ISPs are NOT common carriers. Currently, they get most of the advantages, but none of the disadvantages. This is what the argument over net neutrality is all about -- forcing ISPs to abide by some of the restrictions that common carriers have.
The ISPs have been fighting like hell to make sure they aren't common carriers, so that they can discriminate in level of service provided.
I wish we could re-word this debate, and not make it about "net neutrality", but about "common carrier status". I say, force 'em to be common carriers.
and stupidly short expiration dates [medscape.com] on medicines
First, that link requires registration. Yuck.
Second, IIRC from Pharm School, expiration dates are legally mandated by the FDA to be when the active ingredient(s) degrade to 90% efficacy? Maybe I'm wrong on that one... or maybe it was just for prescription meds. But it's kind of important for dosing properly.
I don't think the "small" businesses referenced in this article have so many 150k wires/ach's going out all the time
So how would your plan defend against regular small payments that add up to $150k if the authorizers are not checking supporting documents for every transaction?
Authenticating each large-value transaction by the means you suggest is just redundant. Why not handle it how most companies already handle it? That is: limits on the approving authority of each person, multiple authorizers needed over $x amount. Hard cap on very high amounts for online submission -- personal verification (via verified telephone or in-person signature) for extremely high amounts?
I have a release authority of $3 million per day (second authorizer required). If I want to go over that amount, I must call the dedicated line at the bank from my phone number on record to request an increase in my limit. I cannot call from my cell or another location, or they will refuse. I must also give personal information to the bank rep to verify it is me.
Now, my situation is not normal for a small business (though my company is considered a small business by US standards). But I have worked for companies that are clearly small businesses, with 100 employees and $100MM revenue (some would only dream of that revenue). And even in those companies, it would be ridiculous to also do transaction authentication because it is redundant when you already do session auth.
You can say that again. That would be impossible from a use standpoint. Many small businesses issue dozens or even hundreds of payments on a weekly basis (not even including payroll!). Asking payment authorizers (typically exec-level employees) to manually key in that information is ridiculous. Plus you're going to have typos that result in incorrect authentication numbers, etc. So what happens? You return a result of "authentication not valid" and they have to type the details in again. How many unsuccessful tries will you allow before locking them out?
What you have to do is authenticate the session, not the individual transaction.
sunlight alone doesn't generate the kind of heat needed to run this process.
Sure it does. You just need to concentrate it with reflectors.
Unless you know about some wave-canceling problem with reflector arrays that no one else is aware of... in which case, please share, it'd be an enlightening read.
Because it doesn't provide the actual details of the work, or a link to the actual work. It provides a link to a service who will then send you to the source. It's completely opaque to the reader... what if the target changes the link to the source?
The shortened URL doesn't help you there... but a full URL would help you find the source. At the very least, you'd know what site it came from. You could then search that site for the article if you wanted.
Using a shortened URL as a citation is a bad idea, IMO.
Seems like there's a gap between providing a citation and providing a link. The shortened link may be a problem here.
Stay with me here... when you provide a citation, you are in essence doing two things: giving credit to the author of the cited work, and providing a reference to the work so that your readers can go out and find the work if they want to read it.
A shortened URL does not fulfill the second part of that.
But can you block people from installing whatever they want if it's THEIR computer? SHOULD you be able to? This is my point, I don't think you have any control of these things if it's not your computer. If your employee paid for it, your employee can do whatever he or she wants with it.
Sure, you make 'em sign a use agreement for company networks. translate(legalese): "Any device connected to company networks is subject to blah blah blah and must have the company security policy applied to it".
Employees can then choose to use employer-provided crap hardware that has the security policy applied, or their own stuff that has the security policy applied.
There's a difference between doing whatever you want to some inanimate object you own and doing whatever you want with some inanimate object you purchase.
In light of your slashID, I thought it important to mention that a corpse is an inanimate object, and even if you purchase it (legally, like for medical research) you cannot do whatever you want to it OR with it.
Just an FYI, in case you were wondering about the specific implications of edge cases to your generalism. You know. Stuff you'd want to do to/with a corpse. For science or something.
IT shouldn't 'provide support'. If you want a secure network, IT needs TOTAL CONTROL of the machines.
I disagree. Why not a centrally managed internal "app store" to manage licenses, etc. -- each employee can download any app they choose from the company store. Outside installations would, of course, be verboten.
