"Creationism theory's "higher intelligence" explanation does NOT have to be associated to God..."
"My take on creationism is that a higher being MAY be responsible for the intricacies of life"
"This idea is exclusive from an association of God..."
Sounds like you've decided to believe in the possibility of a higher intelligence, and further have decided to define what it cannot be.
You have some evidence to support that?
Actually, you don't have to have any evidence. You can just believe, as many Christians do. You are free to, and I will defend your right to, though that is unnecessary. You can believe in your heart anything you want, and I can't stop you. At best, I could change your behavior. And I will not choose to do that.
"My point was after someone did something, they will think it the right thing, even if it takes some massively twisted internal logic, because people inherently believe themselves to be good."
If by 'right', you mean 'justified', then you are correct, probably. But I know people who do things they know are wrong, and don't indulge in the internal logic to justify it. Myself, for instance. I do what I do not wish to do, and know I do it because I want to. I don't make excuses to myself. I do, however, find myself wanting, and not living up to my own expectation. Not to mention others.
"People that do, say, road rage, would consider themselves good people, but then just tried to harm someone else. They'll justify it. Even if they cause a crash that leads to a death, they will go through the motions of "he was asking for it" or "he cut me off first" or whatever. Then, when prosecuted, they'll blame the dead guy, or their car's brakes, or anything but themselves. That's just how humans work. We don't think of ourselves as evil."
Some do, and some go through the motions (in court, for instance) knowing full well they are guilty as charged. At the moment, they probably have some justification - he deserved it, how dare he do that, they are in a hurry and don't these people have anything better to do than be in the way... But all that is the instantaneous response and yes, probably an internal justification that the moment justifies the act. But when confronted, only the truly pathological would entirely embrace the illusion, the momentary emotion, that justifies truly evil behavior for no other purpose than to assuage the emotion.
Don't you watch any movies, see shows on TV, where the plot is essentially a perpetrator who knows full well what they did was wrong, but they deny it and excuse it to everyone but themselves, and perhaps their confidants (lawyer usually)? Is it your contention that this doesn't happen in real life, or that while it may, these people are not only entirely common, but that their private remorse and public avoidance is based not on realization that they are on the wrong side of right, but that they genuinely believe that whatever they do is both justified and permissable, and society imposes an unfair limit on them?
And yes, there are people like that. But not all of us. You've never done anything wrong, and knew it while you were doing it? If so, God bless you. If not, God bless you.
The point you make is, essentially, that people are inclined to do the wrong thing. That we do, in our hearts, not only choose entirely in our onw self-interest, but do so without regard for the 'right' thing.
I'm afraid you're probably right.
But in their hearts, do even the worst criminals genuinely believe they do not deserve punishment? I'm not referring to the victim mentality that excuses any behavior on the basis that circumstances are undeserved, though in the end I guess it doesn't matter why they believe what they believe.
Are we glossing over the fairly good integration that Windows XP, Vista, and 7 have with AD, as well as the little bit of tinkering to make them continue to work?
AD administration is non-trivial no matter the platform. I wonder if Apple would be able to (or has already) delivered an imaging solution so you can roll out a few workstations that start out both identical and functional.
It's been a long, LONG time since I got entangled in Apple network management, and I remember mostly System 7 and the leap to OS X. The tools were pretty pathetic, even compared to NTAS and Windows for Workgroups. Fortunately, most of our Mac clients didn't expect much, just printer discovery and a file server. And to have AppleTalk work on phone wiring, like someone said on a bulletin board once...
"Suppose you and I go to court over the ownership of a widget that is in my possession, and lets say the court finds in your favor and orders me to hand over the widget. Naturally, in my view that order is wrong and the decision is unjust."
Um, if you STOLE the widget from me, you would not 'naturally' view the order as wrong, though that might be your defense. You would 'naturally' view the order as correct and just, but of course since you're a thief, you wouldn't much care. FWIW, I don't know that you are in real life a thief, and will assume you are not. This is a hypotetical.
You see, sometimes, amazingly, guilty people are in fact brought into a court of law and charged with their crimes. They stand trial and occasionally are punished. They may proclaim the innocence, and indeed are both entitled and expected to, but in the end we take the verdict as the result of proof beyond a resonable doubt, or in civil cases sufficient proof to award compensation. It is imperfect.
