The Big Three are taking all sorts of initiatives to develop alternative fueled vehicles. Don't you read the news? Seriously....
For example: Ford Motor Company is the ONLY company to be actively investigating all potential technologies. Other companies, even the Japanese, are focusing on just one.
GM just delivered a fuel-cell powered vehicle to the military. Ford sells the first hybrid SUV. Ford just rolled out a test program in British Columbia with 5 hydrogen-based vehicles. GM and Chrysler just inked a deal to partner on research.
I could go on and on. Just because it isn't happening overnight doesn't mean it isn't happening.
As an aside, before people get cranked about alternative fueled vehicles using advanced batteries and fuel cells, has anyone thought to look into the ramifications of the increased demand for the raw materials? The batteries and fuel cells require some pretty exotic elements that aren't easy to find or extract. What will happen if we count on these materials for a million vehicles a year but can't sustain that output level because of lack of raw materials???
In my mind, the best choice going forward would be common-rail diesels using biodiesel for fuel, preferably B100 biodiesel produced using US-grown rapeseed crops and corn-based ethanol. That seems like a win-win all around. Proven engine technology with ultra-low emissions backed by solid, proven, local agriculture crops. Heck, we could probably even get rid of any crop subsidies, because there'd be an actual, real live market for the crops instead of some market artificially propped up by the Feds.
eFax numbers are free, provided you don't mind one outside your local area code, and provide voicemail services. I'm not sure how they work for international numbers, though. I've been using my free eFax number for years as my primary "side job" number.
It isn't about whether such a lawsuit against GM would succeed or not, it is about skipping the hassle in the first place.
In today's society, I would think it obvious that a couple lawsuits (valid or not), a couple websites (ev1killedmykid.com), and some bad press are all quite possible in your scenario. Why risk the hassle, expense, and bad PR?
GM made a business decision. Large corporations don't have egos, it is silly to project such a thing onto one.
The whole thing was a test...why can't anyone understand this? It was a test, the test failed. Clean up, go back to the lab, start over. There's nothing wrong with an experiment that fails.
You're not understanding the situation...you said "they could have allowed their owners to purchase them". GM is/was the owner. The drivers were not. All EV1s were leased, and it was in the lease that should the lease not be extended (at GM's choice), the vehicle would be returned to GM.
GM didn't hide anything and didn't mislead anyone. They tried something, it didn't work, they're done. They cleaned up in the most cost effective (for the long term), efficient method they could. Seems very reasonable to me. It is just that simple.
Ford doesn't sell Model T cars or parts any longer, thus, no liability. However, the company making the parts used by people to restore old Model Ts has potential liability.
Ditto GM with the EV1. Even if the buyer were to sign a release exempting GM from liability for any problems or harm, that isn't the point. It is everyone else that GM has to worry about.
Example: say I buy an EV1. I sign a release exempting GM from liability. Time goes by, I replace a critical part in my EV1 with something I diddled together in my garage. I promptly drive it, but the part I made gives out and I end up killing someone as I crash. In this scenario GM doesn't have to worry about me...they have to worry about the family and estate of the person I killed.
I'm not saying GM would lose such a case, that's up to a jury. My point is, why bother? Why risk it? Why incur the cost? GM has enough cost problems as it is without risking more just to please 100 people.
The fact is that all EV1s were leased. This means they were always the property of GM no matter who was driving them. As such, GM can do whatever they want with them, and that's that.
The agent wastes their time, and a candidate's time, trying to push a candidate through the system if they know that candidate will just be rejected in the end.
In selling, being able to tell which leads aren't worth your time and effort is just as valuable as knowing which leads *are* worth it.
The people who find the people to interview are not technical people. All they have is a checklist, and in the case of most large corporations, the checklist cannot be changed. The checklist itself, other than the specific requirements for that particular job, probably wasn't made by technical people, either.
Things like 4 year degree required, no telecommute, salary range, etc. are typically corporate rules made by people who aren't technical.
So you have someone (or even an automated scanner doing OCR) going through all of the candidates. If you don't meet the basic criteria, your info will be discarded. Nothing else matters, not even how much experience you have or if you can prove via untraditional means that you can do the job.
