I had an employer call me once while I was asleep. I made it very clear I HAD in fact been asleep; I didn't need to say anything more than "I was asleep when you called." Didn't happen again.
If you're going to sleep at work, then you should do it somewhere other than at your desk.
Ah, thank; I didn't pay close attention to the date mentioned in the article.
Having participated in the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance process (I was responsible for the company's B2B commerce website) I can assure you that the IT department is in-scope and auditors will expect to see security controls in place.
Yeah, Minnesota's great; all the liquor stores are government run and you can't buy booze on Sunday. I was more than a little confused when I couldn't find the beer and wine section at the local grocery store.
My former employer really needs to read that article. I was originally hired by a small toy manufacturer that had a really cool culture and I also had a really good boss that didn't care if I got in at 9:30 or 10:00 instead of 9:00 sharp so long as the work was done. Then they were bought by a much larger, publicly traded corporation and everything went to hell. The office was moved from downtown Chicago (where most employees lived) to the western suburbs (my commute went from seven minutes to an hour), the starting hour was moved up to 8:00 am (7:00 in the summer) and I was assigned to a boss that followed HR's policies to the letter and would complain if I got in fifteen minutes late two days in a row. HR explicitly stated that everyone (except the execs of course) was required to be in the office at the same time so that we were all working together. No consideration was given to people (like me) who could do their work from anywhere in the world (I was responsible for the administration and development of their B2B commerce website) and who met with other groups in the company very unfrequently. My former boss actually gave a colleague of mine grief because he was coming in late due to going through a divorce and having to meet with his attorney in the mornings.
In the end I think those sorts of policies simply encouraged resentment by employees; it didn't help matters that some employees were already quite upset at having to work for new management. My friend who was going through the divorce had enough and just called in one day and said he wouldn't be coming in anymore. I ended up leaving because I was sick of having to get up at 5:30 am to make it to the office by 7:00 when I could have just done my work from my home office. Why should I keep punishing myself to benefit that sort of company when I can easily get another job that is more employee friendly?
The articles I've read regarding the strap issue have mentioned the Wii-Sports baseball game. I guess people haven't figured out that you don't need to move your whole arm to throw a good fastball, just flick your wrist down; you'll get the maximum speed every time.
The question you should be asking is not, "would a background check have prevented this", it's "how the hell could one person alone cause that much damage on UBS' network"?
One person should not have been able to push a logic bomb out to thousands of machines without several other people in the organization knowing about it. Isn't UBS publicly traded? The Sarbanes-Oxley Act should have required that their IT group be audited to ensure that controls were in place to prevent exactly this sort of situation.
The VoIP could very well be the death of the telecommunication industry in India.
Right. Because it's not like those VOIP streams flow through the telecommunication companies' networks.
Consider this fact - a call to the US can be made just for Rs 5 a minute using VoIP compared to Rs 20 a minute using land line or even more using mobile phone.
Consider this fact - VOIP calls can be carried over an IP network without ever touching a plain old telephone system (POTS) line. What that means is that if you have an always-on Internet connection, your calls do not incur a per minute charge; the use is covered by your monthly service fee.
The reason you pay a per minute charge to VOIP companies like Skype or Vonage is so that you can use their proxy/bridge service. This allows somone with an IP phone to call someone on POTS lines and vice versa. If you're calling someone with an IP phone from your own IP phone (like the Cisco 7960 sitting on my desk, or a software based phone) then you don't need to use a VOIP service provider, you just need the other party's URL, eg. sip://somebody@ip_phone/. Another benefit of calling from IP phone to IP phone is that you can use the standard techniques for routing, securing, encrypting and capturing traffic.
I wonder what implications the law has for VOIP software itself. After all, the only reason you need to pay a company like Skype is to use their proxy services. If you have a SIP softphone and know the URL of someone else with a SIP softphone you can call them directly.
The point is, that without a license to copy, you cannot copy. Period.
