Actually a bomb in my underwear drawer could cause horrible devastation if it is big enough and in a high-rise apartment complex. But police would need some probably cause to search for it besides looking too confident, or looking very distressed.
It is embarrassing and humiliating because I am being suspected of some crime that I have not committed. I can understand the need in cases where there is some probable cause (under the rules that police are required to follow), but it's unjustifiable to suspect me for being stressed out after a job interview or forgetting to take my cellphone off when going through the check point. While it is not the intention, the end result is other people looking at you thinking that surely you must have done something really stupid to get yourself in that situation. THAT is embarrassing and humiliating. If you can tell me that you would not be embarrassed if a cop stopped you on the street because you looked stressed and gave you a pat down, then I will call you a fool. Why is the TSA given less restrictions than police?
Only from neighboring nations. The US was clearly in the wrong for using African slaves. Only Mexican and Canadian slaves are ok for the US under God's law.
This is a clear case of a psudo-police force being allowed to act outside the normal rules of engagement. The "probable cause" used by the TSA to initiate in-depth searches would usually never hold up if police used the same. I assume that you can refuse such searches, but you are never informed of that right, and the high profile and official appearance of the TSA makes it appear that this is not an option. Certainly if someone who had a dime bag knew this was an option, they would refuse, go ditched the weed, and come back through. So we have arrests being made that could have never been made elsewhere because no reputable court would ever allow the evidence. If I'm cranky and give a police officer a little lip, they do not then have the authority to search me.
every drug addict will rob people and would not hesitate to kill if a living person stands between him and his drug.
Source please? Or at least a little objective evidence? If I found my child becoming addicted to drugs, I would put them through rehab. If my kid didn't understand the dangers and the need to be careful, I would feel like I have failed as a parent. It's my job, and my job only, to make sure my kids feel loved, accepted, and encouraged enough that they feel like they have better things to do with their life.
As a matter of fact, I do have something to hide. Most people would not be happy about a complete stranger going through their underwear drawer at home, why should I feel comfortable with a complete stranger going through my underwear at an airport where everyone can see? It's embarrassing and humiliating to pat someone down in public and search through their belongings when they have done nothing wrong.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. So we have 1200 people committing victimless crimes, and in order to catch them, I have to get "randomly selected" at LAX for a pat down and full luggage search. They even bitch when I forgot to take a freaking comb out of my back pocket. Bullshit. So someone has a fake ID or a bit of heroine, who gives a flying fuck?
I think the real problem is a lack of, or a perceived lack of, necessary software. In some cases this is justified (such as with industry standard CAD software) and in some it is not. I think a good corporate move might be to switch to a general Linux workstation except in specialized cases where someone needs software that has no acceptable Linux alternative.
I recently switched to Ubuntu at home and I love it. But Linux still lacks support for a number of specialized industry standard software like CAD software. This is slowly starting to change (LabVIEW now works in Linux), but a more broad range of support will be required before it becomes feasible for most of industry to switch to the general purpose Linux workstation. For the work I do, Linux distributions are available for all of my key applications (except MS Outlook, which I assume there are alternatives to that can sync with an Outlook server), and if permitted, I would love to make the switch.
Where I work, custom software is kept closed source. If we hired a contractor to write it, we own it, and it stays closed. There's nothing new there. Now if we need a CAD package, we buy ProE because it has all of the features that we need already.
Custom modifications are a great service to offer, but very few applications will be able to make a business solely from this. Such modifications are extremely expensive, and thus affordable only by moderately well funded corporations. Most corporations do not want to wait for the functionality they need now. They would rather spend the money to get an application that does close to what they want now.
The idea of universally moving to a business model of supporting software encourages developers to build a need for support into their software, rather than developing software that is so usable that support is not necessary. I do not want to pay for support. If your software is not intuitive enough and does not have a good enough help file, and the online forums are garbage, then your software is crap and I don't want it. Only the most highly specialized software applications should be expected to need constant support.
Yeah that worked real well for the ancient Greeks. Their direct democracy led to a ruling class that stayed in power by political games. There will always be some form of ruling class in any governmental system (even anarchy), because natural human social behavior demands leaders in order to function.
You are daring to argue with the world child cult? Think of the children! My wife and I are regularly ridiculed for our decision to never have children. Targeted tax breaks are just one small piece of this great conspiracy.