I wasn't bashing Microsoft. My point was that as soon as the market went south in 2000/2001, and people started losing their jobs, many, many people decided to go back to school. Many of those decided to go for the MBA, because a lot of them didn't have technical backgrounds, and what else would they go for (besides a law degree)?
I'm not knocking anyone who has a MBA, or a JD, or anything else. I am making an observation that for some degrees, there are a LOT of them, and there will be MORE of them this year and next as the people who went back 2001-2003-ish graduate.
I don't have a MCSE, because I've spent the last 15 years working with UNIX (and GNU/Linux). I also don't have a MCSE because there isn't a demand in my area. Why? Because there are a LOT of MCSEs. There are a LOT of people who read the books and passed the tests. That says nothing about their real-world expertise, their ability to manage projects, their ability to manage vendors, their ability to manage teams, etc. It says they possess a certain level of technical knowledge. That's cool....seriously, I commend anyone who gets advanced degrees or certifications.
That doesn't change that there are a LOT of them, and if that's the case (I believe it is), then how do you differentiate yourself from all the others? What is your value? What makes YOUR MCSE (hypothetically speaking) better than mine? What's my advantage? Like I said: get an advanced degree or certification. But have a PLAN for how it will make a difference and how you will get a return on your investment. Don't choose MBA because you're bored, or don't know, or because everyone else is doing it, or whatever. Ditto MCSE or any other cert or degree.
Have a plan, that's all I'm saying. And in my opinion, specializing at the Master level is a better bet, and a better plan, than a general degree.
On that note, if I were going for a cert at the moment instead of grad school, there is no question I'd be going for either a Cisco cert or CISSP. No question. Why? Because in my opinion they have higher value to me than a MCSE. That's not knocking MCSE (though I would think at that level they'd have a lab requirement like Cisco instead of just tests), it is just my observation of what would be better for me, and what would bring me a better return on my investment. For someone else, it might be MCSE or something else, that isn't the point.
If you want to work in the same position all your life, then great. Stay out of school, and just get experience.
If, however, you don't want to stay in the same position all your life, go to school. It is a must.
If you have 20 yrs experience in a job (or 5, or 10), all that says about you is that you can do that job. Period. It says nothing about your potential, it says nothing about your willingness (and ability) to extend yourself, it says nothing about what you CAN do or MIGHT do given the chance, it only describes what you've DONE.
I'm speaking firsthand...I used to think like you...who needed college? I've been coding since I was 12 (over 25 yrs). I was writing business apps in COBOL before I could drive a car. And yep, I got some good jobs as a developer and sys-admin. But those were the ONLY jobs I got, and I only got those jobs in small companies (less than 100 people). Why? Because I didn't have a degree.
The year after I went back and completed my degree, I was hired into a Fortune 10 company at a 60% increase in salary, one annual review from management. This is after continually being rejected by that company and similar companies.
What changed? Did I learn a new language? Nope. Get certified in some new technology? Nope. Get another year, or 5, or 10 years of experience? Nope. The ONLY thing that changed was getting my degree.
Does not having a degree mean you can't do a particular job? Probably not. But I can tell you firsthand that without the degree, your options for growth, variety, and additional responsibility are severely limited. The game might suck, but in most cases, you still have to play it, and that means "punching your ticket" at the undergrad level, and eventually the grad level.
School isn't for everyone, and I totally agree that you should have a plan for getting a return on your investment. I know people getting their MBA who have no plan for how having their MBA degree will make a difference in their careers, or what kind of job they will need afterwards to make getting the degree worth it from an expense perspective. I think that's lame. However, I think getting the degree is an excellent idea, provided you have a plan for working it to your advantage.
To the original question: don't get a MBA...in another year, MBAs will be a dime a dozen, like MCSEs. If it were me, I'd specialize: MS in Library Science, or MS in Information Systems, or MS in Technology Management, or MS in Information Assurance, etc.
Desiring control over my own personal information does not equal delusionary paranoia.
Gilmore's point is simple (RTFA): Showing ID for domestic travel does NOTHING to increase security, and does EVERYTHING to erode our personal freedom and personal liberty.
If you're so clever, explain how showing an ID to fly increases security. You might want to check out the recent article in Slate describing exactly how to circumvent the current security checks at an airport. The point? Even with the current rules, anyone can fly without proper ID.
