Actually, this is a great idea. If they are sharp enough to set up their own Jabber or IRC server, then they are probably safe in chatting and aren't going to fall for a predator.
Yeah- 'cause technical skills and understanding are directly related to social skills and understanding.
As long as you have laptops with 60+GB hard drives walking in and out of the building, any plan to limit USB drives is only going to bite the 99.99% of the people that actually use them from productivity. That.01% that has some illict reason to share files outside the company will be slowed down, but then email them, burn them to CD, FTP them, fax them, or just keep it on their laptop and walk it out the front door.
And even if all those are plugged, there is still the option of printing it out and mailing it.
There was a hand-waving explaination of that in one of the books, though I don't remember which one off the top of my head. The explaination given was that the Kessel spice mines were in the middle of a collection of black holes and there were only a few very narrow safe corridors to get in and out. But since the ship was so fast it was able to use an unsafe shorter route to get in and out, which would be a requirement for smugglers since the safe routes were strictly patrolled.
If you buy the idea of a black hole cluster, that almost is reasonable;)
It was bad enough before that we had to wait 3 years to find out what happend to Han after he was frozen, but with this schedule, we would have to wait 12 years!
According to the article, it specifically states that the child in the offense must be under the age of 12. I would classify that offender as an obviously sick monster.
Obviously, they weren't, and if there is discrimination, it can be proven.
How many of the CEOs of the top 500 companies in the US are not white males? Go ahead- look it up. Significantly more then the proportion of white males in the population, isn't it? There- does that prove discrimination? Statistically, yes, but you will never get a court to agree. Proving discrimination is very, very difficult.
You appear to be criticizing this for being superficial, yet you want skin color to be the overriding factor!
Good job at putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say it should be the overriding fator? When did I ever say it should even be A factor? What I've said is that having a diverse group is preferable to a homogenous one. You keep assuming that this means a checklist is part of the interview which is far from the truth. It means that the company recruits at minority events, and promotes itself outside it's own local area- even in other countries. It means that the compnay makes itself available to as wide a group as possible, and makes sure that it has an image of being open and accepting of a diverse group. That means that you get more applicants and more diverse applicants.
And lets get rid of notion of the "best" person deserving the job. Ever hear of over-qualified? There are lots of reason to hire someone that is not "the best" candidate, such as wanting to grow someone in an entry-level position, or just not able to afford what they are looking for salary-wise, or having a choice between a "great" person when the role really only needs a "good" person. The hiring process is far more complicated then some simple skin color checklist.
Curiously, before anti-discrimination laws, many companies insisted that they did hire "only the best" and strangely they were nearly entirely all white male employees.
And "only the best" assumes that all the person's skills can be assessed in an interview or that a team comprised of the most profiecient people would make the best team.
As for looking for people with diversity of background and viewpoints- how would you do that? Political views? Illegal. Religious views? Illegal. Economic level? Sexual orientation? I'm not sure if it is illegal, but if the topic came up in an interview I would very likely end the interview.
Diversity is not some quota system. It is a policy that makes sure everyone has a chance, and encourages the hiring process to make sure that there isn't homogenity in the workplace. And that is a good thing. There is much more to getting a job done then being the most techinically proficient or knowing the most.
That sounds good, but unfortunately it is not accurate in my experience. I've been a part of many teams of many talented people at work. But the few teams that were diverse with people from different backgrounds, different regions, and yes- different skin colors were- far more effective then the ones populated entirely by white males. Not that the all white male teams were incompetent or that the diverse team members were the best people ever. But the blend of ideas and backgrounds proved to be a much more effective group at solving problems and having their solutions accepted.
I agree that the best person should be hired, but at the same time I very much doubt that the best person will always have the same skin color as everyone else on the team. And if the team does all have the same skin color- then the best person for the job is someone different so they can bring new ideas and a different veiwpoint.
The issue isn't privacy. The issue is who owns your ideas. According to AOL's TOS, you give them the right to use your ideas and comments however they want.