While we may feel the copyright laws are "incomprehensible, unbalanced, and written to the specification of narrow special interests, not with the good of society in mind", the proper response is not just to violate them willy-nilly and wail when we are punished under the law. Among the proper responses:
- Petition our representatives for relief. Have them re-write the laws. This is time-consuming and requires many petitioners.
- Engage in widespread disobedience, knowing the cost and danger, to overwhelm the courts and plaintiffs, intending to render the law unworkable.
- Press our appeals to the highest court and hope for a decision that renders the law moot.
At least, that's how I see it. Option 1 is tedious and fraught with uncertainty. Option 2 is dangerous. The opposition may well prevail, leaving you in a position where option 1 is discredited, or option 3 is cast against you. Opton 3 is also fraught with uncertainty. If you lose, the law is cemented in place and you're stuck with options 1&2.
My complaint with copyright law is becoming more fundamental. What SHOULD the law do? If to protect creators, then why should such protection outlive them? If to protect works, for how long?
The fact that you can still purchase sheet music for Beethove's Fifth Symphony puts the lie to the idea that copyright is critical to the availability of a work. Nowadays, you buy an 'arrangement', which is copyright, because it still has value. And the performance is coyprighted, since the orchestra etc. should bvenefit from their performance.
So, how long should the Beatles' songs be protected? well, technology seems to have overrun copyright, and now the law seems destined to 'protect' music forever, which is the life of digital recordings. So do we allow perpetual copyright? Are we protecting anyone who has a legitimate or defensible interest in the work? Do we ensure that Paul McCartney's great-great-grandchildren profit from his work?
Actually, this is unfortunate. There are still Rockerfellers profiting from their ancestors' businesses. Maybe we should allow musicians to be treated the same.
So this all comes down, ultimately, to how do we manage digital distribution. Well, this is unpopular, but getting a performance as a download without paying for it is still stealing. Unless the artist days you can. Unpopular. I know.
The RIAA's interest is less clear to me. The British equivalent has been accused of not even paying out royalties etc. to artists at all. Is that even germane?
Needless to say, I'm confused. So I buy the music I listen to.
I get this post from a friend of mine in Maine. Looks like our government is sporting over some recovery funds and one of Maine's more aggresive ISPs is gonna spend it making fiber around the rural areas of Maine.
And he better hurry, or Google will beat him to it! Oh, wait... Google will be looking for density and volume users. Where volume is spelled with dollar signs.
Now, are other states also going to start pulling fiber to add to the existing dark fiber, so we can continue to be ready to serve rural America?
Not that anyone will actually get service out in the woods with any of this fiber, though GWI in Maine deploys long-range DSL and does at least as well as the cable companies. Maybe better.
I have a 4-cell charger that will charge 2200MaH Ni-MH cells in 15 minutes. Special cells, but damn, I can recharge a spare set in about a half hour. Not unreasonably priced back then. These were the IC3 cells. I can't find them any more, apparently Ray-O-Vac discontinued them in favor of hybrid cells, not the same thing...
"Yes, the cases where people die would be better examples of cases where compensation isn't an adequate remedy (although, you'll notice, they are also the cases where we mostly handle them by holding people responsible;"
Ah, deterrence. Works fairly well in medicine, I think, somewhat in capital offenses.
Much less effective in netowrk security. Seems everyone thinks they aren't the problem. And then they install LimeWire cause it's fun.
Deterrence doesn't solve the compensation problem. And I hated giving my clients the goods so they could fire someone. It was a constant battle to move them towards reasonable and effective policies, like spelling out in advance what behaviors would not be acceptable.
Peer pressure was very effective. Once, when I worked next to the phone guys, they got a directive to determine why there was so much outbound calling, and for such long durations, at all hours of the day. One number stuck out as being used a lot of hours each day. This at a location with >1500 employees, most of which didn't have access to a phone. So the telco guys ran the reports, posted the results of the top 10 numbers dialed in the monthly executive newsletter. Next month, usege is reported down significantly, saving the purchase of $10,000 in additional line cards and of course additional dial lines. The #1 dialed number the previous month was gone from the top 25 report. The number? The local 'gay/lesbian hotline'. Not mentioned in the report, but when managers went to find out what this number was, it seems usage went down. I tried this with Internet use when bandwidth got a little tight, back in the T-1 days. Just posting the top 10 destinations was enlightening, and next month usage was completely different. Cnnmoney.com made sense since the CFO and his minions hovered over investments, but there were 3 of the top 10 that, as I described them to management, had 'no obvious business purpose'. One I had to list as to avoid offending some employees. Just listing them put an end to the traffic, and in 2 months I had to list the 4th top site as 'proxy relay'. When the managers found out what that meant, it disappeared from the list.