Showing your ID to fly on a plane gets you NOTHING but a misplaced belief (and the government's "word") that you're safe, and a loss of your right to be anonymous. And you accuse me of not having blood in my brain? Whatever. You might want to think things through yourself, though, before jumping all over me.
Paranoia? My point was simple: it should be up to the USER (citizen) what information someone has about them.
Thanks for twisting my comments into a completely ridiculous argument. If I have a mortgage, its because I WEIGHED the risks and alternatives and made a choice. Get it? CHOICE. I chose to give up a certain amount of anonymity. I chose to enter into a business transaction.
A mortgage, a phone, a bank account, a credit card, are NOT rights. They're things of value given to me in return for something ELSE of value.
Right to travel unmolested, and untracked, anonymously, IS a right, however. That's Gilmore's point, and I agree. If YOU took two seconds to think about the issues, you'd probably understand. What are you going to do next, tell us that we have to register with the government to speak? Register with the government to buy a radio? Register with the government to buy a padlock?
I'm not sure what you mean about me "breaking the law"...I will chalk it up to you being an idiot and call it a day.
Gilmore's point is simple: the Constitution of the United States allows us to travel ID-free. Anything else requires an amendment to the Constitution, properly ratified.
That's all. My point was simply that it should be up to the USER what personal information someone has...it should be a matter of choice. What happens instead is that corporations and the government just demand things and we give it up without asking why and how. Personal control.
A citizen should be allowed to do anything legal without being tracked, at THEIR option, not a corporation's or government's option.
Won't inconvenience you? That's why you're a sheep...you can only see the next two seconds in front of your face instead of the long term ramifications.
How valuable is that two seconds if every piece of information about you is tracked in some database? Forever?
How valuable is that two seconds if you no longer control your own personal information, such as where you go, when you go there, who you see, what you buy, and how long you stayed?
How valuable is that two seconds if you travel to someplace for personal reasons, but while you're there, there's a massive political protest in the same city, and the government automatically assumes that's why you went there, and logs it into some database somewhere?
How valuable is that two seconds if you just want to check out, off the grid, for awhile, recharge, meditate, whatever, but someone files a missing persons report on you, and you get tracked because of your ID? Or your cell phone?
How valuable is that two seconds if some event that happened in your past comes back to haunt you in the future, and keeps you from doing something you need or really want to do?
Sheep think about the two seconds. Wolves think about the damage done to the their privacy and their freedom.
New definition: Sheep are nature's efficient, sane food.
I can demand $200 an hour, and when the client asks why I charge so much, I can say that all my work is *insured*, that any damage I might unintentionally cause will be covered by the insurance company.
I have to assume that you are speaking as an example here.
I've done audits for insurance policies, and I can tell you firsthand that NO inusrance company is going to insure you against loss of data on some unknown person's unknown computer without knowing ahead of time what's on that computer.
Or if they do insure you, they'll ask so much that you'll be charging $500/hour.
Insurance companies don't insure anything without knowing the risk. Unknown risk = major cost, no matter what certifications or experience you have.
For example, what if the data that was lost while you were fixing the computer was the only copy of a novel with a 6 figure advance? A screenplay already optioned?
Sure, the odds of that happening are slim, my point is that an insurance company doesn't know that. Insuring a plumber is completely different...replace the water damage, maybe some medical costs, and they're done. Easy to estimate, easy to calculate.
Data/information is a completely different story from a value perspective...it might be junk, it might be something very valuable, but there's no way to know unless you do an audit ahead of time and the policy is written to cover it.
Not only that, but it is trivial to buy a wireless card at a computer show or swap meet for cash. Totally anonymous, so some law enforcement agency knowing the MAC address, even if you couldn't change it in software, would be meaningless.
Generalizing everyone who might disagree with these experiments as "ridiculous hippie and religious activists" simply isn't logical. Certainly not deserving of "Insightful".
I'm not a ridiculous hippie (or any type of hippie), nor am I a religious activist (or even religious at all), yet I still believe these types of experiments are the worst kind of bad.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that even after all this time, humans still think they can mess with "mother nature" (to use your term) and come out on the plus side in the long run. And that even after all this time, people suggesting that maybe we could spend our efforts better on some other branch of science are always branded "ridiculous", "religious" or "hippies".