Pro tip: Select your internship based on how it will expand your education and career goals. Do not select it based on money. You're an intern. They all get raw deals.
Having recently been to California for a job interview, I was pleasantly surprised to find the drivers more courteous and usually more alert than those from where I am now. The roads in Pittsburgh are a dog-eat-dog world, and I felt somewhat bad that I may have been too aggressive driving over there. Also, I like sushi. I think I will like it there.
She says it almost invariably comes from poorly educated people in down and out life situations. It's like they're clinging to a false hope.
Droves? I know she's told me specifically about at least three cases in the last year. This is a bank branch in a fairly small and very rural area (cities with populations in the 30,000 to 40,000 range). I can only imagine what happens in densely populated areas like where I live now.
My mother works at a bank and she has to talk people out of these scams on a regular basis, and refuses to deposit the obviously fake checks. It's almost unbelievable how convinced these people are that it's not a scam.
I occasionally have this problem, and I have never needed to go to IT. I don't recall exactly how I usually fix it, but I think I just manually command the mail to reconcile. Go to Mail, bring up the menu, and select Reconcile Now.
It also needs to be measured by the likelihood of things not happening. If you subtract one IT worker, and the result is about 1 hour of extra downtime per year, then the one IT employee's value isn't so great. If the cost is a couple days of downtime, then it becomes a different matter.
For that, you need to start looking into failure scenarios and risk assessment. That's a complex piece of accounting, and it's not a job for an IT worker to be asked to do. If you're making the IT worker spend time to justify their job financially, you're not being a very efficient company.
Sadly, this is often the position that IT finds themselves in as less insightful business types often only look at them as a non-producing cost to the company. In this guy's situation, I would suggest that his manager should be attempting to do this. This is especially important when an under-appreciated department begins to find themselves to be understaffed as the company grows.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually a bomb in my underwear drawer could cause horrible devastation if it is big enough and in a high-rise apartment complex. But police would need some probably cause to search for it besides looking too confident, or looking very distressed.
It is embarrassing and humiliating because I am being suspected of some crime that I have not committed. I can understand the need in cases where there is some probable cause (under the rules that police are required to follow), but it's unjustifiable to suspect me for being stressed out after a job interview or forgetting to take my cellphone off when going through the check point. While it is not the intention, the end result is other people looking at you thinking that surely you must have done something really stupid to get yourself in that situation. THAT is embarrassing and humiliating. If you can tell me that you would not be embarrassed if a cop stopped you on the street because you looked stressed and gave you a pat down, then I will call you a fool. Why is the TSA given less restrictions than police?
slavery is perfectly ok
Only from neighboring nations. The US was clearly in the wrong for using African slaves. Only Mexican and Canadian slaves are ok for the US under God's law.
This is a clear case of a psudo-police force being allowed to act outside the normal rules of engagement. The "probable cause" used by the TSA to initiate in-depth searches would usually never hold up if police used the same. I assume that you can refuse such searches, but you are never informed of that right, and the high profile and official appearance of the TSA makes it appear that this is not an option. Certainly if someone who had a dime bag knew this was an option, they would refuse, go ditched the weed, and come back through. So we have arrests being made that could have never been made elsewhere because no reputable court would ever allow the evidence. If I'm cranky and give a police officer a little lip, they do not then have the authority to search me.
It's not even a slippery slope. It's an outright lie. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean that we don't want to hide it.
every drug addict will rob people and would not hesitate to kill if a living person stands between him and his drug.
Source please? Or at least a little objective evidence? If I found my child becoming addicted to drugs, I would put them through rehab. If my kid didn't understand the dangers and the need to be careful, I would feel like I have failed as a parent. It's my job, and my job only, to make sure my kids feel loved, accepted, and encouraged enough that they feel like they have better things to do with their life.
As a matter of fact, I do have something to hide. Most people would not be happy about a complete stranger going through their underwear drawer at home, why should I feel comfortable with a complete stranger going through my underwear at an airport where everyone can see? It's embarrassing and humiliating to pat someone down in public and search through their belongings when they have done nothing wrong.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. So we have 1200 people committing victimless crimes, and in order to catch them, I have to get "randomly selected" at LAX for a pat down and full luggage search. They even bitch when I forgot to take a freaking comb out of my back pocket. Bullshit. So someone has a fake ID or a bit of heroine, who gives a flying fuck?