No- the weird thing is that someone THINKS they can be remade better and almost always fail miserably. Psycho? Terrible. Planet of the Apes? Pretty, but still bad. Flubber? Not even Robin Williams could save it. The best I can think of for remakes is a parity with the original. Good as, but different. Think Dawn of the Dead. Good. Maybe not as much of a classic as the original, but with some interesting new stuff.
I would have faith if Rami were going to do it. And I do have some faith since Bruce Campbell is in it. He was one of the producers of the original so I would expect him to have some say in the new one, and he seems to understand the camp appeal.
Respectfully, it doesn't matter if you put stock in it or not. The financial people that sign off on spending the money do put stock in it. They aren't aware of the details of upgrades and everything else, and don't want to be. If someone puts a number in front of them, they are rarely cynical enough to question those details. And that is assuming that they are even shown those details. Most times, they are just shown a final number that looks impressive.
I agree entirely, but you are talking about a payoff where you see savings in 3+ years. Many managers who don't care about the technical side want something fater then that.
Do you work with a company of any size in decisions like this? I'm in the middle of these exact same arguement on a couple of different projects right now. I agree that most TCO's are subjective, especailly oen developed by the vendor themselves, but that doesn't mean that the person holding the purse strings who doesn't understand the technical issues is going to ignore it.
Everyplace that I have worked as a network admin, I coordinated MS Office training for all the end users, and every person said they had a benifit from it. If they didn't go to training, then then spent far more then one day's time experimenting and learning on their own. Not training your computer users is very stupid.
I still can't, for the life of me, see how MS can say with a straight face that something that costs money is cheaper than something that doesn't cost anything?
It is pretty easy to say that when you look at the total cost of ownership (TCO). For software, expecially on a network, the price of the software is maybe 1/3 of the total cost to use it. Note the difference in words: price vs. cost. Price is how much money is spent to buy something. Cost is how much money is spent to use it. Part of the cost is training. Switching everyone from MS Office to Open Office has a zero software cost, but sending each person to training classes so they are comfortable enough to use it, and then the time it takes for them to build up their effieciency all needs to be factored in to the total cost. Say you send everyone in the office to a one day OO class. Figure $200/person plus their salary for the day since no regular work is getting done plus a lower effiency rate of work for the next month or two plus the time spent planning the training time. And that is the total cost of migrating to OO from MS Office.
MS makes sure that migrating away from their software is demonstratably more expensive then staying with them.
I hope that is sarcasm. Or else someone hasn't been paying attention. Go look up what it takes for law enforcement to get a list of books checked out of the library. Or how vigorously regular book stores have defended agaisnt police getting a list of what their customers buy.
For every person who downloads it, the movie business loses around 5-6 bucks.
Please. That fallacy has been a staple of every single piracy arguement and it has been completely disproven again and again. Not everyone who downloads a copy would have gone to see the movie. Some don't have the money (poor college students?) or are too cheap to go. Some are just curious about it. Some are just bored. Some do it just because they can, or for the "leetness" of being able to tell their friends they have a new movie on DVD.
The truth is that far less then half of the people that download movies/music/games/whatever would have paid for it otherwise, and some studies I've seen, with respect to music and games at least, put the number around 10-15%. Interestingly enough, some studies on music downloading have indicated that increased "piracy" has improved sales, as more people are exposed to the music and word of mouth gets out. So compare the amount of money spent on anti-piracy schemes, and anti-copying equipment, and on lobbying for new legistlation to the amount they would get for that 10-15%, and subtract any increased sales they would have from more people being exposed to it. How much of a benifit do you think they are really getting for all that work?
While privacy is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has stated a number of times that it is implicitly there because liberty requires privacy. The alternative is to risk a sort of thought police situation, where people would be afraid to borrow a book from the library if they thought it would make others think they were going to commit a crime.
Heh. You don't work with any lawyers do you? Posting a question to Slashdot is not even remotely close to due dilligence or evidence of a conversation between him and a third party.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is a great idea. If they are sharp enough to set up their own Jabber or IRC server, then they are probably safe in chatting and aren't going to fall for a predator.
Yeah- 'cause technical skills and understanding are directly related to social skills and understanding.
You don't remember his Neconomicon platform?