That's true, but I don't believe that accepting a copy of a work from someone who does not have the right to duplicate it for you is a crime.
And you are stealing. Not butter or bread or houses, but intellectual property.
FWIW, intellectual property is nothing but ideas. You can't steal IP any more than you can steal someone's thoughts.
Anyone that disagrees with basic premise of copyright protection is the reason why companies and individuals waste resources to lock up their property with DRM. Congratulations!!
You seem to be arguing that the public should just shut up and accept bad law rather than fighting to change it and that DRM exists only to ensure that people properly compensate copyright holders. I would argue that both statements are incorrect.
If you are completely clueless, think about intellectual property as a book.
Yes, you would have to be completely clueless to accept that analogy. Intellectual property is nothing more than ideas! It's not somthing tangible, like a book. You are arguing that photocopying a library book is equivalent to taking the book home with you; they're not.
Of course, this will get modded down by some yahoos that do not udnerstand more than l33t and h4x3r.
No, this was modded down by some yahoos with an understanding of copyright law!
They are also one of the major reason for DRM is here.
Sorry, wrong again! DRM is here because the major content producers in the USA want to weasel out of their end of the social contract that is copyright law. They want a way of preventing the public from exercising their rights to the works they've purchased.
IIRC, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) has a connection to this network. Does anyone from UIC have any information about what's going on with it? I attended classes in the college of Engineering (EECS) from '94 till '98, but I can't recall anyone ever mentioning it.
I would assume labs like the Electronic Visualization Lab would have had a connection to this network, but perhaps only the medical campus is using it?
I'm confused, you used Chicago and ticket in the same sentence. I can understand if you meant the Chicagoland area, but not the city proper. That's one of the things I love about the city, you won't get hassled for a ticket unless you're doing something really egregious. Now the suburbs... Sheesh. I swear the cops have nothing better to do than fsck with motorists.
45 is the absolute limit under optimal conditions.
The posted speed limit is nothing more than notification that you're risking a speeding ticket by driving faster. I think I've only seen one speed limit sign in my life where the number on it approximated the maximum speed for negotiating the turn.
The real speed limit is simply how fast you can drive given the amount of traffic in front of you and the road conditions. I drive I-94 daily, the posted limit is 55 mph, the real limit is 75 mph in the left lane. Heck, even 75 mph is slow if it's night and there's no traffic.
Reality is that the speed limit is treated as the minimum speed by many, if not most, drivers. If you don't like it, tough, move to the right; but for the love of God don't obstruct traffic and then complain that everyone behind you is driving too fast.
I must admit I would never waste my money on something like Tivo, so I'm hoping I don't make too big a fool of myself.
I don't understand why someone would go through the effort of downloading movies from their TiVo to watch on a PC.
Basic TiVo quality isn't so hot
Isn't the quality as good as an analog television broadcast?
The TV shows that I record in high-quality usually exist on purchasable DVD's anyway
Why pay for the shows on DVD when you can record them for free? Also, be aware that the DVD releases of television shows aren't necessarily the same thing. For example, you simply cannot buy copies of the same Beavis and Butthead episodes you watched on MTV in the 90's due to licensing restriction on the music videos. Likewise, some studios have taken to censoring content when releasing to DVD; for releases of Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry have been censored to remove potentially offensive material.
Who ever watch movies more than once or twice? Thanks to Netflix, there is a never ending list of good movies that I've never seen
Is that a joke? I suppose I can assume you're not a collector. As the owner of well over 200 DVDs, I can assure you there is plenty to watch more than once. For example: The Simpsons, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, the original Star Wars trilogy, LOTR, The Big Lebowski, Hackers, New Jack City, Office Space, etc.
I pretty much don't watch television anymore, but I can imagine that people who own a Tivo would like to get as much use out of it as possible. I find it more than a little sad that Tivo owners are actually fighting with the manufacturer in order to use the features in the thing and that the manufacturer has sided with the content producers instead of its customers.
