Contract was up, I was let go, I left the firm I was with to be with the firm I am at now because they were incompetent. It all happened within 2 days of one another, not lying.. just not giving all the facts.
Hell.. some of the companies have all their stuff on public IPs. Once in particular (I won't say who) I can get to the manufacturing PLCs since they use public IPs on everything. I can shut off their machines if I wanted to. Yes I used to do security for them, but I was let go because I brought up too many things that would cost them money. Their security manager said "If I don't know about it, and something goes wrong, we can pay to fix it then. However it is cheaper to not tell upper management about it, as they will be forced to act and the last thing we need to do is spend money." Yeah.. I left.
While I would love to see that, I think you are looking a little short sighted on this. Lets say someone like Dick Dale came on the scene. Early 60's. He played a little song called "Miserlou". He recorded it, enjoyed moderate success. Now in 1994, 34 years after the first 45 was released, some movie producer played that song in a movie. Now all of a sudden, that record is popular as hell. Yes the guy is still around, and he is making money hand over fist because he wrote a song, and is re-releasing that, his old stuff, and new stuff. This was his art. Yes it was 35 years before it's time, but he wrote it and recorded it. You cannot take that away from him.
If he was dead, yes, then I agree, it should not be left to all the family members. But the dude should be given his fair share, no matter what the time frame he happened to live.
Note: That song is the theme song to the "Pulp Fiction" movie. Now Miserlou is a Armenian lullaby sped up 4 times as fast and put through reverb and distortion on a guitar. But it was his composition.
Hey now.. 90% of stuff on the modern radio is crap. But you year an old song you had not heard from Hendrix or something like that.. you might take a second look at that album that had only 1 good song on it before. Hell I was down in Austin a few months ago and heard a song that had a good beat and I was like I wonder who that was. Damn it all if it was not Miley Cyrus. So my Niece came over with her MP3 player and CD and her nice uncle ripped her music for her and made an innocent *cough* backup of that song for future use. My teenaged son liked the song and had no clue who it was. He just about shit when he heard it was Hanna Montana (because he makes fun of his 9 year old sister for liking her) and then asked me to put it on his MP3 player as well.
89% of the people are reading this just for the hell of it. Maybe 12% because they have a sense of humor and need to smile in their otherwise dreary day at work.
Anyways.. 100% of the people who have already posted.. were human (I just made that one up;) See some made up statistics can be true as well. (sorry the monkeys and Shakespeare theorists - we have not had infinite time.)
I will take your line and this entire thread to a new level. People wanted SUVs and trucks. The big 3 had the models people wanted, and they became popular when gas was cheap. GM in particular did see that gas was getting more expensive but they had to build what people would buy, and everyone bought hummers. So they kept building what they could not keep on the lots. Why would you buy a Chevy Beretta when you can get a Blazer. That is how people thought.
They saw the tide and got the EV-1, and now have been working on the Volt as a matter of that research for over a decade. Yeah they don't have a hybrid (save only the tahoe, silverado, malibu, escalade, etc.) and were not first the market. Okay. They have a longer development cycle that Toyota or Honda (3.5 years vs. 5.7 years from concept to market).
So to take this to a new level. People wanted in the 70's to move from their land tanks/yachts, to a smaller car in the early 80's. Thus you got the toyota tercell and early honda accords. People liked those as they were cheap, got good milage, and ran forever.
Well in early 1991, the NTSB required that all cars be required by 1994 to have several safety features in them if they are going to be on the US roads. Well this added hundreds of pounds of extra weight to cars (cross beams in doors, anti-lock brakes, airbags, daytime running lights, etc.) or the manufacturer will be fined. Well everyone did not care as much about size, but they cared more about function, safety and horsepower. So every car manufacturer had to make what the market wanted.
Another shift in the mid 90's. Now you got minivans, small and large SUVs, and people driving pickup trucks when they have no need for one. Now you worried about a few things like does this have rear DVD player and how many cup holders, how many dozen air bags, and forget everything else. Well guess what - gas prices when ballistic and there was another change.