Now I know you are joking, because otherwise we would never get asked "Do I look fat in this?" ;)
As long as you have laptops with 60+GB hard drives walking in and out of the building, any plan to limit USB drives is only going to bite the 99.99% of the people that actually use them from productivity. That .01% that has some illict reason to share files outside the company will be slowed down, but then email them, burn them to CD, FTP them, fax them, or just keep it on their laptop and walk it out the front door.
And even if all those are plugged, there is still the option of printing it out and mailing it.
If you have a faster way to make $1.04 million, please feel free to share it ;)
There was a hand-waving explaination of that in one of the books, though I don't remember which one off the top of my head. The explaination given was that the Kessel spice mines were in the middle of a collection of black holes and there were only a few very narrow safe corridors to get in and out. But since the ship was so fast it was able to use an unsafe shorter route to get in and out, which would be a requirement for smugglers since the safe routes were strictly patrolled.
;)
If you buy the idea of a black hole cluster, that almost is reasonable
It was bad enough before that we had to wait 3 years to find out what happend to Han after he was frozen, but with this schedule, we would have to wait 12 years!
According to the article, it specifically states that the child in the offense must be under the age of 12. I would classify that offender as an obviously sick monster.
Obviously, they weren't, and if there is discrimination, it can be proven.
How many of the CEOs of the top 500 companies in the US are not white males? Go ahead- look it up. Significantly more then the proportion of white males in the population, isn't it? There- does that prove discrimination? Statistically, yes, but you will never get a court to agree. Proving discrimination is very, very difficult.
You appear to be criticizing this for being superficial, yet you want skin color to be the overriding factor!
Good job at putting words in my mouth. When did I ever say it should be the overriding fator? When did I ever say it should even be A factor? What I've said is that having a diverse group is preferable to a homogenous one. You keep assuming that this means a checklist is part of the interview which is far from the truth. It means that the company recruits at minority events, and promotes itself outside it's own local area- even in other countries. It means that the compnay makes itself available to as wide a group as possible, and makes sure that it has an image of being open and accepting of a diverse group. That means that you get more applicants and more diverse applicants.
And lets get rid of notion of the "best" person deserving the job. Ever hear of over-qualified? There are lots of reason to hire someone that is not "the best" candidate, such as wanting to grow someone in an entry-level position, or just not able to afford what they are looking for salary-wise, or having a choice between a "great" person when the role really only needs a "good" person. The hiring process is far more complicated then some simple skin color checklist.
Curiously, before anti-discrimination laws, many companies insisted that they did hire "only the best" and strangely they were nearly entirely all white male employees.
And "only the best" assumes that all the person's skills can be assessed in an interview or that a team comprised of the most profiecient people would make the best team.
As for looking for people with diversity of background and viewpoints- how would you do that? Political views? Illegal. Religious views? Illegal. Economic level? Sexual orientation? I'm not sure if it is illegal, but if the topic came up in an interview I would very likely end the interview.
Diversity is not some quota system. It is a policy that makes sure everyone has a chance, and encourages the hiring process to make sure that there isn't homogenity in the workplace. And that is a good thing. There is much more to getting a job done then being the most techinically proficient or knowing the most.
That sounds good, but unfortunately it is not accurate in my experience. I've been a part of many teams of many talented people at work. But the few teams that were diverse with people from different backgrounds, different regions, and yes- different skin colors were- far more effective then the ones populated entirely by white males. Not that the all white male teams were incompetent or that the diverse team members were the best people ever. But the blend of ideas and backgrounds proved to be a much more effective group at solving problems and having their solutions accepted.
I agree that the best person should be hired, but at the same time I very much doubt that the best person will always have the same skin color as everyone else on the team. And if the team does all have the same skin color- then the best person for the job is someone different so they can bring new ideas and a different veiwpoint.
The issue isn't privacy. The issue is who owns your ideas. According to AOL's TOS, you give them the right to use your ideas and comments however they want.
That is what he said about Planet of the Apes too, and it was neither like the book nor the movie. And sucked.