For example, how about we just chill on the whole god complex thing, stop trying to f**k with life itself, and spend our efforts and money trying to figure out a nice, clean, cheap source of energy instead? Or figuring out how to optimize food distribution so that the food goes from the places with it to the places without it?
Don't blame poor development team members on the tool.
My team is working on a serious project right now (it will be responsible for > $20 million in annual revenue when launched).
We've used the refactoring feature in the past without issues. We also build every single time someone does a commit (using CruiseControl). Our policy is nobody leaves for the day if the build is broken.
We've had no problems at all with the "twerps" you seem to have.
Sounds like you might want to bitch slap some of your developers, teach them how to be part of a team, instead of ranting about the tool.
I have quite a bit of I.T. value in my home...software, hardware, and data. One thing I take extra care to do is make sure none of my neighbors have any clue just what I have.
For example, when I bought my house and moved in, every single piece of computer gear was put in an anonymous box without labels before being carried in. The boxes were unpacked out of view of any windows, and I arranged my shelving and desk in such a way that nothing is viewable from a window or door.
I also made sure to warn my neighbors to stay away from my German Shepherd (she's a fantastic watch dog). Not that a dog is foolproof against someone determined to get access, but it doesn't hurt to present as difficult a target as possible.
Keeping your stuff obscure via net access is all well and good, but don't forget about John Q. Public walking by on your street, or a nosy neighbor peeking through your window.
OK, I get what they're trying to do, but my question: so what?
Sooner or later you have to put something somewhere. Let's say you monitor a battalion in battle in realtime. All of these messages are streaming in and being analyzed. Great. But now what? So something triggers an alert, say. Well, what's tracking the status of the alert? Wouldn't you want to track the status of an alert saying "this Humvee is off course"? Wouldn't you want to track whether someone had acknowledged the alert, and what they did about it?
And don't forget there are liability issues, historical issues, and more. You're a stock trader, all of these messages are coming and being analyzed. You get an alert...one of your triggers tripped. You make a trade as a result, only to find out 30 minutes later that the trigger was WRONG and your trade was WRONG and you (or your company) is out $10 million. How do you prove that you made the trade based on the trigger like you were supposed to and not because you f**ked up? The trigger, and the data that caused it to trip, is long gone. What do you do now?
Eventually something has to be written (stored) somewhere, sometime. I guess I can see the need for summarizing data and only storing what StreamBase says is "important" but how would you know if everything was OK if the actual data driving everything was long gone?
Exactly. If they haven't been paying you what you're worth up til now, what makes you think they'll appreciate being blackmailed?
They know exactly how much you're worth, they're not stupid. They made an offer, and you took it. It takes two to tango.
Not only will they let you go as soon as they find a replacement, they'll make you train him/her in the process.
If you're worth more in the market than you make now, about the only way you're going to actually make that much is to actually put yourself in the market. At least, if the person controlling your salary has half a brain.
The Facilities manager had some guys in to install shelving to store toner, cables, etc.
Our datacenter is divided into two sections, inner and outer. All CPUs, UPSs, HVAC, etc are in the inner room. The outer room is shelving, desks, CCTV (security), etc.
The EPOs are near every door, as they should be, including the outer doors. Some guy, while installing the shelves, decided to take a little break and lean against the wall, leaning on the EPO in the process.
It took us about 10 minutes to figure out what the hell happened, because even the generator didn't fire as it should. Meanwhile, the shelving guys were just merrily installing shelves. When asked, the guy just said he didn't realize anything was wrong and just thought it was nice that everything "got so quiet" all of a sudden.
Like LiveJournal, we promptly installed cages over the EPO buttons.
Slashdot Mirror
Common-rail diesel engines using B100 fuel produced from US-grown rapeseed crops and corn-based ethanol. Done.
Well, maybe it wouldn't cover ALL of the oil we import, but I bet it would be a helluva start, and we already know exactly how to do it.
You're incorrect.
The Big Three are taking all sorts of initiatives to develop alternative fueled vehicles. Don't you read the news? Seriously....