Now we are where we are at. People want a lightweight car (small engine and less weight make better mpg), that can survive a crash with a large SUV or brick wall going 100 mph, and remember the halcyon days of that 1983 toyota tercell. Cars that were reliable and got 50 mpg. Well we cannot go back due to the safety regulation (and there are more that are coming, requiring traction control systems in all cars, etc.) If they made that exact came car today, it would only get 35 mpg due to weight requirements, etc. Toyota has updated engines (20 years of technology) which now make that same tercell get something like 42 mpg. So people now are trying to get the impossible. A cheap (10k) car which will give them great gas mileage. I think the cheapest you can find are something like the aveo or something like a kia something or another for $18k. How much do you think it costs for 8 air bags (according to mythbusters - it is $80 per unit).
What you are looking at is trending in the market place. Yes the US manufactures are not as nimble as their foreign counterparts, however, they have also reaped big rewards once they get the ship in the right direction. Yes they did not foresee the market going as far south as they did, but even up to the first few months of 2008, people were buying trucks and SUVs so fast they could not keep them on the lots. People now are holding onto their cars longer as they are not realizing that getting a new car every 3.4 years as the car manufactures hope is simply not sustainable for people who don't have the money.
I am all for faster broadband, if it is the same price.:) But as you say - market prices will dictate that.
However back to your main point. My parents live 8 miles from the main city, their only choice is 14.4k modem. They live on an island. They are willing to pay some amount (not $100 a month) for high speed internet. They would do a triple play if they could (VOIP, internet and cable) if they could turn it off when they are not in Michigan during the winters.
Now comes the crux of your issue. Someone has to pay to get the infrastructure to them. Who is going to dig up the road and build a CO near enough to their land, for someone who is so cheap they complain about their 19 dollar a month phone line.
You take your pick when you live outside the area of normal services, and this is one of the things that you give up. Just like the corner butcher and tattoo parlor being at the local strip mall. All things are choices.
As an American - who has lived in several countries, the issues that are not as simple as you think. Think of America as the EU, and each of the 50 states as member countries, and each country has county governments which would be the equivalent of states for each country in Europe.
So what does this mean to everyone. The federal government was setup to regulate interstate commerce, print money, own the army, etc. Each state is required to care for the well being of its citizens, and to do what the federal government says.
The major breakdown has been that in the last 100+ years, the federal government has gotten into a lot of other areas that were not in their expressed purview. They have gotten into federal health care, social security, etc. Which is fine, however they have never really "taken it all over". So the states as well have social security systems, and in some cases, counties have their own systems. I am just picking social security and medicare as an example, there are others (education, roads, etc.).
The fundamental difference between parties (break down every argument) is simple, where does the control lie. With the federal government, or with state government, or with lower governments. I am not going to go into republican/democrat differences.
So to answer your question about reducing government solve the problems. It depends on where you are talking about in terms of government. If the federal government took over all health care, laid off 10 million US workers from running State and local health care systems, plus privately funded (ie. businesses), would it solve the problem (assuming they are not incompetent), yes. But you have to deal with the fall out of firing 10 million people by the stroke of a pen. Would it be cheaper if all 300 million US citizens got their health care the same way? Yes.
So what you get is compromises - which - help no one. It costs more to compromise than to make the appropriate stand. If you make a stand you maybe unpopular, but in the end it might be the best thing for you. We compromise a lot in this country - and thus end up costing us more money because for example, we pay for state and federal governments to provide health care, and we are taxed more than paying just one health care system, we are paying for the overhead of more than one.
Great.. but there are two things that are holding this back. It has to be in written in plain English - I mean like 4th grade English. That way EVERYONE can figure it out. This means it has to be stated simply and absolutely. None of this lawyer speak many of us can understand, but the dude that left school in the 3rd grade 25 years ago can understand so he can get part of the universal internet.
