My bank charges a fee for electronic bill payment, which is annoying considering they don't charge me for writing checks. That seems to be a disincentive towards electronic payment.
Anyways, I've had good results by paying bills automatically using the Visa/Mastercard/Whatever check card that is linked to my checking account. The bill collector (the local newspaper, say) just bills monthly to that credit card number, and the transaction comes out as a withdrawal from the checking account. Easy one-time setup, and NO CHARGES from the bank. Some companies still send a monthly statement, others don't. Either way, it's one less check to write, and life is just that much more beautiful...
Three cheers to these guys for holding Symantec's toes to the fire. Corporate claims about software's efficacy and configurability deserve to be thoroughly scrutinized - not just Symantec's in the "safe surfing" realm, but in other areas as well.
Re:What's wrong with giving TM holders first dibs?
on
Master Of Your Domain
·
· Score: 1
The complaint, I suppose, is that there will one fewer get-rich-quick scheme available on the Net. Those domain prospectors add absolutely ZERO value to the Internet, the economy, and society in general, so I have no problem with TM holders getting their rights protected online.
Empowering copyright protection on the Net doesn't have anything to do with inhibiting the spread of free music - unless, of course, you're talking about copyrighted material, in which case IT'S AGAINST THE LAW ANYWAY. Quit defending pirates as if they were First Amendment poster children - it's a disservice to the computing subculture.
After all, didn't they invent Kerboros, along with the whole concept of network security? This is just another great innovation from The Great Leader, like the story from this morning about Micro$oft inventing symbolic links.
1. Righteous politicians draft legislation purporting to protect children from Internet porn, thus casting themselves as Defenders of American Family Values.
2. The Governor of said state signs the bill into law, taking a brave stand in the fight against the moral chaos of the WWW.
3. The law gets struck down in court, because it just doesn't work and restricts other information.
4. The legislators and governor shrug their shoulders and say they tried their best, but the godless ACLU and other legal weasals subverted their best efforts to protect the American family.
Just another sorry episode in the saga of American politics. There's simply nothing to deter these morons from enacting an obviously ineffective and unconstitutional law. Instead, the incentive is to push ahead and try SOMETHING, just to look like they're on the job.
1) I guess I'm lucky in that our IS department makes no bones about being a 24/7 support operation. While I have the 2nd phone line to use for on-call dial-in access, it's pretty rare that I actually have to use it for such (maybe once a month, tops). As an example, when a program blew up over Y2K weekend, the concensus opinion was "that can wait until we're all in the office on Tuesday." If the company wants 24/7 support, it must be made clear that this comes only at an added cost.
2) Obstinate users are unfortunately the most common. The only suggestion I'd make is to change the rating system to so that only one project can be a 99, then the next 98, etc. I used to have a boss that had a simlarly absurd system. Priorities could be A, B, C, D, or E, along with a 0-99 rating. This amazingly nuanced system (with 500 potential rankings!) somehow always kicked out A1 projects. Go figure.
Where I work, we make use of an Intranet to allow users to see what projects are in the queue. There isn't a rigid "there can only be one top priority" system at that level, but each analyst uses that approach with their key users. Ultimately, that is something that has to be pushed back on them - given estimates of how long each project will take, it's their responsibility to figure out where the priorities lie.
And of course, that's long before we get to the issue of "yes, that's what I asked for, but it's not what I want."
I work 40 hours a week, with occasional beeper time that is compensated for in the form of a 2nd phone line installed at my home (which is a nice little perk - sure it doesn't cost that much, but I probably wouldn't have done it otherwise). There is a fundamental tradeoff between working extra hours (either for pay or for presumed career benefit) and free time, one which each person sets at their own level. My father and brother, for instance, work 80-100 hours a week (non-IS), whereas I place a high priority on hitting the door each day at my regular time.
It's a personal preference.