For example: Ford Motor Company is the ONLY company to be actively investigating all potential technologies. Other companies, even the Japanese, are focusing on just one.
GM just delivered a fuel-cell powered vehicle to the military. Ford sells the first hybrid SUV. Ford just rolled out a test program in British Columbia with 5 hydrogen-based vehicles. GM and Chrysler just inked a deal to partner on research.
I could go on and on. Just because it isn't happening overnight doesn't mean it isn't happening.
As an aside, before people get cranked about alternative fueled vehicles using advanced batteries and fuel cells, has anyone thought to look into the ramifications of the increased demand for the raw materials? The batteries and fuel cells require some pretty exotic elements that aren't easy to find or extract. What will happen if we count on these materials for a million vehicles a year but can't sustain that output level because of lack of raw materials???
In my mind, the best choice going forward would be common-rail diesels using biodiesel for fuel, preferably B100 biodiesel produced using US-grown rapeseed crops and corn-based ethanol. That seems like a win-win all around. Proven engine technology with ultra-low emissions backed by solid, proven, local agriculture crops. Heck, we could probably even get rid of any crop subsidies, because there'd be an actual, real live market for the crops instead of some market artificially propped up by the Feds.
If millions of dollars are at stake, wouldn't it make more sense to design a slightly more reliable and trustworthy notification system?
eFax numbers are free, provided you don't mind one outside your local area code, and provide voicemail services. I'm not sure how they work for international numbers, though. I've been using my free eFax number for years as my primary "side job" number.
I did the opposite. I just refuse to read my mail with any client that can render HTML. Problem solved.
Have you been living under a rock?
It isn't about whether such a lawsuit against GM would succeed or not, it is about skipping the hassle in the first place.
In today's society, I would think it obvious that a couple lawsuits (valid or not), a couple websites (ev1killedmykid.com), and some bad press are all quite possible in your scenario. Why risk the hassle, expense, and bad PR?
GM made a business decision. Large corporations don't have egos, it is silly to project such a thing onto one.
The whole thing was a test...why can't anyone understand this? It was a test, the test failed. Clean up, go back to the lab, start over. There's nothing wrong with an experiment that fails.
You're not understanding the situation...you said "they could have allowed their owners to purchase them". GM is/was the owner. The drivers were not. All EV1s were leased, and it was in the lease that should the lease not be extended (at GM's choice), the vehicle would be returned to GM.
GM didn't hide anything and didn't mislead anyone. They tried something, it didn't work, they're done. They cleaned up in the most cost effective (for the long term), efficient method they could. Seems very reasonable to me. It is just that simple.
Ford doesn't sell Model T cars or parts any longer, thus, no liability. However, the company making the parts used by people to restore old Model Ts has potential liability.
Ditto GM with the EV1. Even if the buyer were to sign a release exempting GM from liability for any problems or harm, that isn't the point. It is everyone else that GM has to worry about.
Example: say I buy an EV1. I sign a release exempting GM from liability. Time goes by, I replace a critical part in my EV1 with something I diddled together in my garage. I promptly drive it, but the part I made gives out and I end up killing someone as I crash. In this scenario GM doesn't have to worry about me...they have to worry about the family and estate of the person I killed.
I'm not saying GM would lose such a case, that's up to a jury. My point is, why bother? Why risk it? Why incur the cost? GM has enough cost problems as it is without risking more just to please 100 people.
The fact is that all EV1s were leased. This means they were always the property of GM no matter who was driving them. As such, GM can do whatever they want with them, and that's that.
That agent is being smart.
The agent wastes their time, and a candidate's time, trying to push a candidate through the system if they know that candidate will just be rejected in the end.
In selling, being able to tell which leads aren't worth your time and effort is just as valuable as knowing which leads *are* worth it.
Exactly.
The people who find the people to interview are not technical people. All they have is a checklist, and in the case of most large corporations, the checklist cannot be changed. The checklist itself, other than the specific requirements for that particular job, probably wasn't made by technical people, either.
Things like 4 year degree required, no telecommute, salary range, etc. are typically corporate rules made by people who aren't technical.
