see though, employee purchased equipment for work is on employer property and connects to it.
so as indicated, the employer can exert control in a variety of ways as a result, not excluding snooping etc etc.
if anything, this whole argument is just a sign that sometimes people don't get PC's as powerful as they need and othertimes you have someone with the latest and greatest who uses a 1 page spreadsheet.
in a large company the group pool of cellphones versus individual employee cellphones makes an enormous difference.
not only does it affect numbers (say, 48 thousand in this case), but also affects administrative and professionalism. This is not at all unlike letting people install their own shit on a corporate laptop and all the headaches/resultant policy issues that come with it.
Having a pool of cellphones is hilariously simple. Make sure they all have gps, and they have a box or container at a secure employee location to grab one from.
That's overhead?
It's not to reach the employee, it's there for the employee to use in emergencies. The other kind (the employee who gets calls) was not really discussed, but there are easy mobile VOIP solutions for that. login to the phone with your employee #, no password required. calling? call that employee #. This isn't a mystery.
no, it's neither reasonable nor prudent for a DMV road tester to have one.
It's reasonable or prudent for the DMV to have a group cellphone for road testers to share and take with them when doing a road test. Same thing applies to people in mobile roles. There is a difference between the two, and lazy bureacracies don't make the distinction, which leads to governmental bloat. At no time should any employee, including upper management, ever have a "personal" employee-paid for phone. they can get their own personal phone for that.
it's also impossible to travel through or live in any town if you're prohibited from coming near things that are about as common as a gas station.
so recidisivism or not, there is a question of if this is a overreaching, and the answer is easily yes. This punishment does not fit the crime, as rotide has indicated.
if you paid attention to the DMCA at all, being able to crack something basically makes its protection ineffective, there's also the argument of substantial non-infringing uses such as enabling other OS's and things like that.
so in simple terms, if geohot can afford the lawyers, they will easily win this in court.
that's not qualifications, that's called being asinine. She's entitled to free speech, but that doesn't mean that she isn't putting other people at risk.
you may practice what you preach, in saying that chopping off your arm is the best way to live your life.
meanwhile, modern medicine (eastern and western) will beg to differ.
think it's that bad? sure is. Plenty of kids have died from parents lack of attention. there are well established criteria for this in court too.
they *have* to sell hardware. They have literally set themselves up to do so. By not selling hardware, there's also less compelling reasons for apple products.
very few home systems use it. quite a bit of home systems have had the capability.
tons of enterprise systems have a use for it.
that doesn't mean it adds anything new. if apple has a "cloud capable os" that actually has any traction, it will defeat any reason to even consider mac hardware.
wait, how do you think that apple isn't doing the exact same thing?
the only difference is in the price of the devices, in which android has been vastly cheaper than iphone until they released 4g.
products are quite similar, except that new android devices come out continually (say every 3-6 months), while new iphones come out once a year if that. So while android continually evolves better products in between iphone product cycles, that only leaves the question of volume vs profit.
Anyone with a minute amount of business knowledge would know that volume is far more sustainable than profit in the long term, and it shows in that apple has started to sue the shit out of people because they cannot continue to compete at current profit margins.
Volume is also a much bigger deal due to market share. If android outsells apple 10 to 1, and apple makes the same profit on the device, apple isn't making the same profit on any additional profits to the device due to having 10% of the volume (app store purchases, advertising, etc).
I see the issue here in the same light as you, more of a business analysis issue than a direct programming issue, cleaning up some programming being the result if appropriate.
my take is that some scientists back bad theories and then do their best to prevent them from being refuted. Basically bad science work, as gilleain has indicated.
if you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, sure, prevent computers in classrooms.
if you want people to do actual work and be able to email it back instead of everything on paper, it probably helps to either have computers available in class or allow laptops.
the chance to get caught will never be high or reliable or a successful deterrent.
while a "simple sounding math equation" as you phrased it, the reality of what it takes to track cheating even remotely accurately will also motivate people to not want to take the class by itself, and also make teaching ineffective. Other than video taping every class and reviewing to see who pays attention you'll never reliably pin down all cheaters. Catch the dumb ones? Sure.
you should look at how people have tried to apply these models to "prevent" filesharing. We're up to what, 2 million$? Society's "cost" and the cost you attempt to put in something are entirely different things, thus trying to give people motivators away from an activity doesn't necessarily work, ever.
Well yeah, because going after the student is treating the symptom, not the cause. I'm saying if people are cheating, don't look at the student, look into everything.
in both scenarios you're missing something: those people tend to have extra money coming in from extra sources.
think a CEO is just paid in salary? He's usually paid in shares, free benefits, extra vacation time, etc, all these things add up to extra money.
Think a president is just paid in salary? He's paid in money for any business which he owns any portion of no matter how trivial, and also via anonymous donations from the party, and also via the party paying for everything for him. You don't think 400k a year covers all of his travel, do you? You don't think he pays for his own secret service cover and/or escorts, do you?
No, in both situations it's the bottom line that pays for it.
Slashdot Mirror
see though, employee purchased equipment for work is on employer property and connects to it.
so as indicated, the employer can exert control in a variety of ways as a result, not excluding snooping etc etc.
if anything, this whole argument is just a sign that sometimes people don't get PC's as powerful as they need and othertimes you have someone with the latest and greatest who uses a 1 page spreadsheet.
this is very much a chicken and egg scenario in a lot of ways.
you have: lowest bidder, no bid contracts, government specs being too stringent, and gov't specs being not stringent enough.
all of these occur sometimes, whether it's one independently or multiple.