Personally, I think Bush really fscked things up by pulling Jay Garner out of Iraq and installing Paul Bremer III in his place. Garner wanted to keep the Iraqi military intact and continue paying pensions to the veterans; he also wanted to have the Iraqis immediately vote on new leadership. When Bremer took over, he
decided to disband the military, reneged on promises to pay the pensions and forced the Iraqis to wait many, many moths before electing new leaders.
Had the Iraqi army not been disbanded, I think we would have had a much better chance of keeping the peace.
Yes, I know there was a class-action lawsuit, but did those lasers really go bad or did the lens just get a bit dusty? I've seen the dreaded "Disc Read Error" many times, but simply opening up the PS2 and cleaning the laser lens fixed it every time. Since then I've picked up HD Advance 2.0 and copied my games over to a large hard drive so I rarely play from the original discs these days.
They've only got MGS4 and FF13 remaining as their big draws and both are too far off while the competition is hitting with Gears of War and Zelda right now.
While MGS4 may hit the PS2 first, it will no doubt be released for either the Gamecube or Wii. It took some time, but Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 were released for the Gamecube, and Snake will be a playable character in the new Super Smash Brothers game.
I'm not sure about Square's games, but they've shown up on Nintendo consoles in the past.
While I really love my PS1 and PS2, I think Sony dropped the ball with the PS3. While I can afford it, there's no way I'm dropping $700 on a system considering that I have no interest in Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD for that matter) and no intention of forking over obscene amounts of cash for a large LCD or plasma screen (sorry, my 32" CRT with component video is good enough).
So it seems that Sony's media division has once again ruined a potentially cool electronics device. Sony wouldn't have a manufacturing problem if they hadn't insisted on using Blu-Ray drives.
I would assume that people would prefer to have a console that plays games over not having one that can play games and Blu-Ray movies, but Sony apparently thinks otherwise.
JFC, read my comment again. I didn't say the GPL takes away your rights, I said it restricts your rights. I wanted to avoid this discussion, but compare the BSD license to the GPL and tell me the GPL is about freedom.
As a Libertarian, I'm always torn around election time. Do I vote for the Democratic candidate that believes in social justice, but wants to take my firearms away, do I vote for the Republican candidate that will let me keep my firearms, but wants to take away my porn, or do I vote for the Libertarian candidate that has no chance of being elected?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to sleep at work, then you should do it somewhere other than at your desk.
Ah, thank; I didn't pay close attention to the date mentioned in the article.
Having participated in the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance process (I was responsible for the company's B2B commerce website) I can assure you that the IT department is in-scope and auditors will expect to see security controls in place.
Dude, I read the content I know it doesn't mention home users which is why I was wondering how the law will affect them.
Yeah, Minnesota's great; all the liquor stores are government run and you can't buy booze on Sunday. I was more than a little confused when I couldn't find the beer and wine section at the local grocery store.
My former employer really needs to read that article. I was originally hired by a small toy manufacturer that had a really cool culture and I also had a really good boss that didn't care if I got in at 9:30 or 10:00 instead of 9:00 sharp so long as the work was done. Then they were bought by a much larger, publicly traded corporation and everything went to hell. The office was moved from downtown Chicago (where most employees lived) to the western suburbs (my commute went from seven minutes to an hour), the starting hour was moved up to 8:00 am (7:00 in the summer) and I was assigned to a boss that followed HR's policies to the letter and would complain if I got in fifteen minutes late two days in a row. HR explicitly stated that everyone (except the execs of course) was required to be in the office at the same time so that we were all working together. No consideration was given to people (like me) who could do their work from anywhere in the world (I was responsible for the administration and development of their B2B commerce website) and who met with other groups in the company very unfrequently. My former boss actually gave a colleague of mine grief because he was coming in late due to going through a divorce and having to meet with his attorney in the mornings.
