When security patches are no longer available for an OS such as the case with NT4, it becomes a major security risk. With the new laws such as HIPAA and HITECH, hospital IT staffs risk massive security breaches, lawsuits and fines if hospitals such as yours take that stance.
Sorry, but at best, that's not the whole picture, and at worst, it's just plain inaccurate. If the upgrade costs more than the likely cost of a breach, an upgrade won't happen. Upgrades can cost many millions, not just in hardware/equipment costs, but in re-training, software re-coding, etc etc. While non-compliance can cost money, the reality currently is that it usually just doesn't. Compliance is enough of a moving target, and audits rare enough (especially audits that do more than just check to be sure that the correct policy/procedures are actually written down), that the risk just isn't high enough to justify the massive costs of upgrading.
So secondly, your statement about "massive...lawsuits and fines" just isn't accurate. That is a risk in the case of gross negligence, but I doubt there is a review board in the country that would consider failure to upgrade an operating system which is working and passes their pen tests, and which the cost of upgrading is cost prohibitive to say the least, gross negligence.
Lastly, HIPAA isn't a new law, chief - it outdates XP by 5 years (HIPAA passed in 1996).
The other auction sites are often too small to be significant.
Well, not that I'm a huge online auction seller (just the odd unused widget cluttering up a closet now and then), but I've actually had a lot better luck with Craigslist and Amazon than I ever had with eBay, at least in the past 5 years or so. I sold my first item on eBay (I think) in 2001, and back then it was great. Now, dealing with the draconian fraud checks, no-pay bidders, offshore bidders, fraudulent complaints, 3-week wait for your money on Paypal (if you're lucky), cancelled bids at the last second, complete lack of support, etc - and then having them charge a fortune for the experience - the headache just isn't worth it.
Never had a bad Craigslist experience, though - always used it only to buy/sell locally/face-to-face with cash (everything else on Craigslist seems to be a scam), of course - but actually made a few friends that way, too. Amazon works great for selling more obscure stuff that won't get attention on Craigslist.
When living your life often requires internet access, then it becomes a right.
I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or just be disgusted by the fact that you think one can't live one's life without internet access. What basic function of existence, exactly (and by the way, entertainment - as per your video machine rental analogy - isn't a basic function of existence) becomes impossible without the internet? How exactly do you think mankind lived before the internet existed (and by the way, I'm an old(ish) fart so I've spent more of my life without the internet than with it)?
The number of examples where email/broadband availability is ASSUMED will increase in the future, because it is cheaper to remove human cost from the equation. Thus, the non-internet minority will become marginalized to an increasingly greater degree.
And here you've committed a horrible and dangerous logical error, thereby missing the fact that marginalizing a segment of mankind because they a) can't afford a service, or b) choose - for whatever reason - not to spend money on that service, would be a pretty facist action. Whether or not it happens anyway isn't the issue; tacit acceptance of that happening (and thereby mandating that service as a human right) is.
The internet is a wonderful thing - and access to it is certainly a nice thing to have. It does make some aspects of living in a 1st-world country very convenient (we can argue later about how convenience can and often does destroy skill, but for now we'll assume convenience is a good thing). But the absence of it does not make life unlivable. Anyone who says different probably works for Comcast.:)
Right - closed development system requiring you to jailbreak your own PC before installing anything apple didn't "approve" (and probably some nice legal language detailing the graphic rape you'll subject yourself to if you do jailbreak it)? Little or no ability to build/customize your own system due to a very small (and outrageously priced) list of "approved" hardware? DRM, DRM, and more f**king DRM? No thanks, I'll take bumbling, inept M$ as the market share leader any day.
You'd think, as someone who lives out in the boondocks in the southern US, it's not as uncommon as you'd think. I had a similar problem for a couple of years on my DRIVEWAY (it was a very long gravel driveway that looked kind of like an access road, but still). After considering the 12-gauge approach for a while, I used some hunting cameras in strategic locations and was able to get license numbers, hi-res photos, everything - one call to the county Sheriff and the problem was taken care of - large fine plus a term in the county jail. I decided not to sue them since they probably didn't have anything to take anyway, but could have.