My point was that if this is the employee's computer, the employee would rightfully assume he or she can install whatever the hell he or she wants on it and inevitably you'll get the viruses/trojans and keyloggers that steal passwords. Along with that you'll get people copying what is supposed to be private information to their own desktop because "it's faster" than going through the VPN. Their unencrypted desktop. With the viruses/trojans/keyloggers. It's just a horrible, horrible idea.
Wow, you have ten IT guys to support 1000 users? That's 100 users per support person.
Well, that's far more than some companies I've worked for.
One company That Shall Not Be Named By Me has a far higher ratio than that... the ratio is near 1:100 for support:[everyone else], where support includes admin, HR, accounting, finance, and IT.
A subsidy is when the government supplements a business' income.
No, a subsidy is when a government grants an economic advantage to a business. Given them a tax haven or holiday is indeed a subsidy.
Regardless, small businesses often pay no taxes, so it's hardly relevant to the argument.
What? We're talking about retail businesses, here. They pay property tax on their retail space, even the small ones. Even if they don't pay it directly, they pay it as part of their rent to their landlord.
The stock exchange is for allowing investors to participate in company profit through dividends. What it achieves is investors winning (or losing) mostly through speculation.
What you state as the purpose of the stock exchange is NOT the purpose of the stock exchange, no matter how much you'd like it to be.
The purpose of the stock exchange is to have a place where individuals can engage in speculatory trading of company shares they hold. That IS the reason stock exchanges came into existence.
Your little idealistic notion of allowing investors to participate in company profit through dividends... that's revisionist history.
Go ahead, read up on the subject. It'll be enlightening for you. I'm sure you'll be interested in finding out exactly why wall street came to be. Or why the exchanges in the Netherlands came to be. Or why the London exchange came to be.
I've got an unlimited data plan through Verizon for my Blackberry.
Yes, it's expensive -- good thing my employer pays for it.
What I'm skeptical of is not that they'll offer an unlimited data plan, but of what kind of throttling they do.
I've noticed that I'm SEVERELY throttled when I do a big download.
Simple web surfing? No problem. Email? Not bad. Last month I downloaded a 17 Mb file and it took 2 hours... in the middle of the night when network usage HAD to be low. Maybe I just had a really bad connection.
Slashdot Mirror
What common carrier status?!
ISPs are NOT common carriers. Currently, they get most of the advantages, but none of the disadvantages. This is what the argument over net neutrality is all about -- forcing ISPs to abide by some of the restrictions that common carriers have.
The ISPs have been fighting like hell to make sure they aren't common carriers, so that they can discriminate in level of service provided.
I wish we could re-word this debate, and not make it about "net neutrality", but about "common carrier status". I say, force 'em to be common carriers.
Or maybe we should just invest in continuing education in civics.
This is not a civil tort. It is something completely different.
First, that link requires registration. Yuck.
Second, IIRC from Pharm School, expiration dates are legally mandated by the FDA to be when the active ingredient(s) degrade to 90% efficacy? Maybe I'm wrong on that one... or maybe it was just for prescription meds. But it's kind of important for dosing properly.
I'm guessing you didn't either, since pentalobular comes entirely from Greek roots.
Obviously you have not had the pleasure of eating a Möbius pancake. Once you can figure out where the butter and syrup go, they are delicious.
How about, "I work for Google, where your private information is our business."
I mean, he didn't say it... but he didn't have to. It goes without saying.
So how would your plan defend against regular small payments that add up to $150k if the authorizers are not checking supporting documents for every transaction?
Authenticating each large-value transaction by the means you suggest is just redundant. Why not handle it how most companies already handle it? That is: limits on the approving authority of each person, multiple authorizers needed over $x amount. Hard cap on very high amounts for online submission -- personal verification (via verified telephone or in-person signature) for extremely high amounts?
I have a release authority of $3 million per day (second authorizer required). If I want to go over that amount, I must call the dedicated line at the bank from my phone number on record to request an increase in my limit. I cannot call from my cell or another location, or they will refuse. I must also give personal information to the bank rep to verify it is me.
Now, my situation is not normal for a small business (though my company is considered a small business by US standards). But I have worked for companies that are clearly small businesses, with 100 employees and $100MM revenue (some would only dream of that revenue). And even in those companies, it would be ridiculous to also do transaction authentication because it is redundant when you already do session auth.