No- the weird thing is that someone THINKS they can be remade better and almost always fail miserably. Psycho? Terrible. Planet of the Apes? Pretty, but still bad. Flubber? Not even Robin Williams could save it. The best I can think of for remakes is a parity with the original. Good as, but different. Think Dawn of the Dead. Good. Maybe not as much of a classic as the original, but with some interesting new stuff.
I would have faith if Rami were going to do it. And I do have some faith since Bruce Campbell is in it. He was one of the producers of the original so I would expect him to have some say in the new one, and he seems to understand the camp appeal.
Respectfully, it doesn't matter if you put stock in it or not. The financial people that sign off on spending the money do put stock in it. They aren't aware of the details of upgrades and everything else, and don't want to be. If someone puts a number in front of them, they are rarely cynical enough to question those details. And that is assuming that they are even shown those details. Most times, they are just shown a final number that looks impressive.
I agree entirely, but you are talking about a payoff where you see savings in 3+ years. Many managers who don't care about the technical side want something fater then that.
Do you work with a company of any size in decisions like this? I'm in the middle of these exact same arguement on a couple of different projects right now. I agree that most TCO's are subjective, especailly oen developed by the vendor themselves, but that doesn't mean that the person holding the purse strings who doesn't understand the technical issues is going to ignore it.
Everyplace that I have worked as a network admin, I coordinated MS Office training for all the end users, and every person said they had a benifit from it. If they didn't go to training, then then spent far more then one day's time experimenting and learning on their own. Not training your computer users is very stupid.
I still can't, for the life of me, see how MS can say with a straight face that something that costs money is cheaper than something that doesn't cost anything?
It is pretty easy to say that when you look at the total cost of ownership (TCO). For software, expecially on a network, the price of the software is maybe 1/3 of the total cost to use it. Note the difference in words: price vs. cost. Price is how much money is spent to buy something. Cost is how much money is spent to use it. Part of the cost is training. Switching everyone from MS Office to Open Office has a zero software cost, but sending each person to training classes so they are comfortable enough to use it, and then the time it takes for them to build up their effieciency all needs to be factored in to the total cost. Say you send everyone in the office to a one day OO class. Figure $200/person plus their salary for the day since no regular work is getting done plus a lower effiency rate of work for the next month or two plus the time spent planning the training time. And that is the total cost of migrating to OO from MS Office.
MS makes sure that migrating away from their software is demonstratably more expensive then staying with them.
$500 million is quite a bit for a company to pay out, but just under $9 million to archive a week's worth of calls? That sounds very do-able.
Until the company outlaws laptops that people take home, calling an iPod or other portable data device a security risk is absurd.
I hope that is sarcasm. Or else someone hasn't been paying attention. Go look up what it takes for law enforcement to get a list of books checked out of the library. Or how vigorously regular book stores have defended agaisnt police getting a list of what their customers buy.
For every person who downloads it, the movie business loses around 5-6 bucks.
Please. That fallacy has been a staple of every single piracy arguement and it has been completely disproven again and again. Not everyone who downloads a copy would have gone to see the movie. Some don't have the money (poor college students?) or are too cheap to go. Some are just curious about it. Some are just bored. Some do it just because they can, or for the "leetness" of being able to tell their friends they have a new movie on DVD.
The truth is that far less then half of the people that download movies/music/games/whatever would have paid for it otherwise, and some studies I've seen, with respect to music and games at least, put the number around 10-15%. Interestingly enough, some studies on music downloading have indicated that increased "piracy" has improved sales, as more people are exposed to the music and word of mouth gets out. So compare the amount of money spent on anti-piracy schemes, and anti-copying equipment, and on lobbying for new legistlation to the amount they would get for that 10-15%, and subtract any increased sales they would have from more people being exposed to it. How much of a benifit do you think they are really getting for all that work?
While privacy is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has stated a number of times that it is implicitly there because liberty requires privacy. The alternative is to risk a sort of thought police situation, where people would be afraid to borrow a book from the library if they thought it would make others think they were going to commit a crime.
Heh. You don't work with any lawyers do you? Posting a question to Slashdot is not even remotely close to due dilligence or evidence of a conversation between him and a third party.