Secondly.. hardware and computers have to be secure by default. I know how to configure firewalls, and make my networks secure, however my father doesn't. He has a MS in Mechanical Engineering and BS in Electrical Engineering. He is freaking smart, but cannot get nor comprehend a linksys router for his home and why he needs to secure it, or how to do it. My ex had a computer - and got a cable modem. Her PC was XP home, Gold (no SP) since the PC had not been turned on in 5 years, but it was free. The cable company came out, ran the cable, and hooked up her computer and left. 5 minutes later there were pop-ups and it was infected. I fixed it for her but even now - she has 8 toolbars installed and crap. Why? Because the computer tells her she has to to view the site. Again - Not educated in computers, just knows how to login to webmail and that is all.
Look - I am not trying to be a pessimist but I just see that we are all going to have to be security experts to understand what is going on in the cyber world, as well as lawyers to understand the laws in the real world, as well as chemists to understand our food ingredients. We do not have the education system for that. No one does.
It will just be chips in license plates and passports and drivers licenses. Soon they will implant "career chips" like Futurama and then they will be able to see morning, noon and night where everyone is, what they do, what they buy, and even the size of their latest dump.
Wake me when 1984 is over.
I am thinking that they will use the guise of kiddie porn and terrorism or (insert morally outrageous thing here) to try to make the internet as traceable as possible. There are two problems I see. One, they are trying to put the onus on the individual. Individuals are not tech savvy enough to know every which way they can be exploited to get a person to piggy back on their network. Two, people won't know the rules/laws. I mean I know all about "ignorance of the law is not excuse to break it" but have you seen the criminal laws in each state (on a shelf) plus, federal? What about regulations that are not even laws but you still have to follow them?
People cannot be expected to follow every law out there. Everyone (even the President) breaks some law each day somehow, most probably without their knowledge. It is just tolerated.
Tacitus (a Roman Senator said) "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
I see this every day. We will get to the point where no one will be able to do anything but stay at home so the government or someone else will be able to listen to what they said.
Off the the mountains I go:)
Hell.. we will see this kind of policies from ISPs really soon once people start using the excuse "But my WAP was open and I don't know if someone used it for this criminal act." The *iaa will start sending their dogs down the path of forcing ISPs and their lapdogs in congress to make sure that we know exactly WHO is on WHAT IP address at all times so all actions can be accountable.
Think I am being crazy? Just wait and see.
My mistake. It is not elitism that made me state that, I had never heard of an app on a MS platform that did that kind of work. Not when I worked for MS or in my current bio-tech research field.
It was a joke... making fun of the worst British food (health wise - I love fish and chips however) I could think of, and stating someone ate it every day for two years - and got sick.. I think most documentaries are rigged in some way - so I never took that movie worth a grain of salt:)
All economic policies are is who controls the money supply in the US. Take the 80/20 rule and realize that the top 20% have 80% of the money. So a Republican (typically.. please note that) wants that person in the top 20% to decide more how that person spends their own hard earned cash. A Democrat (typically.. please note that) wants the government to decide who and how to re-distribute that 80% of money to the other 80% of people.
It all boils down to control. Do you want the government to control how you spend your money or do you want to be free to spend it how you see (invest in a business, TV, or what have you).
I am not trying to create a philosophical flame war or anything - just trying to break it down.
Well Duh.. I mean when you store nothing but friend fish and chips in there, with a little more grease for good "measure", and you eat that for two years every day.. don't you think you are going to get heart disease? I mean have you not seen "supersize me?":)
TFS stated: "Although this would be the lowest cost hardware ever offered by Cray, it would also be the most expensive desktop ever offered by Microsoft."
Believe it or not, MS has been making server OSes for the better part of 2 decades.
Not a fan boy.. but if you are going to summarize an article, summarize it so you don't lead down the path of flame wars and stuff.
That said.. What the hell are they going to run on this? SQL server? Exchange? I mean what MS app requires a Cray to run? They are not splicing DNA on MS platforms.. so I guess it is more of a "marketing" thing than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Contract was up, I was let go, I left the firm I was with to be with the firm I am at now because they were incompetent. It all happened within 2 days of one another, not lying .. just not giving all the facts.