The data about tobacco-related deaths is badly overblown (ref: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blowing-smoke-about-tobaccorelated-deaths), to the point of becoming a bureaucratic crusade, and a point for fanatics to get stuck up about. Once you really dig into the facts, most people would likely be surprised at the lack of real studies done about the dangers of tobacco; most of what is taken for granted to be true just hasn't been proven scientifically (second-hand smoke, for example), or it's badly outdated and uses questionable scientific method (such as those "studies" done by the 3rd Reich - Hitler notoriously despised tobacco usage).
I have had the benefit in a previous job of having access to a large amount of (PHI-redacted) medical record data used for research purposes - over 130 million lives with records ranging from 5-40 years back - including some social history including tobacco/alcohol usage. Try as we might, we simply couldn't build a solid case showing that smoking killed people. It just didn't seem to be the case; while people who smoke certainly do die at young ages occasionally, the striking fact is that people who don't smoke also occasionally die at young ages - and no matter how you slice the data, there's just nothing to build a solid case for proving that cigarettes cause early death.
Ah, but are you then saying that only the fear of consequence keeps humanity in line? Meaning, if one doesn't fear consequence, one will commit any act up and and including brutal violations of others? And by extension, if there are no positive consequences to be had, do altruistic acts become nonexistent?
I don't actually have an opinion on that - it's a tough question.
There's just something deliciously ironic about this.
So no smiles - how about grimaces, massive frowns, or even clown-like pull-your-lips-hoizontally-cross-your-eyes-and-stick-out-your-tounge?
I say treat these asshole bureaucrats with exactly the respect they deserve - either smile or pull one of the above stunts, refuse to change your expression until he snaps the picture, and refuse to move until you get your license. Can't think of a broken law there. Seriously, don't stand for this shit, people. Make their jobs impossible - if everyone does it, this crap won't fly anymore.
Oh I think this is a great idea. No, really. And while we're at it, let's let everyone take over the CEO's job for a week, in rotation. I mean, if the CEO can code, why can't the code monkeys be CEO?
/sarcasm
Although sadly, that would probably greatly improve the fortunes of a lot of companies I happen to have been associated with.
Yeah. "Random Salesman CEO Spouts Nonsense Showing His Lack Of Clue".
No kidding. "Benioff shamelessly kisses Zuckerberg's ass." How is this news? All I see here is a clueless CEO talking about something he doesn't understand.
Ok ok - at the risk of spouting the bloody obvious, collaborative software is cool. But it isn't new, by any stretch of the imagination, and Facebook certainly didn't invent it. Nor is Facebook the shining standard in collaborative platforms. Maybe it has the largest user base, but just because millions of people use it doesn't mean it's awesome. In fact, as adaptations of collaborative software go, I would even put Facebook at the front of the pack. I find it horribly frustrating and klutzy (or I did, for the couple of years I actually had an account). "All software is going to look like Facebook?" God help us.
Uh, no. Maybe in some places that's true - maybe even in many places, but that just isn't the case across the board. The 55mph speed limit (default on the interstates in most cities I've driven in), first of all, is arbitrary and outdated. Secondly, in too many places (seems like small towns are commonly at fault for this), the speed limit is just a blatant speed trap / revenue generator. Near where I live, for example, the speed in a small town (which made national news for this and the extortionate pricing structure of their speeding tickets, actually, but brazenly refused to change either) drops abruptly from 55 to 25 (!!) for about 500 yards as the highway (which is perfectly straight and level, BTW) travels at an oblique angle through one corner of the town limits. That's an extreme example, but "speed traps" in general are hardly uncommon.
In some states, only certain professionals can even form LLC's.
True but you can technically form an LLC in any state you want. Delaware and Nevada are the most popular due to their lenient oversight laws (on LLC's at least).
Apple has created a bunch of adapters to let old cables and hardware work with Lightning.