So you have someone (or even an automated scanner doing OCR) going through all of the candidates. If you don't meet the basic criteria, your info will be discarded. Nothing else matters, not even how much experience you have or if you can prove via untraditional means that you can do the job.
You misunderstood my post completely.
I wasn't bashing Microsoft. My point was that as soon as the market went south in 2000/2001, and people started losing their jobs, many, many people decided to go back to school. Many of those decided to go for the MBA, because a lot of them didn't have technical backgrounds, and what else would they go for (besides a law degree)?
I'm not knocking anyone who has a MBA, or a JD, or anything else. I am making an observation that for some degrees, there are a LOT of them, and there will be MORE of them this year and next as the people who went back 2001-2003-ish graduate.
I don't have a MCSE, because I've spent the last 15 years working with UNIX (and GNU/Linux). I also don't have a MCSE because there isn't a demand in my area. Why? Because there are a LOT of MCSEs. There are a LOT of people who read the books and passed the tests. That says nothing about their real-world expertise, their ability to manage projects, their ability to manage vendors, their ability to manage teams, etc. It says they possess a certain level of technical knowledge. That's cool....seriously, I commend anyone who gets advanced degrees or certifications.
That doesn't change that there are a LOT of them, and if that's the case (I believe it is), then how do you differentiate yourself from all the others? What is your value? What makes YOUR MCSE (hypothetically speaking) better than mine? What's my advantage? Like I said: get an advanced degree or certification. But have a PLAN for how it will make a difference and how you will get a return on your investment. Don't choose MBA because you're bored, or don't know, or because everyone else is doing it, or whatever. Ditto MCSE or any other cert or degree.
Have a plan, that's all I'm saying. And in my opinion, specializing at the Master level is a better bet, and a better plan, than a general degree.
On that note, if I were going for a cert at the moment instead of grad school, there is no question I'd be going for either a Cisco cert or CISSP. No question. Why? Because in my opinion they have higher value to me than a MCSE. That's not knocking MCSE (though I would think at that level they'd have a lab requirement like Cisco instead of just tests), it is just my observation of what would be better for me, and what would bring me a better return on my investment. For someone else, it might be MCSE or something else, that isn't the point.
School is a waste? That's just wrong.
If you want to work in the same position all your life, then great. Stay out of school, and just get experience.
If, however, you don't want to stay in the same position all your life, go to school. It is a must.
If you have 20 yrs experience in a job (or 5, or 10), all that says about you is that you can do that job. Period. It says nothing about your potential, it says nothing about your willingness (and ability) to extend yourself, it says nothing about what you CAN do or MIGHT do given the chance, it only describes what you've DONE.
I'm speaking firsthand...I used to think like you...who needed college? I've been coding since I was 12 (over 25 yrs). I was writing business apps in COBOL before I could drive a car. And yep, I got some good jobs as a developer and sys-admin. But those were the ONLY jobs I got, and I only got those jobs in small companies (less than 100 people). Why? Because I didn't have a degree.
The year after I went back and completed my degree, I was hired into a Fortune 10 company at a 60% increase in salary, one annual review from management. This is after continually being rejected by that company and similar companies.
What changed? Did I learn a new language? Nope. Get certified in some new technology? Nope. Get another year, or 5, or 10 years of experience? Nope. The ONLY thing that changed was getting my degree.
Does not having a degree mean you can't do a particular job? Probably not. But I can tell you firsthand that without the degree, your options for growth, variety, and additional responsibility are severely limited. The game might suck, but in most cases, you still have to play it, and that means "punching your ticket" at the undergrad level, and eventually the grad level.
School isn't for everyone, and I totally agree that you should have a plan for getting a return on your investment. I know people getting their MBA who have no plan for how having their MBA degree will make a difference in their careers, or what kind of job they will need afterwards to make getting the degree worth it from an expense perspective. I think that's lame. However, I think getting the degree is an excellent idea, provided you have a plan for working it to your advantage.
To the original question: don't get a MBA...in another year, MBAs will be a dime a dozen, like MCSEs. If it were me, I'd specialize: MS in Library Science, or MS in Information Systems, or MS in Technology Management, or MS in Information Assurance, etc.
Explanation: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/audio/
Desiring control over my own personal information does not equal delusionary paranoia.