That being said, it's often extremely difficult for an IS/IT professional to protect their lifestyle in the face of continuously changing demands in the workplace. The key points that I've found that work involve 1) allowing your customers to have open access to your project queue, so that they understand what other demands are out there, 2) keeping them up-to-date as to what's going on, so at least they know that when you've left for the day progress has been made, and 3) standing firm that there can only be ONE "number one" priority project. Sure, this will draw plenty of blank stares and slack jaws from some, but it's a fun exercise to put them through.
Unfortunately, that's how much of the American legislative system works these days. The government passes a law that they either don't understand very well or just wish to pass to score brownie-points with the electorate, then wait for someone to expose these flaws in a courtroom setting. The court strikes down the law, and the legislators fret and moan about an increasingly activist judiciary, when the real problem lies inside the halls of the legislature.
We don't think the government has the (moral) authority to make a sick-out illegal. Do these people have contracts that say their employment is not at-will? If not, then the government has no business sticking it's nose in.
IANAL, but I believe this has to do with the contract between the union and Northwest. These contracts clearly spell out the conditions under which the union has a right to strike. I believe the UAW has the right to strike based on safety concerns, for example. Unless the union has filed a grievance and gone on strike, however, they're supposed to fulfill the obligations of their contract with Northwest, meaning that they need to show up for work and do their jobs. Organizing a "sick-out" is a means of circumventing their contract with Northwest and trying to establish unfair leverage in negotiations. To that extent, the government's responsibility is to enforce the contract.
In almost all industrial democracies, the USA being the sole exception, unions and their members have significantly amounts of political sway -- with good reason. They are perhaps the only force that will be capable of standing up to growing multinationals in the years ahead.
If standing up to growing multinationals means making the rest of society pay for the unions' fattened paychecks and absurd "job-for-life" demands, then I guess I'd agree.
Ask yourself -- why did the employees organize an illegal sick-out? Because strikes have been made illegal!
Uh, no they haven't.
Imagine -- you're not allowed to miss work, even to protest, and if you do, you get thrown in jail!
No, you'll get fired. There's a difference.
And in response to the multiple "anywhere in the world but the USA" remarks, I'd also point out that the USA happens to have the strongest, most dynamic economy in the world. There just might be a correlation there...
Doesn't the reaction of the ZDNet folks seem a bit odd? Their spokesman talked only about how they must have been attacked because they are "the leading technology" site on the Internet, and how this must be a campaign against the top brands out there. It sounds like they were flattered...
I should think most libraries have policies relating to book check-out that require local residence. I know my local library does. You can't just drive in from hours away and check out books, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that same requirement extended to net access. Again, it was just a thought...
An excellent point, one that gets lost all too often. Without some form of copyright protection, the zillion-dollar corporations have no incentive to spend mega-$$$ generating the entertainment that people love.
I'm eager as hell to see the Lord of the Rings movies that are due to come out over the next couple of years. Without the guarantee that the studio will be able to make money off of secondary distribution (DVD's, etc.) you can bet that they wouldn't plop down $300 million on the project. It's similar to the issue of patent protection for pharmaceutical companies. Without the security of having the sole right to distribute a drug for the first several years, it's not worth the millions of dollars of research to produce new drugs.
In short, those who want all information to be free will only get what they pay for.
Remember, Ford is the company that helped create a middle class with the $5 day back in the early part of this century. While Ford will certainly make sure this gets considered in UAW negotiations, it is indeed possible for corporations to act in their "enlightened self-interest."
Taking a slightly different angle, the owner of the Washington Capitals has issued laptops to all the players and coaches, for the purpose of greater interaction with fans through the team's website. Will the Fords do the same thing now with the Detroit Lions?
Well said. Far too often, the "free spirit of the internet" is used as a justification to take a free ride on someone else's work. Spammers, bandwidth hogs, and others who misuse resources like to claim some fundamental right of free access to hardware and networks put up at another's expense. In the case of DVDs and Napster, theoritical nonsense regarding the use of a particular program tries to hide the fact that these tools are mainly used to infringe on copyrights.
There are more important battles to be fought and won when it comes to preserving individuality and diversity on the Internet. Digging in your heels to protect movie & music pirates only discredits this forum, which should instead be providing a sensible discussion on how individual voices will still be heard amidst the consolidation of media companies that seek to dominate Net culture.