So no, don't just blame the contractor, and don't just blame the gov't. Everyone has a part in the issues here.
in a large company the group pool of cellphones versus individual employee cellphones makes an enormous difference.
not only does it affect numbers (say, 48 thousand in this case), but also affects administrative and professionalism. This is not at all unlike letting people install their own shit on a corporate laptop and all the headaches/resultant policy issues that come with it.
Having a pool of cellphones is hilariously simple. Make sure they all have gps, and they have a box or container at a secure employee location to grab one from.
That's overhead?
It's not to reach the employee, it's there for the employee to use in emergencies. The other kind (the employee who gets calls) was not really discussed, but there are easy mobile VOIP solutions for that. login to the phone with your employee #, no password required. calling? call that employee #. This isn't a mystery.
no, it's neither reasonable nor prudent for a DMV road tester to have one.
It's reasonable or prudent for the DMV to have a group cellphone for road testers to share and take with them when doing a road test. Same thing applies to people in mobile roles. There is a difference between the two, and lazy bureacracies don't make the distinction, which leads to governmental bloat. At no time should any employee, including upper management, ever have a "personal" employee-paid for phone. they can get their own personal phone for that.
it's also impossible to travel through or live in any town if you're prohibited from coming near things that are about as common as a gas station.
so recidisivism or not, there is a question of if this is a overreaching, and the answer is easily yes. This punishment does not fit the crime, as rotide has indicated.
if you paid attention to the DMCA at all, being able to crack something basically makes its protection ineffective, there's also the argument of substantial non-infringing uses such as enabling other OS's and things like that.
so in simple terms, if geohot can afford the lawyers, they will easily win this in court.
or the reality of "We've decided to stop supporting formats for things that aren't free", would be a more simple answer.
too little,too late.
if one part is wrong, why would we even give a scrape of thought to the rest, if she's not willing to correct the wrong part?
if she said "okay, I was wrong about vaccines" would be one thing but all I hear is "...".
the difference between grandstanding and making a mistake is standing up for the error.
uh, all vaccinations currently being done ARE absolutely necessary, other than the extra flu stuff.
Unless you want your kid to have mumps, polio, and other fun shit that was eliminated via vaccines.
that's not qualifications, that's called being asinine. She's entitled to free speech, but that doesn't mean that she isn't putting other people at risk.
you may practice what you preach, in saying that chopping off your arm is the best way to live your life.
meanwhile, modern medicine (eastern and western) will beg to differ.
think it's that bad? sure is. Plenty of kids have died from parents lack of attention. there are well established criteria for this in court too.
I'd say nevar has a point on this, bigtime.
Imus? How about Jenny McCarthy? At what point did people think that following celebrities for things that are scientific was a good idea?
uh, go loko at gtall's comment.
they *have* to sell hardware. They have literally set themselves up to do so. By not selling hardware, there's also less compelling reasons for apple products.
very few home systems use it. quite a bit of home systems have had the capability.
tons of enterprise systems have a use for it.
that doesn't mean it adds anything new. if apple has a "cloud capable os" that actually has any traction, it will defeat any reason to even consider mac hardware.
people were able to manage their own desires previously. This is just another tool for it. Doesn't mean it works, though.
wait, how do you think that apple isn't doing the exact same thing?
the only difference is in the price of the devices, in which android has been vastly cheaper than iphone until they released 4g.
products are quite similar, except that new android devices come out continually (say every 3-6 months), while new iphones come out once a year if that. So while android continually evolves better products in between iphone product cycles, that only leaves the question of volume vs profit.
Anyone with a minute amount of business knowledge would know that volume is far more sustainable than profit in the long term, and it shows in that apple has started to sue the shit out of people because they cannot continue to compete at current profit margins.
Volume is also a much bigger deal due to market share. If android outsells apple 10 to 1, and apple makes the same profit on the device, apple isn't making the same profit on any additional profits to the device due to having 10% of the volume (app store purchases, advertising, etc).
I see the issue here in the same light as you, more of a business analysis issue than a direct programming issue, cleaning up some programming being the result if appropriate.
good post.
my take is that some scientists back bad theories and then do their best to prevent them from being refuted. Basically bad science work, as gilleain has indicated.
some people can't resist trying to go back to the dark ages.
if you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, sure, prevent computers in classrooms.
if you want people to do actual work and be able to email it back instead of everything on paper, it probably helps to either have computers available in class or allow laptops.
uh, from my old post:
the chance to get caught will never be high or reliable or a successful deterrent.
while a "simple sounding math equation" as you phrased it, the reality of what it takes to track cheating even remotely accurately will also motivate people to not want to take the class by itself, and also make teaching ineffective. Other than video taping every class and reviewing to see who pays attention you'll never reliably pin down all cheaters. Catch the dumb ones? Sure.
really?
you should look at how people have tried to apply these models to "prevent" filesharing. We're up to what, 2 million$? Society's "cost" and the cost you attempt to put in something are entirely different things, thus trying to give people motivators away from an activity doesn't necessarily work, ever.
how well has that gone again?
Well yeah, because going after the student is treating the symptom, not the cause. I'm saying if people are cheating, don't look at the student, look into everything.
really?
in both scenarios you're missing something: those people tend to have extra money coming in from extra sources.
think a CEO is just paid in salary? He's usually paid in shares, free benefits, extra vacation time, etc, all these things add up to extra money.
Think a president is just paid in salary? He's paid in money for any business which he owns any portion of no matter how trivial, and also via anonymous donations from the party, and also via the party paying for everything for him. You don't think 400k a year covers all of his travel, do you? You don't think he pays for his own secret service cover and/or escorts, do you?
No, in both situations it's the bottom line that pays for it.