Gilmore's point is simple (RTFA): Showing ID for domestic travel does NOTHING to increase security, and does EVERYTHING to erode our personal freedom and personal liberty.
If you're so clever, explain how showing an ID to fly increases security. You might want to check out the recent article in Slate describing exactly how to circumvent the current security checks at an airport. The point? Even with the current rules, anyone can fly without proper ID.
Showing your ID to fly on a plane gets you NOTHING but a misplaced belief (and the government's "word") that you're safe, and a loss of your right to be anonymous. And you accuse me of not having blood in my brain? Whatever. You might want to think things through yourself, though, before jumping all over me.
Paranoia? My point was simple: it should be up to the USER (citizen) what information someone has about them.
Thanks for twisting my comments into a completely ridiculous argument. If I have a mortgage, its because I WEIGHED the risks and alternatives and made a choice. Get it? CHOICE. I chose to give up a certain amount of anonymity. I chose to enter into a business transaction.
A mortgage, a phone, a bank account, a credit card, are NOT rights. They're things of value given to me in return for something ELSE of value.
Right to travel unmolested, and untracked, anonymously, IS a right, however. That's Gilmore's point, and I agree. If YOU took two seconds to think about the issues, you'd probably understand. What are you going to do next, tell us that we have to register with the government to speak? Register with the government to buy a radio? Register with the government to buy a padlock?
I'm not sure what you mean about me "breaking the law"...I will chalk it up to you being an idiot and call it a day.
Gilmore's point is simple: the Constitution of the United States allows us to travel ID-free. Anything else requires an amendment to the Constitution, properly ratified.
That's all. My point was simply that it should be up to the USER what personal information someone has...it should be a matter of choice. What happens instead is that corporations and the government just demand things and we give it up without asking why and how. Personal control.
A citizen should be allowed to do anything legal without being tracked, at THEIR option, not a corporation's or government's option.
Get it? Probably not.
Won't inconvenience you? That's why you're a sheep...you can only see the next two seconds in front of your face instead of the long term ramifications.
How valuable is that two seconds if every piece of information about you is tracked in some database? Forever?
How valuable is that two seconds if you no longer control your own personal information, such as where you go, when you go there, who you see, what you buy, and how long you stayed?
How valuable is that two seconds if you travel to someplace for personal reasons, but while you're there, there's a massive political protest in the same city, and the government automatically assumes that's why you went there, and logs it into some database somewhere?
How valuable is that two seconds if you just want to check out, off the grid, for awhile, recharge, meditate, whatever, but someone files a missing persons report on you, and you get tracked because of your ID? Or your cell phone?
How valuable is that two seconds if some event that happened in your past comes back to haunt you in the future, and keeps you from doing something you need or really want to do?
Sheep think about the two seconds. Wolves think about the damage done to the their privacy and their freedom.
New definition: Sheep are nature's efficient, sane food.
I can demand $200 an hour, and when the client asks why I charge so much, I can say that all my work is *insured*, that any damage I might unintentionally cause will be covered by the insurance company.
I have to assume that you are speaking as an example here.
I've done audits for insurance policies, and I can tell you firsthand that NO inusrance company is going to insure you against loss of data on some unknown person's unknown computer without knowing ahead of time what's on that computer.
Or if they do insure you, they'll ask so much that you'll be charging $500/hour.
Insurance companies don't insure anything without knowing the risk. Unknown risk = major cost, no matter what certifications or experience you have.
For example, what if the data that was lost while you were fixing the computer was the only copy of a novel with a 6 figure advance? A screenplay already optioned?
Sure, the odds of that happening are slim, my point is that an insurance company doesn't know that. Insuring a plumber is completely different...replace the water damage, maybe some medical costs, and they're done. Easy to estimate, easy to calculate.
Data/information is a completely different story from a value perspective...it might be junk, it might be something very valuable, but there's no way to know unless you do an audit ahead of time and the policy is written to cover it.
Not only that, but it is trivial to buy a wireless card at a computer show or swap meet for cash. Totally anonymous, so some law enforcement agency knowing the MAC address, even if you couldn't change it in software, would be meaningless.
Generalizing everyone who might disagree with these experiments as "ridiculous hippie and religious activists" simply isn't logical. Certainly not deserving of "Insightful".