Hell .. some of the companies have all their stuff on public IPs. Once in particular (I won't say who) I can get to the manufacturing PLCs since they use public IPs on everything. I can shut off their machines if I wanted to. Yes I used to do security for them, but I was let go because I brought up too many things that would cost them money. Their security manager said "If I don't know about it, and something goes wrong, we can pay to fix it then. However it is cheaper to not tell upper management about it, as they will be forced to act and the last thing we need to do is spend money." Yeah .. I left.
While I would love to see that, I think you are looking a little short sighted on this. Lets say someone like Dick Dale came on the scene. Early 60's. He played a little song called "Miserlou". He recorded it, enjoyed moderate success. Now in 1994, 34 years after the first 45 was released, some movie producer played that song in a movie. Now all of a sudden, that record is popular as hell. Yes the guy is still around, and he is making money hand over fist because he wrote a song, and is re-releasing that, his old stuff, and new stuff. This was his art. Yes it was 35 years before it's time, but he wrote it and recorded it. You cannot take that away from him.
If he was dead, yes, then I agree, it should not be left to all the family members. But the dude should be given his fair share, no matter what the time frame he happened to live.
Note: That song is the theme song to the "Pulp Fiction" movie. Now Miserlou is a Armenian lullaby sped up 4 times as fast and put through reverb and distortion on a guitar. But it was his composition.
Hey now .. 90% of stuff on the modern radio is crap. But you year an old song you had not heard from Hendrix or something like that .. you might take a second look at that album that had only 1 good song on it before. Hell I was down in Austin a few months ago and heard a song that had a good beat and I was like I wonder who that was. Damn it all if it was not Miley Cyrus. So my Niece came over with her MP3 player and CD and her nice uncle ripped her music for her and made an innocent *cough* backup of that song for future use. My teenaged son liked the song and had no clue who it was. He just about shit when he heard it was Hanna Montana (because he makes fun of his 9 year old sister for liking her) and then asked me to put it on his MP3 player as well.
89% of the people are reading this just for the hell of it. Maybe 12% because they have a sense of humor and need to smile in their otherwise dreary day at work. Anyways .. 100% of the people who have already posted .. were human (I just made that one up ;) See some made up statistics can be true as well. (sorry the monkeys and Shakespeare theorists - we have not had infinite time.)
I will take your line and this entire thread to a new level. People wanted SUVs and trucks. The big 3 had the models people wanted, and they became popular when gas was cheap. GM in particular did see that gas was getting more expensive but they had to build what people would buy, and everyone bought hummers. So they kept building what they could not keep on the lots. Why would you buy a Chevy Beretta when you can get a Blazer. That is how people thought.
They saw the tide and got the EV-1, and now have been working on the Volt as a matter of that research for over a decade. Yeah they don't have a hybrid (save only the tahoe, silverado, malibu, escalade, etc.) and were not first the market. Okay. They have a longer development cycle that Toyota or Honda (3.5 years vs. 5.7 years from concept to market).
So to take this to a new level. People wanted in the 70's to move from their land tanks/yachts, to a smaller car in the early 80's. Thus you got the toyota tercell and early honda accords. People liked those as they were cheap, got good milage, and ran forever.
Well in early 1991, the NTSB required that all cars be required by 1994 to have several safety features in them if they are going to be on the US roads. Well this added hundreds of pounds of extra weight to cars (cross beams in doors, anti-lock brakes, airbags, daytime running lights, etc.) or the manufacturer will be fined. Well everyone did not care as much about size, but they cared more about function, safety and horsepower. So every car manufacturer had to make what the market wanted.
Another shift in the mid 90's. Now you got minivans, small and large SUVs, and people driving pickup trucks when they have no need for one. Now you worried about a few things like does this have rear DVD player and how many cup holders, how many dozen air bags, and forget everything else. Well guess what - gas prices when ballistic and there was another change.
Now we are where we are at. People want a lightweight car (small engine and less weight make better mpg), that can survive a crash with a large SUV or brick wall going 100 mph, and remember the halcyon days of that 1983 toyota tercell. Cars that were reliable and got 50 mpg. Well we cannot go back due to the safety regulation (and there are more that are coming, requiring traction control systems in all cars, etc.) If they made that exact came car today, it would only get 35 mpg due to weight requirements, etc. Toyota has updated engines (20 years of technology) which now make that same tercell get something like 42 mpg. So people now are trying to get the impossible. A cheap (10k) car which will give them great gas mileage. I think the cheapest you can find are something like the aveo or something like a kia something or another for $18k. How much do you think it costs for 8 air bags (according to mythbusters - it is $80 per unit).