Oh sure, and they'll be happy to let you have them for only apiece. You'll need at least 5 or 6, of course, since they're tiny and easily lost. This connector thing is the second time Apple has disapointed me with this crap; the last time was when they changed the power adapter for the Retina Macbook pro, for no good reason. Sorry Apple, I generally love your stuff, but that smells like an evil attempt to make a few (million) bucks off over-priced adapters. And it's enough to keep me with my good old iPhone 4.
Other than TSA being their usual charming selves (obvious racial profiling as another commenter noted), it all just sounds like another good reason not to fly Delta to me. I've been avoiding them for years; their planes are ancient and cramped, their staff sucks, they lose luggage like no one else in the business, and their prices are at least as high or higher than the competition.
Wow, have a lot of trouble thinking in a straight line, do you?
Speech is what's protected here. Therefore, it isn't the violence which is protected by free speech, but my statement regarding the violence.
Hope I cleared that up for ya'.
Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line.
That shouldn't even be up for debate here. If we're taking up that debate with the Mayor, then we've already fallen for his straw-man and are missing the point completely. Of COURSE it's overstepping the line; that's obvious and doesn't need debate. The real problem here is that New Yorkers aren't fighting stuff like this for all they're worth - non-violent whenever possible, violent when necessary. And yes, that's constitutionally protected free speech.
For now, Bloomberg, you evil fiend, I hope this at least destroys whatever tourist traffic is left in the big apple. I, for one, will not ever be traveling to your city as long as this crap exists (and it's a shame, because there is much about New York that I love).
Nothing wrong with that most of the time - work isn't the place for it though, IMHO. It's distracting, at best. Don't misunderstand me, though - I'm not trying to find excuses for the guy in the scenario mentioned - he was undoubtedly in the wrong as well.
While it is absolutely acceptable to ensure all team members conform to the dress code, it is inappropriate to dress down a woman for "wearing enticing clothing" in the context of a male coworker's sexual advances. The infraction the female team member committed was against the lab dress code, which is not there to ensure the correct behavior of the male team members.
No, and that's an extremely stupid way of viewing things. What this manager did was quite correct (and in case you missed it, it also fixed the problem). There's absolutely no difference in dressing down a girl for wearing clothes that put everything her mother gave her on display and dressing down a guy for making sexual advances toward her (regardless of what she's wearing). You say he's "sent a message" to a female team member that the dress code is there to marshall her sexuality - when actually, he's just trying to keep her from sending a message that says "fuck me" to everything within 50 miles that has a penis (and maybe a lot of things that don't).
Would you have a problem with a man wearing clothes that clearly display the outline of his erect penis? Would you have a problem with a dress code that disallowed that, or would you consider that "marshalling his sexuality?" Strangely, I suspect you would have no problem with a girl making an explicit verbal overture to one of her male co-workers (she's just excersizing her sexual freedom, right?), and yet, how is any of that any different than when the genders are reversed?
My point is that there's a double-standard being held here, by both sides, and neither is right. The workplace isn't the place for sexual advances by either sex, and both sexes need to have more respect for the others' sexuality. If a girl's a prude, guys (and girls) ought to respect that, and if somebody wants to bang the shit out of everything in sight, don't make it obvious at work.
I appreciate your non-abrasive style, but I can't let this one statement go...
Never mind that if you are pulling down over a quarter million a year, you aren't going to miss a few tens of thousands.
Actually, if you "pull down" $250,000/yr, you will pay approximately $53,000 in income taxes alone (assuming married filing jointly, no itemized deductions). That's 1/5 of your income. Social security is another 15% ($37,500), sales taxes are usually between 7 and 10% of what you purchase, etc. Your statement is vastly mis-leading; someone making $250,000/yr will most certainly miss the $100,000+ they pay in taxes every year. The tax rate in the US on the upper middle class is NOT trivial.
Hate to piss on the parade here, but actually Apple can deny sales to anyone they like. They're a private company. It might be rude, but there's no reason why they can't if they don't want to. And no, they don't need a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
And who says he hasn't?
When security patches are no longer available for an OS such as the case with NT4, it becomes a major security risk. With the new laws such as HIPAA and HITECH, hospital IT staffs risk massive security breaches, lawsuits and fines if hospitals such as yours take that stance.