"So, no one on slashdot ever buys from amazon again. Fantastic, their profits drop off by 0.5 % because we all shop at fatbrain anyway..."
Profits? What profits? This is Amazon we're talking about. They can lose millions of dollars at a record pace, and still get Bezos named Time's Man of the Year...
What's "more crucial" is a personal judgement, so I won't get into splitting hairs over which had the greater influence. The point is that a D&D movie could be great, or it could be awful - at least with the LoTR film, we know they're starting off with a fantastic story.
If the ability to ramble on and turn every question back to "we need to get back to the ways of our founding fathers" qualifies as articulate, than I guess Keyes is your man.
These aren't ignorant assumptions, just impressions after having watched about half a dozen debates over the last several weeks...
Let's start with the CD Universe case, and how a "LawNet" might assist in resolving the case:
1. Jurisdiction. If a cracker in Michigan breaks into a firm's corporate servers in California, and steals a Delaware man's credit card number, all 3 states have claims on jurisdiction. Coordinating the investigation and (eventual) prosecution through one federal office makes plenty of sense.
2. Information gathering. LawNet could serve as a useful central bank for investigative units to share information with other units that are working on the same (or similar) cases. Using the above example, LawNet would provide the mechanism by which the California investigators report their findings regarding the intrusion, so the ones in Michigan know what direction to head in. Exchanging this kind of information quickly and effectively has huge potential benefits for the investigators.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyways, I've had good results by paying bills automatically using the Visa/Mastercard/Whatever check card that is linked to my checking account. The bill collector (the local newspaper, say) just bills monthly to that credit card number, and the transaction comes out as a withdrawal from the checking account. Easy one-time setup, and NO CHARGES from the bank. Some companies still send a monthly statement, others don't. Either way, it's one less check to write, and life is just that much more beautiful...
The complaint, I suppose, is that there will one fewer get-rich-quick scheme available on the Net. Those domain prospectors add absolutely ZERO value to the Internet, the economy, and society in general, so I have no problem with TM holders getting their rights protected online.
Empowering copyright protection on the Net doesn't have anything to do with inhibiting the spread of free music - unless, of course, you're talking about copyrighted material, in which case IT'S AGAINST THE LAW ANYWAY. Quit defending pirates as if they were First Amendment poster children - it's a disservice to the computing subculture.
Now I won't get ANY snail mail!?!?!?!
All Hail the Great Leader!
Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
2. The Governor of said state signs the bill into law, taking a brave stand in the fight against the moral chaos of the WWW.
3. The law gets struck down in court, because it just doesn't work and restricts other information.
4. The legislators and governor shrug their shoulders and say they tried their best, but the godless ACLU and other legal weasals subverted their best efforts to protect the American family.
Just another sorry episode in the saga of American politics. There's simply nothing to deter these morons from enacting an obviously ineffective and unconstitutional law. Instead, the incentive is to push ahead and try SOMETHING, just to look like they're on the job.
2) Obstinate users are unfortunately the most common. The only suggestion I'd make is to change the rating system to so that only one project can be a 99, then the next 98, etc. I used to have a boss that had a simlarly absurd system. Priorities could be A, B, C, D, or E, along with a 0-99 rating. This amazingly nuanced system (with 500 potential rankings!) somehow always kicked out A1 projects. Go figure.
Where I work, we make use of an Intranet to allow users to see what projects are in the queue. There isn't a rigid "there can only be one top priority" system at that level, but each analyst uses that approach with their key users. Ultimately, that is something that has to be pushed back on them - given estimates of how long each project will take, it's their responsibility to figure out where the priorities lie.
And of course, that's long before we get to the issue of "yes, that's what I asked for, but it's not what I want."
It's a personal preference.
That being said, it's often extremely difficult for an IS/IT professional to protect their lifestyle in the face of continuously changing demands in the workplace. The key points that I've found that work involve 1) allowing your customers to have open access to your project queue, so that they understand what other demands are out there, 2) keeping them up-to-date as to what's going on, so at least they know that when you've left for the day progress has been made, and 3) standing firm that there can only be ONE "number one" priority project. Sure, this will draw plenty of blank stares and slack jaws from some, but it's a fun exercise to put them through.