What you are looking at is trending in the market place. Yes the US manufactures are not as nimble as their foreign counterparts, however, they have also reaped big rewards once they get the ship in the right direction. Yes they did not foresee the market going as far south as they did, but even up to the first few months of 2008, people were buying trucks and SUVs so fast they could not keep them on the lots. People now are holding onto their cars longer as they are not realizing that getting a new car every 3.4 years as the car manufactures hope is simply not sustainable for people who don't have the money.
I am all for faster broadband, if it is the same price. :) But as you say - market prices will dictate that.
However back to your main point. My parents live 8 miles from the main city, their only choice is 14.4k modem. They live on an island. They are willing to pay some amount (not $100 a month) for high speed internet. They would do a triple play if they could (VOIP, internet and cable) if they could turn it off when they are not in Michigan during the winters.
Now comes the crux of your issue. Someone has to pay to get the infrastructure to them. Who is going to dig up the road and build a CO near enough to their land, for someone who is so cheap they complain about their 19 dollar a month phone line.
You take your pick when you live outside the area of normal services, and this is one of the things that you give up. Just like the corner butcher and tattoo parlor being at the local strip mall. All things are choices.
Hey .. Douches are made by Johnson and Johnson as well !!!
As an American - who has lived in several countries, the issues that are not as simple as you think. Think of America as the EU, and each of the 50 states as member countries, and each country has county governments which would be the equivalent of states for each country in Europe.
So what does this mean to everyone. The federal government was setup to regulate interstate commerce, print money, own the army, etc. Each state is required to care for the well being of its citizens, and to do what the federal government says.
The major breakdown has been that in the last 100+ years, the federal government has gotten into a lot of other areas that were not in their expressed purview. They have gotten into federal health care, social security, etc. Which is fine, however they have never really "taken it all over". So the states as well have social security systems, and in some cases, counties have their own systems. I am just picking social security and medicare as an example, there are others (education, roads, etc.).
The fundamental difference between parties (break down every argument) is simple, where does the control lie. With the federal government, or with state government, or with lower governments. I am not going to go into republican/democrat differences.
So to answer your question about reducing government solve the problems. It depends on where you are talking about in terms of government. If the federal government took over all health care, laid off 10 million US workers from running State and local health care systems, plus privately funded (ie. businesses), would it solve the problem (assuming they are not incompetent), yes. But you have to deal with the fall out of firing 10 million people by the stroke of a pen. Would it be cheaper if all 300 million US citizens got their health care the same way? Yes.
So what you get is compromises - which - help no one. It costs more to compromise than to make the appropriate stand. If you make a stand you maybe unpopular, but in the end it might be the best thing for you. We compromise a lot in this country - and thus end up costing us more money because for example, we pay for state and federal governments to provide health care, and we are taxed more than paying just one health care system, we are paying for the overhead of more than one.
Great .. but there are two things that are holding this back. It has to be in written in plain English - I mean like 4th grade English. That way EVERYONE can figure it out. This means it has to be stated simply and absolutely. None of this lawyer speak many of us can understand, but the dude that left school in the 3rd grade 25 years ago can understand so he can get part of the universal internet.
.. hardware and computers have to be secure by default. I know how to configure firewalls, and make my networks secure, however my father doesn't. He has a MS in Mechanical Engineering and BS in Electrical Engineering. He is freaking smart, but cannot get nor comprehend a linksys router for his home and why he needs to secure it, or how to do it. My ex had a computer - and got a cable modem. Her PC was XP home, Gold (no SP) since the PC had not been turned on in 5 years, but it was free. The cable company came out, ran the cable, and hooked up her computer and left. 5 minutes later there were pop-ups and it was infected. I fixed it for her but even now - she has 8 toolbars installed and crap. Why? Because the computer tells her she has to to view the site. Again - Not educated in computers, just knows how to login to webmail and that is all.