Sorry, but at best, that's not the whole picture, and at worst, it's just plain inaccurate. If the upgrade costs more than the likely cost of a breach, an upgrade won't happen. Upgrades can cost many millions, not just in hardware/equipment costs, but in re-training, software re-coding, etc etc. While non-compliance can cost money, the reality currently is that it usually just doesn't. Compliance is enough of a moving target, and audits rare enough (especially audits that do more than just check to be sure that the correct policy/procedures are actually written down), that the risk just isn't high enough to justify the massive costs of upgrading.
So secondly, your statement about "massive...lawsuits and fines" just isn't accurate. That is a risk in the case of gross negligence, but I doubt there is a review board in the country that would consider failure to upgrade an operating system which is working and passes their pen tests, and which the cost of upgrading is cost prohibitive to say the least, gross negligence.
Lastly, HIPAA isn't a new law, chief - it outdates XP by 5 years (HIPAA passed in 1996).
The other auction sites are often too small to be significant.
Well, not that I'm a huge online auction seller (just the odd unused widget cluttering up a closet now and then), but I've actually had a lot better luck with Craigslist and Amazon than I ever had with eBay, at least in the past 5 years or so. I sold my first item on eBay (I think) in 2001, and back then it was great. Now, dealing with the draconian fraud checks, no-pay bidders, offshore bidders, fraudulent complaints, 3-week wait for your money on Paypal (if you're lucky), cancelled bids at the last second, complete lack of support, etc - and then having them charge a fortune for the experience - the headache just isn't worth it.
Never had a bad Craigslist experience, though - always used it only to buy/sell locally/face-to-face with cash (everything else on Craigslist seems to be a scam), of course - but actually made a few friends that way, too. Amazon works great for selling more obscure stuff that won't get attention on Craigslist.
Unless you opt out...
Best option IMHO is to opt out - as in, completely. As in, don't use Paypal, ever, for anything. There are alternatives.
When living your life often requires internet access, then it becomes a right.
I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or just be disgusted by the fact that you think one can't live one's life without internet access. What basic function of existence, exactly (and by the way, entertainment - as per your video machine rental analogy - isn't a basic function of existence) becomes impossible without the internet? How exactly do you think mankind lived before the internet existed (and by the way, I'm an old(ish) fart so I've spent more of my life without the internet than with it)?
The number of examples where email/broadband availability is ASSUMED will increase in the future, because it is cheaper to remove human cost from the equation. Thus, the non-internet minority will become marginalized to an increasingly greater degree.
And here you've committed a horrible and dangerous logical error, thereby missing the fact that marginalizing a segment of mankind because they a) can't afford a service, or b) choose - for whatever reason - not to spend money on that service, would be a pretty facist action. Whether or not it happens anyway isn't the issue; tacit acceptance of that happening (and thereby mandating that service as a human right) is.
:)
The internet is a wonderful thing - and access to it is certainly a nice thing to have. It does make some aspects of living in a 1st-world country very convenient (we can argue later about how convenience can and often does destroy skill, but for now we'll assume convenience is a good thing). But the absence of it does not make life unlivable. Anyone who says different probably works for Comcast.
Right - closed development system requiring you to jailbreak your own PC before installing anything apple didn't "approve" (and probably some nice legal language detailing the graphic rape you'll subject yourself to if you do jailbreak it)? Little or no ability to build/customize your own system due to a very small (and outrageously priced) list of "approved" hardware? DRM, DRM, and more f**king DRM? No thanks, I'll take bumbling, inept M$ as the market share leader any day.
Mod parent way the hell up. At least M$ is the devil we know.
All the signs I've ever seen there say: "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT; SURVIVORS WILL BE PROSECUTED"
And they're not kidding, either. Diddo with the "Danger - Landmines" signs...
It will probably just get stolen - as they're dumping more trash, of course.
You'd think, as someone who lives out in the boondocks in the southern US, it's not as uncommon as you'd think. I had a similar problem for a couple of years on my DRIVEWAY (it was a very long gravel driveway that looked kind of like an access road, but still). After considering the 12-gauge approach for a while, I used some hunting cameras in strategic locations and was able to get license numbers, hi-res photos, everything - one call to the county Sheriff and the problem was taken care of - large fine plus a term in the county jail. I decided not to sue them since they probably didn't have anything to take anyway, but could have.