So I would be more inclined to report back to managers the marginal or violating behavior of their staff. Except that that is not prevention, merely deterrence after the fact.
It is unfortunate that we have to regard the Internet as unsafe. But it is unsafe.
This is hacking like sawing your front door out from the frame is picking the lock. Yes, they got in.
Or, perhaps, like coming home from a trip, kicking in your front door in Cambridge, and having the neighbors watch in amusement. With any luck, none of them would call 911 and tell the police that someone is busting into the house next door. Likewise, you will be losing your PC or notebook, but you will have some time to change your network and online passwords etc, if you're paying attention and not bound and gagged in the cave next door. Your hard drive, however, is fair game. Truecrypt means never having to say 'what password'?
And you'll WISH they were the Cambridge police.
Of course, if they're serious, you're dead already.
The URL is still visible. They block both HTTP and HTTPS, though I suspect from what I know of the proxy and filtering software, they can capture the UEL and block on that just fine.
ps- We use a LOT of HTTPS here. Managing that is not so much different from HTTP from a proxy/filter vantage point.
My original point was that if our team decides that Gmail (SSL or not) is giving access to services not permitted, like YouTube or Google Chat, they will block Gmail, and let us lose ALL of it.
You understand now?
Then I will be reduced to using my G1 to read my Gmail. Since my personal email is on my own server and domain, I will probably use the webmail for that directly rather than live on the pickup by Gmail. Which is just fine, until they figure out that Squirrelmail is also an email service, and start looking at it. Never know. The phone works. I will not be deprived.
This is anathema to many, especially the young, but...
There are some things that cannot be resolved by a 'hold them responsible for fuckups' policy. You would probable, for instance, not be impressed by that policy if it required firing several people who let your financial data spew forth. After all, your credit is gone, your house is gone, your future is unnecessarily complicated, and it will take years to put it all back. No amount of retribution will fix it or make you whole.
We've read many reports of data breaches, and the result is not mitigated by punishing those responsible. And despite our fondest hopes, it's kinda pointless to expect the mid-level sysadmin to sport over a few tens of millions of dollars to compensate their former employer for the damage and recovery. Just the letters cost real money to mail. Writing off lost revenue, disputed transactions, and such is nontrivial.
And that's just the financial industry. In healthcare, there are things that can be disclosed that have no fix. NO FIX. And cost is the wrong concept. People often consider their private medical history beyond value.
There is no real point in having a 'hold them responsible for fuckups' policy. It should be obvious that you are responsible. Prevention is the only solution for many scenarios.
And yes, the policy seems arbitrary. And it is. The team assesses threats and potentials, and assigns levels of risk. I'm often amused by the websites blocked, but I can figure out why most of the time. Among the reasons to block sites here seem to be: Obvious hacker actvity/encouragement, obvious time-wasting, socially unacceptable behavior, excessive bandwidth utilization without any business purpose, etc. I haven't tried going to 4chan, for instance, I expect it to be blocked. I've never even gone to Drudge.
And among other things, the corporate Internet bandwidth is clearly the property of the corporation to manage and control. I'm just an employee. I have nothing to say about it, my job does not require control or special privileges. I'm somewhat amazed that I get/.
If Google pimps up GMail enough, with file-sharing, social networking, instant-messaging, and gee-whiz features, it will get blocked at our firewall as a security risk.
Right now, Google Chat is blocked. Google Voice is blocked. YouTube is blocked. Google Docs is blocked.
Keep it up, Google, and I won't be able to use much Google at all at work.
Now, for those of you who have no responsibilities, feel free to flame on and explain why my corporate masters are shortsighted, maniacally obsessed with control, and oblivious to reality in their vain attempt to secure the corporate data, protect our customers' information, and be responsible to the shareholders. It starts out as funny, then becomes annoying, and finally settles into a tragic display of ignorance of the reality of large corporation security issues.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Or $50 million.