In the end I think those sorts of policies simply encouraged resentment by employees; it didn't help matters that some employees were already quite upset at having to work for new management. My friend who was going through the divorce had enough and just called in one day and said he wouldn't be coming in anymore. I ended up leaving because I was sick of having to get up at 5:30 am to make it to the office by 7:00 when I could have just done my work from my home office. Why should I keep punishing myself to benefit that sort of company when I can easily get another job that is more employee friendly?
The articles I've read regarding the strap issue have mentioned the Wii-Sports baseball game. I guess people haven't figured out that you don't need to move your whole arm to throw a good fastball, just flick your wrist down; you'll get the maximum speed every time.
I suppose that depends on how hot she is.
The question you should be asking is not, "would a background check have prevented this", it's "how the hell could one person alone cause that much damage on UBS' network"?
One person should not have been able to push a logic bomb out to thousands of machines without several other people in the organization knowing about it. Isn't UBS publicly traded? The Sarbanes-Oxley Act should have required that their IT group be audited to ensure that controls were in place to prevent exactly this sort of situation.
Right. Because it's not like those VOIP streams flow through the telecommunication companies' networks.
Consider this fact - VOIP calls can be carried over an IP network without ever touching a plain old telephone system (POTS) line. What that means is that if you have an always-on Internet connection, your calls do not incur a per minute charge; the use is covered by your monthly service fee.
The reason you pay a per minute charge to VOIP companies like Skype or Vonage is so that you can use their proxy/bridge service. This allows somone with an IP phone to call someone on POTS lines and vice versa. If you're calling someone with an IP phone from your own IP phone (like the Cisco 7960 sitting on my desk, or a software based phone) then you don't need to use a VOIP service provider, you just need the other party's URL, eg. sip://somebody@ip_phone/. Another benefit of calling from IP phone to IP phone is that you can use the standard techniques for routing, securing, encrypting and capturing traffic.
I wonder what implications the law has for VOIP software itself. After all, the only reason you need to pay a company like Skype is to use their proxy services. If you have a SIP softphone and know the URL of someone else with a SIP softphone you can call them directly.
This is Slashdot, what do you expect?
That's true, but I don't believe that accepting a copy of a work from someone who does not have the right to duplicate it for you is a crime.
FWIW, intellectual property is nothing but ideas. You can't steal IP any more than you can steal someone's thoughts.
You seem to be arguing that the public should just shut up and accept bad law rather than fighting to change it and that DRM exists only to ensure that people properly compensate copyright holders. I would argue that both statements are incorrect.
Yes, you would have to be completely clueless to accept that analogy. Intellectual property is nothing more than ideas! It's not somthing tangible, like a book. You are arguing that photocopying a library book is equivalent to taking the book home with you; they're not.
No, this was modded down by some yahoos with an understanding of copyright law!
Sorry, wrong again! DRM is here because the major content producers in the USA want to weasel out of their end of the social contract that is copyright law. They want a way of preventing the public from exercising their rights to the works they've purchased.IIRC, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) has a connection to this network. Does anyone from UIC have any information about what's going on with it? I attended classes in the college of Engineering (EECS) from '94 till '98, but I can't recall anyone ever mentioning it.
I would assume labs like the Electronic Visualization Lab would have had a connection to this network, but perhaps only the medical campus is using it?
I say we eliminate speed limits and punish the hell out of people who get into accidents. Some of us are capable of driving safely at 90 mph.
Newsflash, laws are meant to be broken. Those people doing 75 mph in the left lane are okay with paying the speeding ticket.
I'm confused, you used Chicago and ticket in the same sentence. I can understand if you meant the Chicagoland area, but not the city proper. That's one of the things I love about the city, you won't get hassled for a ticket unless you're doing something really egregious. Now the suburbs... Sheesh. I swear the cops have nothing better to do than fsck with motorists.
The posted speed limit is nothing more than notification that you're risking a speeding ticket by driving faster. I think I've only seen one speed limit sign in my life where the number on it approximated the maximum speed for negotiating the turn.