The data about tobacco-related deaths is badly overblown (ref: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blowing-smoke-about-tobaccorelated-deaths), to the point of becoming a bureaucratic crusade, and a point for fanatics to get stuck up about. Once you really dig into the facts, most people would likely be surprised at the lack of real studies done about the dangers of tobacco; most of what is taken for granted to be true just hasn't been proven scientifically (second-hand smoke, for example), or it's badly outdated and uses questionable scientific method (such as those "studies" done by the 3rd Reich - Hitler notoriously despised tobacco usage).
I have had the benefit in a previous job of having access to a large amount of (PHI-redacted) medical record data used for research purposes - over 130 million lives with records ranging from 5-40 years back - including some social history including tobacco/alcohol usage. Try as we might, we simply couldn't build a solid case showing that smoking killed people. It just didn't seem to be the case; while people who smoke certainly do die at young ages occasionally, the striking fact is that people who don't smoke also occasionally die at young ages - and no matter how you slice the data, there's just nothing to build a solid case for proving that cigarettes cause early death.
Ah, but are you then saying that only the fear of consequence keeps humanity in line? Meaning, if one doesn't fear consequence, one will commit any act up and and including brutal violations of others? And by extension, if there are no positive consequences to be had, do altruistic acts become nonexistent?
I don't actually have an opinion on that - it's a tough question.
There's just something deliciously ironic about this.
So no smiles - how about grimaces, massive frowns, or even clown-like pull-your-lips-hoizontally-cross-your-eyes-and-stick-out-your-tounge?
I say treat these asshole bureaucrats with exactly the respect they deserve - either smile or pull one of the above stunts, refuse to change your expression until he snaps the picture, and refuse to move until you get your license. Can't think of a broken law there. Seriously, don't stand for this shit, people. Make their jobs impossible - if everyone does it, this crap won't fly anymore.
Oh I think this is a great idea. No, really. And while we're at it, let's let everyone take over the CEO's job for a week, in rotation. I mean, if the CEO can code, why can't the code monkeys be CEO?
/sarcasm
Although sadly, that would probably greatly improve the fortunes of a lot of companies I happen to have been associated with.
Yeah. "Random Salesman CEO Spouts Nonsense Showing His Lack Of Clue".
No kidding. "Benioff shamelessly kisses Zuckerberg's ass." How is this news? All I see here is a clueless CEO talking about something he doesn't understand.
Ok ok - at the risk of spouting the bloody obvious, collaborative software is cool. But it isn't new, by any stretch of the imagination, and Facebook certainly didn't invent it. Nor is Facebook the shining standard in collaborative platforms. Maybe it has the largest user base, but just because millions of people use it doesn't mean it's awesome. In fact, as adaptations of collaborative software go, I would even put Facebook at the front of the pack. I find it horribly frustrating and klutzy (or I did, for the couple of years I actually had an account). "All software is going to look like Facebook?" God help us.
Speed limits also are well thought out...
Uh, no. Maybe in some places that's true - maybe even in many places, but that just isn't the case across the board. The 55mph speed limit (default on the interstates in most cities I've driven in), first of all, is arbitrary and outdated. Secondly, in too many places (seems like small towns are commonly at fault for this), the speed limit is just a blatant speed trap / revenue generator. Near where I live, for example, the speed in a small town (which made national news for this and the extortionate pricing structure of their speeding tickets, actually, but brazenly refused to change either) drops abruptly from 55 to 25 (!!) for about 500 yards as the highway (which is perfectly straight and level, BTW) travels at an oblique angle through one corner of the town limits. That's an extreme example, but "speed traps" in general are hardly uncommon.
In some states, only certain professionals can even form LLC's.
True but you can technically form an LLC in any state you want. Delaware and Nevada are the most popular due to their lenient oversight laws (on LLC's at least).