In the US, you can use GSM for voice calls anywhere in the US and Canada where you have a romaing agreement. Any GSM phone sold in the US will do this. Charges vary according to the roaming agreement.
Data services on GSM are entirely different.
EDGE is compatible between carriers.
AT&T uses different spectrum for their 3G service than T-Mobile does. I believe Rogers in Canada uses AT&T bands, but I'm not sure, and it doesn't change the FACT that in the US, T-Mobile's 3G service is incompatible with AT&T's service. Different bands. Just the way it is.
I do not know if GSM-based data services in Europe suffer from this problem.
Now, 3G on T-Mobile is called 'WCDMA', wideband CDMA if I recall correctly. While the signalling is WCDMA, it is not anything to do with CDMA.
To recap;
Yes, in the US you can make a GSM call from anywhere there is service. All carriers use the same voice standard.
No, you cannot use 3G service on every GSM carrier in the US. They are not on the same frequencies.
Yes, it is technically possible to do so if the phone hardware supported it. The carriers do not seem inclined to make it possible for you to use 3G service on the competition's network. Currently you have to buy another phone.
A manufacturer could come out with a phone that does it all on GSM, but they would probably market it directly. No subsidy.
The Nexus One (like all Android phones) is data-hungry. It wants a 3G signal to perform well. EDGE sucks so bad you woild give the phone back.
Since there may not be ANY phone sold in the US that does 3G on both AT&T and T-Mobile, your choice of Android phone pretty much determines which carrier you use - you don't want to buy a Nexus One for use on AT&T, since it will be a slow data phone. Ditto for buying an iPhone 3G or 3GS to use on T-Mobile. It will be slow and disappointing.
Locking GSM data-intensive phones in the US is pointless, and a complete lie. If you want a 3G phone, your carrier determines which phone you buy. For now, anyways.
Now, when there is a 3G 'smartphone', Android or not, that can handle both A&T and T-Mobile 3G, then locking becomes important again. But for now, Android GSM phones need not be locked, and smart people at the carriers know this. They just go along as they always have, cause it makes sense to most of us.
On the CDMA side, it's more interesting.
In Europe, it seems GSM is pretty compatible. And locking is not a viable business model there.
So if you buy a locked Android phone, you know at least one party doesn't get it.
The flash of supidity is thinking visitors to the iPhone App Store have any significant interest in Android apps.
Unless they also have an Android phone, in which case they are going over to the Market for those apps.
More Apple paintywaists, and more=less. Not a real big deal, but I wonder how Apple would react to a developer who mentioned their app was a finalist for a Nokia or Microsoft competition.
And the dev has a sense of humor. So they don't seem to need the mentions to achieve their goals. Good for them.
"After reading your post, I'm at a loss to discern whether it is you, or I, who has consumed the most spirits tonight."
It's not night here.
"I can assure you to my great displeasure that the women in my life have no problems playing it under Ubuntu, Debian, or even my personal Gentoo machine."
Welp, that's answered. Game on.
Gentoo? That explains the spirits comment. Aand the answer is, you have.
Remember, I said 'personal' computing. At work, you are trapped in your corporate overlords' world.
"For the most part that is because Google doesn't require using Google software on your personal computing device to access Google services."
"Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to take offense if you are not using their platform."
Taking offense or not, you are actually not required to use Microsoft products on your personal computing device to access Google services. Or many other services, for that matter.
We can, in fact, kiss Microsoft goodbye for our personal computing needs. Your corporate mileage may vary.
And you may have to get creative. Some of your fave apps might not be so easy to work with, might be different, etc. You could get used to it.
Another reason for me to show my wife how Ubuntu is really pretty easy to use. Now, does Firefox on Ubuntu play Farmville?
N900? Heavily marketed as something a lot like the G1. Usually as a 'Mobile Internet Device and Smartphone'. I interpret that as an even more general-purpose mobile platform. They chose (probably because they started before Android was) to not use Android, the alternative was, um, Linux. And I see them not going to Android, I think they mistrust Google even more.
This is an area where there is disagreement. But phones DO have different needs. Obviously. Nokia accomodated those within the mainline (?) kernel. Google drove Android in a very different direction.
Let's not get into the Maemo thing. It's just a little different, not quite as much as Android.