I'm not a ridiculous hippie (or any type of hippie), nor am I a religious activist (or even religious at all), yet I still believe these types of experiments are the worst kind of bad.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that even after all this time, humans still think they can mess with "mother nature" (to use your term) and come out on the plus side in the long run. And that even after all this time, people suggesting that maybe we could spend our efforts better on some other branch of science are always branded "ridiculous", "religious" or "hippies".
For example, how about we just chill on the whole god complex thing, stop trying to f**k with life itself, and spend our efforts and money trying to figure out a nice, clean, cheap source of energy instead? Or figuring out how to optimize food distribution so that the food goes from the places with it to the places without it?
Anyone who can win a major political office with a name like "Kulongoski" has my support. ;)
Don't blame poor development team members on the tool.
My team is working on a serious project right now (it will be responsible for > $20 million in annual revenue when launched).
We've used the refactoring feature in the past without issues. We also build every single time someone does a commit (using CruiseControl). Our policy is nobody leaves for the day if the build is broken.
We've had no problems at all with the "twerps" you seem to have.
Sounds like you might want to bitch slap some of your developers, teach them how to be part of a team, instead of ranting about the tool.
I have quite a bit of I.T. value in my home...software, hardware, and data. One thing I take extra care to do is make sure none of my neighbors have any clue just what I have.
For example, when I bought my house and moved in, every single piece of computer gear was put in an anonymous box without labels before being carried in. The boxes were unpacked out of view of any windows, and I arranged my shelving and desk in such a way that nothing is viewable from a window or door.
I also made sure to warn my neighbors to stay away from my German Shepherd (she's a fantastic watch dog). Not that a dog is foolproof against someone determined to get access, but it doesn't hurt to present as difficult a target as possible.
Keeping your stuff obscure via net access is all well and good, but don't forget about John Q. Public walking by on your street, or a nosy neighbor peeking through your window.
OK, I get what they're trying to do, but my question: so what?
Sooner or later you have to put something somewhere. Let's say you monitor a battalion in battle in realtime. All of these messages are streaming in and being analyzed. Great. But now what? So something triggers an alert, say. Well, what's tracking the status of the alert? Wouldn't you want to track the status of an alert saying "this Humvee is off course"? Wouldn't you want to track whether someone had acknowledged the alert, and what they did about it?
And don't forget there are liability issues, historical issues, and more. You're a stock trader, all of these messages are coming and being analyzed. You get an alert...one of your triggers tripped. You make a trade as a result, only to find out 30 minutes later that the trigger was WRONG and your trade was WRONG and you (or your company) is out $10 million. How do you prove that you made the trade based on the trigger like you were supposed to and not because you f**ked up? The trigger, and the data that caused it to trip, is long gone. What do you do now?
Eventually something has to be written (stored) somewhere, sometime. I guess I can see the need for summarizing data and only storing what StreamBase says is "important" but how would you know if everything was OK if the actual data driving everything was long gone?
Exactly. If they haven't been paying you what you're worth up til now, what makes you think they'll appreciate being blackmailed?
They know exactly how much you're worth, they're not stupid. They made an offer, and you took it. It takes two to tango.
Not only will they let you go as soon as they find a replacement, they'll make you train him/her in the process.
If you're worth more in the market than you make now, about the only way you're going to actually make that much is to actually put yourself in the market. At least, if the person controlling your salary has half a brain.
This happened to us last year in our datacenter.
The Facilities manager had some guys in to install shelving to store toner, cables, etc.
Our datacenter is divided into two sections, inner and outer. All CPUs, UPSs, HVAC, etc are in the inner room. The outer room is shelving, desks, CCTV (security), etc.
The EPOs are near every door, as they should be, including the outer doors. Some guy, while installing the shelves, decided to take a little break and lean against the wall, leaning on the EPO in the process.
It took us about 10 minutes to figure out what the hell happened, because even the generator didn't fire as it should. Meanwhile, the shelving guys were just merrily installing shelves. When asked, the guy just said he didn't realize anything was wrong and just thought it was nice that everything "got so quiet" all of a sudden.
Like LiveJournal, we promptly installed cages over the EPO buttons.