Apple has created a bunch of adapters to let old cables and hardware work with Lightning.
Oh sure, and they'll be happy to let you have them for only apiece. You'll need at least 5 or 6, of course, since they're tiny and easily lost. This connector thing is the second time Apple has disapointed me with this crap; the last time was when they changed the power adapter for the Retina Macbook pro, for no good reason. Sorry Apple, I generally love your stuff, but that smells like an evil attempt to make a few (million) bucks off over-priced adapters. And it's enough to keep me with my good old iPhone 4.
Other than TSA being their usual charming selves (obvious racial profiling as another commenter noted), it all just sounds like another good reason not to fly Delta to me. I've been avoiding them for years; their planes are ancient and cramped, their staff sucks, they lose luggage like no one else in the business, and their prices are at least as high or higher than the competition.
Wow, have a lot of trouble thinking in a straight line, do you?
Speech is what's protected here. Therefore, it isn't the violence which is protected by free speech, but my statement regarding the violence.
Hope I cleared that up for ya'.
Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line.
That shouldn't even be up for debate here. If we're taking up that debate with the Mayor, then we've already fallen for his straw-man and are missing the point completely. Of COURSE it's overstepping the line; that's obvious and doesn't need debate. The real problem here is that New Yorkers aren't fighting stuff like this for all they're worth - non-violent whenever possible, violent when necessary. And yes, that's constitutionally protected free speech.
For now, Bloomberg, you evil fiend, I hope this at least destroys whatever tourist traffic is left in the big apple. I, for one, will not ever be traveling to your city as long as this crap exists (and it's a shame, because there is much about New York that I love).
Nothing wrong with that most of the time - work isn't the place for it though, IMHO. It's distracting, at best. Don't misunderstand me, though - I'm not trying to find excuses for the guy in the scenario mentioned - he was undoubtedly in the wrong as well.
While it is absolutely acceptable to ensure all team members conform to the dress code, it is inappropriate to dress down a woman for "wearing enticing clothing" in the context of a male coworker's sexual advances. The infraction the female team member committed was against the lab dress code, which is not there to ensure the correct behavior of the male team members.
No, and that's an extremely stupid way of viewing things. What this manager did was quite correct (and in case you missed it, it also fixed the problem). There's absolutely no difference in dressing down a girl for wearing clothes that put everything her mother gave her on display and dressing down a guy for making sexual advances toward her (regardless of what she's wearing). You say he's "sent a message" to a female team member that the dress code is there to marshall her sexuality - when actually, he's just trying to keep her from sending a message that says "fuck me" to everything within 50 miles that has a penis (and maybe a lot of things that don't).
Would you have a problem with a man wearing clothes that clearly display the outline of his erect penis? Would you have a problem with a dress code that disallowed that, or would you consider that "marshalling his sexuality?" Strangely, I suspect you would have no problem with a girl making an explicit verbal overture to one of her male co-workers (she's just excersizing her sexual freedom, right?), and yet, how is any of that any different than when the genders are reversed?
My point is that there's a double-standard being held here, by both sides, and neither is right. The workplace isn't the place for sexual advances by either sex, and both sexes need to have more respect for the others' sexuality. If a girl's a prude, guys (and girls) ought to respect that, and if somebody wants to bang the shit out of everything in sight, don't make it obvious at work.
Seems like common sense to me.
I appreciate your non-abrasive style, but I can't let this one statement go...
Never mind that if you are pulling down over a quarter million a year, you aren't going to miss a few tens of thousands.
Actually, if you "pull down" $250,000/yr, you will pay approximately $53,000 in income taxes alone (assuming married filing jointly, no itemized deductions). That's 1/5 of your income. Social security is another 15% ($37,500), sales taxes are usually between 7 and 10% of what you purchase, etc. Your statement is vastly mis-leading; someone making $250,000/yr will most certainly miss the $100,000+ they pay in taxes every year. The tax rate in the US on the upper middle class is NOT trivial.
Hate to piss on the parade here, but actually Apple can deny sales to anyone they like. They're a private company. It might be rude, but there's no reason why they can't if they don't want to. And no, they don't need a reason.