Oh, and while we're at it, a phone has different needs than a desktop PC or a server. So forking the kernel makes sense.
Google 'adding stuff'? The two-step they pulled off to let Dalvik bypass Java ME and avoid licensing adds complexity but solves a problem. It's necessary to make an open-source platform for phones, and it works. Along the lines of 'why a VM?', I think 'why a fork?' fits in the same slot. But yes, I suspect Google likes this to maintain control of Android.
So much for 'do no evil', but we've known this for quite a while.
Slashdot Mirror
"Creationism theory's "higher intelligence" explanation does NOT have to be associated to God..."
"My take on creationism is that a higher being MAY be responsible for the intricacies of life"
"This idea is exclusive from an association of God..."
Sounds like you've decided to believe in the possibility of a higher intelligence, and further have decided to define what it cannot be.
You have some evidence to support that?
Actually, you don't have to have any evidence. You can just believe, as many Christians do. You are free to, and I will defend your right to, though that is unnecessary. You can believe in your heart anything you want, and I can't stop you. At best, I could change your behavior. And I will not choose to do that.
"My point was after someone did something, they will think it the right thing, even if it takes some massively twisted internal logic, because people inherently believe themselves to be good."
If by 'right', you mean 'justified', then you are correct, probably. But I know people who do things they know are wrong, and don't indulge in the internal logic to justify it. Myself, for instance. I do what I do not wish to do, and know I do it because I want to. I don't make excuses to myself. I do, however, find myself wanting, and not living up to my own expectation. Not to mention others.
"People that do, say, road rage, would consider themselves good people, but then just tried to harm someone else. They'll justify it. Even if they cause a crash that leads to a death, they will go through the motions of "he was asking for it" or "he cut me off first" or whatever. Then, when prosecuted, they'll blame the dead guy, or their car's brakes, or anything but themselves. That's just how humans work. We don't think of ourselves as evil."
Some do, and some go through the motions (in court, for instance) knowing full well they are guilty as charged. At the moment, they probably have some justification - he deserved it, how dare he do that, they are in a hurry and don't these people have anything better to do than be in the way... But all that is the instantaneous response and yes, probably an internal justification that the moment justifies the act. But when confronted, only the truly pathological would entirely embrace the illusion, the momentary emotion, that justifies truly evil behavior for no other purpose than to assuage the emotion.
Don't you watch any movies, see shows on TV, where the plot is essentially a perpetrator who knows full well what they did was wrong, but they deny it and excuse it to everyone but themselves, and perhaps their confidants (lawyer usually)? Is it your contention that this doesn't happen in real life, or that while it may, these people are not only entirely common, but that their private remorse and public avoidance is based not on realization that they are on the wrong side of right, but that they genuinely believe that whatever they do is both justified and permissable, and society imposes an unfair limit on them?
And yes, there are people like that. But not all of us. You've never done anything wrong, and knew it while you were doing it? If so, God bless you. If not, God bless you.
The point you make is, essentially, that people are inclined to do the wrong thing. That we do, in our hearts, not only choose entirely in our onw self-interest, but do so without regard for the 'right' thing.
I'm afraid you're probably right.
But in their hearts, do even the worst criminals genuinely believe they do not deserve punishment? I'm not referring to the victim mentality that excuses any behavior on the basis that circumstances are undeserved, though in the end I guess it doesn't matter why they believe what they believe.
Let's not get started on a directory flamewar. It's never the directory, it's the tools. Or something like that.
Did I just start one?
Are we glossing over the fairly good integration that Windows XP, Vista, and 7 have with AD, as well as the little bit of tinkering to make them continue to work?
AD administration is non-trivial no matter the platform. I wonder if Apple would be able to (or has already) delivered an imaging solution so you can roll out a few workstations that start out both identical and functional.
It's been a long, LONG time since I got entangled in Apple network management, and I remember mostly System 7 and the leap to OS X. The tools were pretty pathetic, even compared to NTAS and Windows for Workgroups. Fortunately, most of our Mac clients didn't expect much, just printer discovery and a file server. And to have AppleTalk work on phone wiring, like someone said on a bulletin board once...
"Suppose you and I go to court over the ownership of a widget that is in my possession, and lets say the court finds in your favor and orders me to hand over the widget. Naturally, in my view that order is wrong and the decision is unjust."