Unfortunately, that's how much of the American legislative system works these days. The government passes a law that they either don't understand very well or just wish to pass to score brownie-points with the electorate, then wait for someone to expose these flaws in a courtroom setting. The court strikes down the law, and the legislators fret and moan about an increasingly activist judiciary, when the real problem lies inside the halls of the legislature.
IANAL, but I believe this has to do with the contract between the union and Northwest. These contracts clearly spell out the conditions under which the union has a right to strike. I believe the UAW has the right to strike based on safety concerns, for example. Unless the union has filed a grievance and gone on strike, however, they're supposed to fulfill the obligations of their contract with Northwest, meaning that they need to show up for work and do their jobs. Organizing a "sick-out" is a means of circumventing their contract with Northwest and trying to establish unfair leverage in negotiations. To that extent, the government's responsibility is to enforce the contract.
If standing up to growing multinationals means making the rest of society pay for the unions' fattened paychecks and absurd "job-for-life" demands, then I guess I'd agree.
Ask yourself -- why did the employees organize an illegal sick-out? Because strikes have been made illegal!
Uh, no they haven't.
Imagine -- you're not allowed to miss work, even to protest, and if you do, you get thrown in jail!
No, you'll get fired. There's a difference.
And in response to the multiple "anywhere in the world but the USA" remarks, I'd also point out that the USA happens to have the strongest, most dynamic economy in the world. There just might be a correlation there...
Doesn't the reaction of the ZDNet folks seem a bit odd? Their spokesman talked only about how they must have been attacked because they are "the leading technology" site on the Internet, and how this must be a campaign against the top brands out there. It sounds like they were flattered...
I should think most libraries have policies relating to book check-out that require local residence. I know my local library does. You can't just drive in from hours away and check out books, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that same requirement extended to net access. Again, it was just a thought...
Maybe they wanted to verify that you were a local resident, therefore eligible to use library resources? Just a thought...
I'm eager as hell to see the Lord of the Rings movies that are due to come out over the next couple of years. Without the guarantee that the studio will be able to make money off of secondary distribution (DVD's, etc.) you can bet that they wouldn't plop down $300 million on the project. It's similar to the issue of patent protection for pharmaceutical companies. Without the security of having the sole right to distribute a drug for the first several years, it's not worth the millions of dollars of research to produce new drugs.
In short, those who want all information to be free will only get what they pay for.
Taking a slightly different angle, the owner of the Washington Capitals has issued laptops to all the players and coaches, for the purpose of greater interaction with fans through the team's website. Will the Fords do the same thing now with the Detroit Lions?
There are more important battles to be fought and won when it comes to preserving individuality and diversity on the Internet. Digging in your heels to protect movie & music pirates only discredits this forum, which should instead be providing a sensible discussion on how individual voices will still be heard amidst the consolidation of media companies that seek to dominate Net culture.
Profits? What profits? This is Amazon we're talking about. They can lose millions of dollars at a record pace, and still get Bezos named Time's Man of the Year...
If $20,000/year for a patent license represents a "fatal blow", then those startups must have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel...
Since most of D&D comes straight out of Tolkien, I'll wait until the Lord of the Rings movies start coming out (when is that, summer 2001?).
These aren't ignorant assumptions, just impressions after having watched about half a dozen debates over the last several weeks...
1. Jurisdiction. If a cracker in Michigan breaks into a firm's corporate servers in California, and steals a Delaware man's credit card number, all 3 states have claims on jurisdiction. Coordinating the investigation and (eventual) prosecution through one federal office makes plenty of sense.
2. Information gathering. LawNet could serve as a useful central bank for investigative units to share information with other units that are working on the same (or similar) cases. Using the above example, LawNet would provide the mechanism by which the California investigators report their findings regarding the intrusion, so the ones in Michigan know what direction to head in. Exchanging this kind of information quickly and effectively has huge potential benefits for the investigators.