Secondly
Look - I am not trying to be a pessimist but I just see that we are all going to have to be security experts to understand what is going on in the cyber world, as well as lawyers to understand the laws in the real world, as well as chemists to understand our food ingredients. We do not have the education system for that. No one does.
It will just be chips in license plates and passports and drivers licenses. Soon they will implant "career chips" like Futurama and then they will be able to see morning, noon and night where everyone is, what they do, what they buy, and even the size of their latest dump. Wake me when 1984 is over.
Game over man .. Game over .. we are all screwed .. The man is going to find us. Not me man .. Hack the system ... Hack they sys*disconnected*
I am thinking that they will use the guise of kiddie porn and terrorism or (insert morally outrageous thing here) to try to make the internet as traceable as possible. There are two problems I see. One, they are trying to put the onus on the individual. Individuals are not tech savvy enough to know every which way they can be exploited to get a person to piggy back on their network. Two, people won't know the rules/laws. I mean I know all about "ignorance of the law is not excuse to break it" but have you seen the criminal laws in each state (on a shelf) plus, federal? What about regulations that are not even laws but you still have to follow them? People cannot be expected to follow every law out there. Everyone (even the President) breaks some law each day somehow, most probably without their knowledge. It is just tolerated. Tacitus (a Roman Senator said) "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." I see this every day. We will get to the point where no one will be able to do anything but stay at home so the government or someone else will be able to listen to what they said. Off the the mountains I go :)
There is always a bit of genius in insanity.
Hell .. we will see this kind of policies from ISPs really soon once people start using the excuse "But my WAP was open and I don't know if someone used it for this criminal act." The *iaa will start sending their dogs down the path of forcing ISPs and their lapdogs in congress to make sure that we know exactly WHO is on WHAT IP address at all times so all actions can be accountable.
Think I am being crazy? Just wait and see.
My mistake. It is not elitism that made me state that, I had never heard of an app on a MS platform that did that kind of work. Not when I worked for MS or in my current bio-tech research field.
It was a joke ... making fun of the worst British food (health wise - I love fish and chips however) I could think of, and stating someone ate it every day for two years - and got sick .. I think most documentaries are rigged in some way - so I never took that movie worth a grain of salt :)
No worries mate.
Only if your name is Bruce .. and I really don't want to meet you in a dark alley.
All economic policies are is who controls the money supply in the US. Take the 80/20 rule and realize that the top 20% have 80% of the money. So a Republican (typically .. please note that) wants that person in the top 20% to decide more how that person spends their own hard earned cash. A Democrat (typically .. please note that) wants the government to decide who and how to re-distribute that 80% of money to the other 80% of people.
It all boils down to control. Do you want the government to control how you spend your money or do you want to be free to spend it how you see (invest in a business, TV, or what have you).
I am not trying to create a philosophical flame war or anything - just trying to break it down.
friend fish = fried fish fixed
Well Duh .. I mean when you store nothing but friend fish and chips in there, with a little more grease for good "measure", and you eat that for two years every day .. don't you think you are going to get heart disease? I mean have you not seen "supersize me?" :)
TFS stated: "Although this would be the lowest cost hardware ever offered by Cray, it would also be the most expensive desktop ever offered by Microsoft." .. but if you are going to summarize an article, summarize it so you don't lead down the path of flame wars and stuff.
.. What the hell are they going to run on this? SQL server? Exchange? I mean what MS app requires a Cray to run? They are not splicing DNA on MS platforms .. so I guess it is more of a "marketing" thing than anything else.
Believe it or not, MS has been making server OSes for the better part of 2 decades.
Not a fan boy
That said
Seasoned? What kind of seasoning? Worcestershire? Steak Sauce? Montreal Steak Seasoning? MMMMmmm ... Steak
Damn .. I would not have posted this if I had read the one above .. It was not in my browser when I read this thread :( .. now I look lame.
I thought Pizza the Hutt was dead .. he ate himself to death. Maybe I have slept since 1987.