Um, if you STOLE the widget from me, you would not 'naturally' view the order as wrong, though that might be your defense. You would 'naturally' view the order as correct and just, but of course since you're a thief, you wouldn't much care. FWIW, I don't know that you are in real life a thief, and will assume you are not. This is a hypotetical.
You see, sometimes, amazingly, guilty people are in fact brought into a court of law and charged with their crimes. They stand trial and occasionally are punished. They may proclaim the innocence, and indeed are both entitled and expected to, but in the end we take the verdict as the result of proof beyond a resonable doubt, or in civil cases sufficient proof to award compensation. It is imperfect.
While we may feel the copyright laws are "incomprehensible, unbalanced, and written to the specification of narrow special interests, not with the good of society in mind", the proper response is not just to violate them willy-nilly and wail when we are punished under the law. Among the proper responses:
- Petition our representatives for relief. Have them re-write the laws. This is time-consuming and requires many petitioners.
- Engage in widespread disobedience, knowing the cost and danger, to overwhelm the courts and plaintiffs, intending to render the law unworkable.
- Press our appeals to the highest court and hope for a decision that renders the law moot.
At least, that's how I see it. Option 1 is tedious and fraught with uncertainty. Option 2 is dangerous. The opposition may well prevail, leaving you in a position where option 1 is discredited, or option 3 is cast against you. Opton 3 is also fraught with uncertainty. If you lose, the law is cemented in place and you're stuck with options 1&2.
My complaint with copyright law is becoming more fundamental. What SHOULD the law do? If to protect creators, then why should such protection outlive them? If to protect works, for how long?
The fact that you can still purchase sheet music for Beethove's Fifth Symphony puts the lie to the idea that copyright is critical to the availability of a work. Nowadays, you buy an 'arrangement', which is copyright, because it still has value. And the performance is coyprighted, since the orchestra etc. should bvenefit from their performance.
So, how long should the Beatles' songs be protected? well, technology seems to have overrun copyright, and now the law seems destined to 'protect' music forever, which is the life of digital recordings. So do we allow perpetual copyright? Are we protecting anyone who has a legitimate or defensible interest in the work? Do we ensure that Paul McCartney's great-great-grandchildren profit from his work?
Actually, this is unfortunate. There are still Rockerfellers profiting from their ancestors' businesses. Maybe we should allow musicians to be treated the same.
So this all comes down, ultimately, to how do we manage digital distribution. Well, this is unpopular, but getting a performance as a download without paying for it is still stealing. Unless the artist days you can. Unpopular. I know.
The RIAA's interest is less clear to me. The British equivalent has been accused of not even paying out royalties etc. to artists at all. Is that even germane?
Needless to say, I'm confused. So I buy the music I listen to.
I get this post from a friend of mine in Maine. Looks like our government is sporting over some recovery funds and one of Maine's more aggresive ISPs is gonna spend it making fiber around the rural areas of Maine.
And he better hurry, or Google will beat him to it! Oh, wait... Google will be looking for density and volume users. Where volume is spelled with dollar signs.
Now, are other states also going to start pulling fiber to add to the existing dark fiber, so we can continue to be ready to serve rural America?
Not that anyone will actually get service out in the woods with any of this fiber, though GWI in Maine deploys long-range DSL and does at least as well as the cable companies. Maybe better.
Mindlessly? Around here, they saw out the frame and take the door for themselves.
They also steal air conditioning units for the copper, but that's just base thievery.
And yes, an awesome hard-hack. Certainly an order of magnitude or two above my days of scraping epoxy from I-Openers.
I have a 4-cell charger that will charge 2200MaH Ni-MH cells in 15 minutes. Special cells, but damn, I can recharge a spare set in about a half hour. Not unreasonably priced back then. These were the IC3 cells. I can't find them any more, apparently Ray-O-Vac discontinued them in favor of hybrid cells, not the same thing...
"Yes, the cases where people die would be better examples of cases where compensation isn't an adequate remedy (although, you'll notice, they are also the cases where we mostly handle them by holding people responsible;"
Ah, deterrence. Works fairly well in medicine, I think, somewhat in capital offenses.
Much less effective in netowrk security. Seems everyone thinks they aren't the problem. And then they install LimeWire cause it's fun.