You can say that again. That would be impossible from a use standpoint. Many small businesses issue dozens or even hundreds of payments on a weekly basis (not even including payroll!). Asking payment authorizers (typically exec-level employees) to manually key in that information is ridiculous. Plus you're going to have typos that result in incorrect authentication numbers, etc. So what happens? You return a result of "authentication not valid" and they have to type the details in again. How many unsuccessful tries will you allow before locking them out?
What you have to do is authenticate the session, not the individual transaction.
Sure it does. You just need to concentrate it with reflectors.
Unless you know about some wave-canceling problem with reflector arrays that no one else is aware of... in which case, please share, it'd be an enlightening read.
Because it doesn't provide the actual details of the work, or a link to the actual work. It provides a link to a service who will then send you to the source. It's completely opaque to the reader... what if the target changes the link to the source?
The shortened URL doesn't help you there... but a full URL would help you find the source. At the very least, you'd know what site it came from. You could then search that site for the article if you wanted.
Using a shortened URL as a citation is a bad idea, IMO.
Seems like there's a gap between providing a citation and providing a link. The shortened link may be a problem here.
Stay with me here... when you provide a citation, you are in essence doing two things: giving credit to the author of the cited work, and providing a reference to the work so that your readers can go out and find the work if they want to read it.
A shortened URL does not fulfill the second part of that.
Because some people value being productive over maintaining absolute control over their hardware.
Sure, you make 'em sign a use agreement for company networks. translate(legalese): "Any device connected to company networks is subject to blah blah blah and must have the company security policy applied to it".
Employees can then choose to use employer-provided crap hardware that has the security policy applied, or their own stuff that has the security policy applied.
In light of your slashID, I thought it important to mention that a corpse is an inanimate object, and even if you purchase it (legally, like for medical research) you cannot do whatever you want to it OR with it.
Just an FYI, in case you were wondering about the specific implications of edge cases to your generalism. You know. Stuff you'd want to do to/with a corpse. For science or something.
I disagree. Why not a centrally managed internal "app store" to manage licenses, etc. -- each employee can download any app they choose from the company store. Outside installations would, of course, be verboten.
Agreed in full.
Well, that's far more than some companies I've worked for.
One company That Shall Not Be Named By Me has a far higher ratio than that... the ratio is near 1:100 for support:[everyone else], where support includes admin, HR, accounting, finance, and IT.
Then you aren't very familiar with US politics.
Obama is right-of-center. His policies align very, very closely with those of Reagan.
I did not lie.
You're just trolling now. I suppose you were doing the same earlier.
Begone.
I know. That doesn't make it any less of a valid strategy, though.
No, a subsidy is when a government grants an economic advantage to a business. Given them a tax haven or holiday is indeed a subsidy.
What? We're talking about retail businesses, here. They pay property tax on their retail space, even the small ones. Even if they don't pay it directly, they pay it as part of their rent to their landlord.
What you state as the purpose of the stock exchange is NOT the purpose of the stock exchange, no matter how much you'd like it to be.
The purpose of the stock exchange is to have a place where individuals can engage in speculatory trading of company shares they hold. That IS the reason stock exchanges came into existence.
Your little idealistic notion of allowing investors to participate in company profit through dividends... that's revisionist history.
Go ahead, read up on the subject. It'll be enlightening for you. I'm sure you'll be interested in finding out exactly why wall street came to be. Or why the exchanges in the Netherlands came to be. Or why the London exchange came to be.
The "you" I used in my post was the generic "you", meaning anyone.
What are you talking about?
Sorry, 17 MB not Mb.
I've got an unlimited data plan through Verizon for my Blackberry.
Yes, it's expensive -- good thing my employer pays for it.
What I'm skeptical of is not that they'll offer an unlimited data plan, but of what kind of throttling they do.
I've noticed that I'm SEVERELY throttled when I do a big download.
Simple web surfing? No problem. Email? Not bad. Last month I downloaded a 17 Mb file and it took 2 hours... in the middle of the night when network usage HAD to be low. Maybe I just had a really bad connection.
You don't understand what public domain is, do you?
No one can compel you to be bound to a license for use once copyright has expired.
Once the copyright expires, you are under *no obligation* to agree to a license in order to use the code. You can use it completely unfettered.
Seriously, what makes you think something in the public domain is still subject to licensing for use?
You can use a non-GPL'ed version of the code as soon as copyright expires. There is no reason to burden yourself with any license at that point.