The IT Dept has an SLA with the rest of the company? And it prohibts the business the company is in from requiring anything not supported by the existing group policy software? That will last right up to the first "not supportable" item that has a negative revenue affect. At that point management will override the SLA, or throw it out completely.
"IN any complex environment" was the first premise of my statement. Are you saying then, that most large scale
environments today are not complex? Great. I guess we can start reducing the IT budgets and headcounts. Most people who think Windows administration is easier to do than *NIX administration just haven't ever seen how easily automated administering a large network of *NIX systems can be. Having the ability to login to any remote system has existed for roughly 30 years. And automating remote adminsitration has been there almost that long. As for locking things down, that too has been built in since the beginning of *NIX multi-user capabilities. These capabilities (and nice stuff like the new windows powershell [ Finally! ] ) are very nice additions to Windows that are mostly or partially inspired by analogues that existed in *NIX (and other) traditions, in some cases for decades before Windows acquired them. Again, I congratulate Microsoft on their ability to add in ideas from other places. I'm just surprised it took as long as it did.
Microsoft clearly isn't dumb, but the company's actual policy of "Churn to earn", [[ try to get every customer to buy a new Windows license every three years ]] has always forced then to work on flash before actual useful needs. Tell me how many times did they re-invent (and rename) the COM system? 5? or was it six? and where is it now?
I suspect your allegation is true only when specific, narrow conditiosn are in place. Those conditions might include things like, comparing one version of windows platform against multiple versions of UNIX, Not being required to do anything not already supported by the capabilities in the group policy system, or the windows installer system, and not having to use any software that is not packaged with the MSI system, and others.
In any complex environment, I suspect the allegation will fail. In those environments size would make the issue(s) worse. However, I do congratulate MS for addrressing many issues in the adminjstrative domain in recent years, now they are only 20 years behind in security.
its probably modded flamebait because he's not right. There is some support for each of those areas in vim, possibly excepting integrated debugging (depending on how you define integrated debugging, that is :) )
It appears no one/few checked out the rules for leaving comments on that forum. the jerk violated the rules, then did it again at least once. (other versions of the story have it being done multiple times). When you abuse a site, expect the site to try to stop you anyway they can.
You're posting vulgar, sexually oriented comments from your workplace? Sorry - you just violated the standard workplace rules about sexually harassing activities that are now standard practice in corporate America.
Oh - you work at a school?
Well then, You not only violated the working policies but you also (in today's freaked out America where everything is terrorism ) just turned on the "public pedophile/child abuser frenzy mode". [even if you're not a pedophile]. You will be gone from that school in moments and if you resist or try to fight it, the local community will burn you in Effigy. ( a small but nearby town).
yes its all hypersenstive crapola but that's the way it is in the new politically Palinized (formerly "Bushified") America. Politically based emotional manipulation will turn everything into a fear-based Hysteria-of-the-mobs event.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/help/stories.nsf/termsofservice/story58C6115339C8CADB8625706800596EE1?OpenDocument
WP, while a useful web site, tends to promote "popular opinion" into "psuedo fact". As long as enough people who edit WP believe something to be true, the entries about that item will promote the popular belief as fact. Eventually, due to WP's popularity, the psuedo fact becomes accepted as an actual fact.
Example: according to linguistics, there are no rules about what words can be added to the English language. Indeed English is the least pure, most widely hybrized language on the planet and new words are added to it daily. For example the verb "slashdotted" :-) or the verb "google" etc.. Nowhere are there any rules saying "these specific things cannot be added to the english language because they don't meet criteria 'x'." According to linguistics, the only rules used to determine if something is actually a word or not are these two:
A: Is the word being used?
B: Is the meaning of the word as used agreed on?
If those two requirements are metthen the word in question is a legitimate word.
The example peevologists hate the most: "virii" (yes, it meets the requirements. Therefore it is a word, despite being desperately hated by peevologists :-) So use it often! ;-)
Instead of following these rules, WP indulges in what linguists call "peevology" which is the process whereby a language myth becomes accepted as "fact" due to aggresive "enforcement" of the myth by people who actually have no idea what they are talking about.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&hs=q9z&q=peeveology+OR+peevology+OR+%22peeve-ology%22&btnG=Search
Fortunately even the mainstream peevologists are realizing that language just isn't used the way the 18th century grammarians (who started the whole myth of "standard english) think it ought to be used. In fact it wasn't used that way back then, and never has been from then until now.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507EFDA113AF93BA2575BC0A9649C8B63
The biggest issue with peevology is that many copy editors have been mis-educated about these very issues and go forth laying waste to perfectly good writing because they (incorrectly) believe said writing is not following "the rules". (the article refers to prescriptivists who have some overlap with peevologists but are generally less harmful, just annoying.)
Examples from the language log http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/
"Singular they" is illegal. http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/003572.html
"Split infinitives" are not allowed. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=515
"That isn't a Word." http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001652.html
David Crystal, in his new book How Language Works, says "Language change is inevitable, continuous, universal and multidirectional. Languages do not get better or worse when they change. They just -- change." http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=How+Language+Works&x=15&y=17
Geoffrey K Pullum:
I was walking across campus with a friend and we came upon half a dozen theoretical linguists committing unprovoked physical assault on a defenseless prescriptivist. My friend was shocked. Sh
Starts
http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/lister.html
Ends
http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/lister6.html
Now available from importers, less hassle, more $$
Old fashioned Lister style diesel engines
starts here:
http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/lister.html
mostly finished here:
http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/lister6.html
Boy imports old style engine from india
boy constantly tinkers with engine
Boy has engine making power to keep life comfortable during hurricanes
engines now available directly from US importers. less hassle, more $$$$
(google for 'em)
> This is what children are for.
> "Suzy, it's your night to do the dishes. Johnny, gather and take out the trash. Joey, we need four primal fires."
You clearly don't have any kids... :-)
9:30 PM Thursday Night
"Mom! I NEED 25 CUPCAKES AND 2 PRIMAL FIRES FOR SCHOOL TOMORROW!" ....
"Oh my God Steven, Why didn't you tell me earlier?"
"I FORGOT 'TILL JUST NOW!" (begins wailing)
3 AM
Steven has been asleep since 10:00 PM, Mom has just logged off his account for the night and can now (totally exhausted and drained) go to sleep for 3, well deserved, (but totally inadequate), hours of sleep.