Deterrence doesn't solve the compensation problem. And I hated giving my clients the goods so they could fire someone. It was a constant battle to move them towards reasonable and effective policies, like spelling out in advance what behaviors would not be acceptable.
Peer pressure was very effective. Once, when I worked next to the phone guys, they got a directive to determine why there was so much outbound calling, and for such long durations, at all hours of the day. One number stuck out as being used a lot of hours each day. This at a location with >1500 employees, most of which didn't have access to a phone. So the telco guys ran the reports, posted the results of the top 10 numbers dialed in the monthly executive newsletter. Next month, usege is reported down significantly, saving the purchase of $10,000 in additional line cards and of course additional dial lines. The #1 dialed number the previous month was gone from the top 25 report. The number? The local 'gay/lesbian hotline'. Not mentioned in the report, but when managers went to find out what this number was, it seems usage went down. I tried this with Internet use when bandwidth got a little tight, back in the T-1 days. Just posting the top 10 destinations was enlightening, and next month usage was completely different. Cnnmoney.com made sense since the CFO and his minions hovered over investments, but there were 3 of the top 10 that, as I described them to management, had 'no obvious business purpose'. One I had to list as to avoid offending some employees. Just listing them put an end to the traffic, and in 2 months I had to list the 4th top site as 'proxy relay'. When the managers found out what that meant, it disappeared from the list.
So I would be more inclined to report back to managers the marginal or violating behavior of their staff. Except that that is not prevention, merely deterrence after the fact.
It is unfortunate that we have to regard the Internet as unsafe. But it is unsafe.
You missed one of my points, I think.
Sometimes, there is NO compensation.
Congressman Joe Murtha may have died unnecessarily due to a surgical error. How do you compensate Joe?
Similar situations occur in data security.
And how would you know?
This is hacking like sawing your front door out from the frame is picking the lock. Yes, they got in.
Or, perhaps, like coming home from a trip, kicking in your front door in Cambridge, and having the neighbors watch in amusement. With any luck, none of them would call 911 and tell the police that someone is busting into the house next door. Likewise, you will be losing your PC or notebook, but you will have some time to change your network and online passwords etc, if you're paying attention and not bound and gagged in the cave next door. Your hard drive, however, is fair game. Truecrypt means never having to say 'what password'?
And you'll WISH they were the Cambridge police.
Of course, if they're serious, you're dead already.
The URL is still visible. They block both HTTP and HTTPS, though I suspect from what I know of the proxy and filtering software, they can capture the UEL and block on that just fine.
ps- We use a LOT of HTTPS here. Managing that is not so much different from HTTP from a proxy/filter vantage point.
My original point was that if our team decides that Gmail (SSL or not) is giving access to services not permitted, like YouTube or Google Chat, they will block Gmail, and let us lose ALL of it.
You understand now?
Then I will be reduced to using my G1 to read my Gmail. Since my personal email is on my own server and domain, I will probably use the webmail for that directly rather than live on the pickup by Gmail. Which is just fine, until they figure out that Squirrelmail is also an email service, and start looking at it. Never know. The phone works. I will not be deprived.
This is anathema to many, especially the young, but...
There are some things that cannot be resolved by a 'hold them responsible for fuckups' policy. You would probable, for instance, not be impressed by that policy if it required firing several people who let your financial data spew forth. After all, your credit is gone, your house is gone, your future is unnecessarily complicated, and it will take years to put it all back. No amount of retribution will fix it or make you whole.
We've read many reports of data breaches, and the result is not mitigated by punishing those responsible. And despite our fondest hopes, it's kinda pointless to expect the mid-level sysadmin to sport over a few tens of millions of dollars to compensate their former employer for the damage and recovery. Just the letters cost real money to mail. Writing off lost revenue, disputed transactions, and such is nontrivial.
And that's just the financial industry. In healthcare, there are things that can be disclosed that have no fix. NO FIX. And cost is the wrong concept. People often consider their private medical history beyond value.
There is no real point in having a 'hold them responsible for fuckups' policy. It should be obvious that you are responsible. Prevention is the only solution for many scenarios.