I think the real problem is a lack of, or a perceived lack of, necessary software. In some cases this is justified (such as with industry standard CAD software) and in some it is not. I think a good corporate move might be to switch to a general Linux workstation except in specialized cases where someone needs software that has no acceptable Linux alternative.
I recently switched to Ubuntu at home and I love it. But Linux still lacks support for a number of specialized industry standard software like CAD software. This is slowly starting to change (LabVIEW now works in Linux), but a more broad range of support will be required before it becomes feasible for most of industry to switch to the general purpose Linux workstation. For the work I do, Linux distributions are available for all of my key applications (except MS Outlook, which I assume there are alternatives to that can sync with an Outlook server), and if permitted, I would love to make the switch.
We are not talking about someone who might not be a spammer. It's well known with conclusive evidence that they are in fact hosting spamming botnets.
Where I work, custom software is kept closed source. If we hired a contractor to write it, we own it, and it stays closed. There's nothing new there. Now if we need a CAD package, we buy ProE because it has all of the features that we need already.
Except, if I were to use a secret sauce on the sandwich that I provided for free, Stallman would say it is not free. And that's just stupid.
Custom modifications are a great service to offer, but very few applications will be able to make a business solely from this. Such modifications are extremely expensive, and thus affordable only by moderately well funded corporations. Most corporations do not want to wait for the functionality they need now. They would rather spend the money to get an application that does close to what they want now.
The idea of universally moving to a business model of supporting software encourages developers to build a need for support into their software, rather than developing software that is so usable that support is not necessary. I do not want to pay for support. If your software is not intuitive enough and does not have a good enough help file, and the online forums are garbage, then your software is crap and I don't want it. Only the most highly specialized software applications should be expected to need constant support.
The sauce would require a freely available recipe.
You could offer a homeless man on the street a free sandwich, and if he had to walk a block to get it, Stallman wouldn't think it was free.
Yeah that worked real well for the ancient Greeks. Their direct democracy led to a ruling class that stayed in power by political games. There will always be some form of ruling class in any governmental system (even anarchy), because natural human social behavior demands leaders in order to function.
You are daring to argue with the world child cult? Think of the children! My wife and I are regularly ridiculed for our decision to never have children. Targeted tax breaks are just one small piece of this great conspiracy.
Pro tip: Select your internship based on how it will expand your education and career goals. Do not select it based on money. You're an intern. They all get raw deals.
Having recently been to California for a job interview, I was pleasantly surprised to find the drivers more courteous and usually more alert than those from where I am now. The roads in Pittsburgh are a dog-eat-dog world, and I felt somewhat bad that I may have been too aggressive driving over there. Also, I like sushi. I think I will like it there.
She says it almost invariably comes from poorly educated people in down and out life situations. It's like they're clinging to a false hope.
Droves? I know she's told me specifically about at least three cases in the last year. This is a bank branch in a fairly small and very rural area (cities with populations in the 30,000 to 40,000 range). I can only imagine what happens in densely populated areas like where I live now.
My mother works at a bank and she has to talk people out of these scams on a regular basis, and refuses to deposit the obviously fake checks. It's almost unbelievable how convinced these people are that it's not a scam.
I occasionally have this problem, and I have never needed to go to IT. I don't recall exactly how I usually fix it, but I think I just manually command the mail to reconcile. Go to Mail, bring up the menu, and select Reconcile Now.
It also needs to be measured by the likelihood of things not happening. If you subtract one IT worker, and the result is about 1 hour of extra downtime per year, then the one IT employee's value isn't so great. If the cost is a couple days of downtime, then it becomes a different matter.
For that, you need to start looking into failure scenarios and risk assessment. That's a complex piece of accounting, and it's not a job for an IT worker to be asked to do. If you're making the IT worker spend time to justify their job financially, you're not being a very efficient company.
Sadly, this is often the position that IT finds themselves in as less insightful business types often only look at them as a non-producing cost to the company. In this guy's situation, I would suggest that his manager should be attempting to do this. This is especially important when an under-appreciated department begins to find themselves to be understaffed as the company grows.