The real speed limit is simply how fast you can drive given the amount of traffic in front of you and the road conditions. I drive I-94 daily, the posted limit is 55 mph, the real limit is 75 mph in the left lane. Heck, even 75 mph is slow if it's night and there's no traffic.
Reality is that the speed limit is treated as the minimum speed by many, if not most, drivers. If you don't like it, tough, move to the right; but for the love of God don't obstruct traffic and then complain that everyone behind you is driving too fast.
I must admit I would never waste my money on something like Tivo, so I'm hoping I don't make too big a fool of myself.
Isn't the quality as good as an analog television broadcast?
Why pay for the shows on DVD when you can record them for free? Also, be aware that the DVD releases of television shows aren't necessarily the same thing. For example, you simply cannot buy copies of the same Beavis and Butthead episodes you watched on MTV in the 90's due to licensing restriction on the music videos. Likewise, some studios have taken to censoring content when releasing to DVD; for releases of Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry have been censored to remove potentially offensive material.
Is that a joke? I suppose I can assume you're not a collector. As the owner of well over 200 DVDs, I can assure you there is plenty to watch more than once. For example: The Simpsons, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, the original Star Wars trilogy, LOTR, The Big Lebowski, Hackers, New Jack City, Office Space, etc.
I pretty much don't watch television anymore, but I can imagine that people who own a Tivo would like to get as much use out of it as possible. I find it more than a little sad that Tivo owners are actually fighting with the manufacturer in order to use the features in the thing and that the manufacturer has sided with the content producers instead of its customers.
*LOL* I think all Palm devices do that.
Personally, I think Bush really fscked things up by pulling Jay Garner out of Iraq and installing Paul Bremer III in his place. Garner wanted to keep the Iraqi military intact and continue paying pensions to the veterans; he also wanted to have the Iraqis immediately vote on new leadership. When Bremer took over, he decided to disband the military, reneged on promises to pay the pensions and forced the Iraqis to wait many, many moths before electing new leaders.
Had the Iraqi army not been disbanded, I think we would have had a much better chance of keeping the peace.
Yes, I know there was a class-action lawsuit, but did those lasers really go bad or did the lens just get a bit dusty? I've seen the dreaded "Disc Read Error" many times, but simply opening up the PS2 and cleaning the laser lens fixed it every time. Since then I've picked up HD Advance 2.0 and copied my games over to a large hard drive so I rarely play from the original discs these days.
While MGS4 may hit the PS2 first, it will no doubt be released for either the Gamecube or Wii. It took some time, but Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 were released for the Gamecube, and Snake will be a playable character in the new Super Smash Brothers game.
I'm not sure about Square's games, but they've shown up on Nintendo consoles in the past.
While I really love my PS1 and PS2, I think Sony dropped the ball with the PS3. While I can afford it, there's no way I'm dropping $700 on a system considering that I have no interest in Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD for that matter) and no intention of forking over obscene amounts of cash for a large LCD or plasma screen (sorry, my 32" CRT with component video is good enough).
So it seems that Sony's media division has once again ruined a potentially cool electronics device. Sony wouldn't have a manufacturing problem if they hadn't insisted on using Blu-Ray drives.
I would assume that people would prefer to have a console that plays games over not having one that can play games and Blu-Ray movies, but Sony apparently thinks otherwise.
Ah, I see. I'm just ripping my DVDs to a large RAID system in order to play them on my home network, I really have no need to burn discs.
I'll have to see what happens when I try playing such a disc on my RCA DVD player.
JFC, read my comment again. I didn't say the GPL takes away your rights, I said it restricts your rights. I wanted to avoid this discussion, but compare the BSD license to the GPL and tell me the GPL is about freedom.
I agree with you, but Topinka was no better.
As a Libertarian, I'm always torn around election time. Do I vote for the Democratic candidate that believes in social justice, but wants to take my firearms away, do I vote for the Republican candidate that will let me keep my firearms, but wants to take away my porn, or do I vote for the Libertarian candidate that has no chance of being elected?