And yes, the policy seems arbitrary. And it is. The team assesses threats and potentials, and assigns levels of risk. I'm often amused by the websites blocked, but I can figure out why most of the time. Among the reasons to block sites here seem to be: Obvious hacker actvity/encouragement, obvious time-wasting, socially unacceptable behavior, excessive bandwidth utilization without any business purpose, etc. I haven't tried going to 4chan, for instance, I expect it to be blocked. I've never even gone to Drudge.
And among other things, the corporate Internet bandwidth is clearly the property of the corporation to manage and control. I'm just an employee. I have nothing to say about it, my job does not require control or special privileges. I'm somewhat amazed that I get /.
If Google pimps up GMail enough, with file-sharing, social networking, instant-messaging, and gee-whiz features, it will get blocked at our firewall as a security risk.
Right now, Google Chat is blocked. Google Voice is blocked. YouTube is blocked. Google Docs is blocked.
Keep it up, Google, and I won't be able to use much Google at all at work.
Now, for those of you who have no responsibilities, feel free to flame on and explain why my corporate masters are shortsighted, maniacally obsessed with control, and oblivious to reality in their vain attempt to secure the corporate data, protect our customers' information, and be responsible to the shareholders. It starts out as funny, then becomes annoying, and finally settles into a tragic display of ignorance of the reality of large corporation security issues.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Or $50 million.
(I knew that. I can and did read. It's still not that funny)
A mathematician mibht misspell 'google' as '1e100'.
And I hear tell some mathematicians have a sense of humor. But the rest mistake obsucrity for humor.
Just so you know (and you know who you are), obscurity is not inherently funny. And neither are you.
There are not 10 kinds of people in the world. There are only two. Your number base doesn't change that. Put them side by side and see.
So there.
Ok, I'll go through this once for you.
GSM has both voice and data services.
In the US, you can use GSM for voice calls anywhere in the US and Canada where you have a romaing agreement. Any GSM phone sold in the US will do this. Charges vary according to the roaming agreement.
Data services on GSM are entirely different.
EDGE is compatible between carriers.
AT&T uses different spectrum for their 3G service than T-Mobile does. I believe Rogers in Canada uses AT&T bands, but I'm not sure, and it doesn't change the FACT that in the US, T-Mobile's 3G service is incompatible with AT&T's service. Different bands. Just the way it is.
I do not know if GSM-based data services in Europe suffer from this problem.
Now, 3G on T-Mobile is called 'WCDMA', wideband CDMA if I recall correctly. While the signalling is WCDMA, it is not anything to do with CDMA.
To recap;
Yes, in the US you can make a GSM call from anywhere there is service. All carriers use the same voice standard.
No, you cannot use 3G service on every GSM carrier in the US. They are not on the same frequencies.
Yes, it is technically possible to do so if the phone hardware supported it. The carriers do not seem inclined to make it possible for you to use 3G service on the competition's network. Currently you have to buy another phone.
A manufacturer could come out with a phone that does it all on GSM, but they would probably market it directly. No subsidy.
Ok?
The Nexus One (like all Android phones) is data-hungry. It wants a 3G signal to perform well. EDGE sucks so bad you woild give the phone back.
Since there may not be ANY phone sold in the US that does 3G on both AT&T and T-Mobile, your choice of Android phone pretty much determines which carrier you use - you don't want to buy a Nexus One for use on AT&T, since it will be a slow data phone. Ditto for buying an iPhone 3G or 3GS to use on T-Mobile. It will be slow and disappointing.
Locking GSM data-intensive phones in the US is pointless, and a complete lie. If you want a 3G phone, your carrier determines which phone you buy. For now, anyways.
Now, when there is a 3G 'smartphone', Android or not, that can handle both A&T and T-Mobile 3G, then locking becomes important again. But for now, Android GSM phones need not be locked, and smart people at the carriers know this. They just go along as they always have, cause it makes sense to most of us.
On the CDMA side, it's more interesting.
In Europe, it seems GSM is pretty compatible. And locking is not a viable business model there.
So if you buy a locked Android phone, you know at least one party doesn't get it.
The flash of supidity is thinking visitors to the iPhone App Store have any significant interest in Android apps.
Unless they also have an Android phone, in which case they are going over to the Market for those apps.
More Apple paintywaists, and more=less. Not a real big deal, but I wonder how Apple would react to a developer who mentioned their app was a finalist for a Nokia or Microsoft competition.
And the dev has a sense of humor. So they don't seem to need the mentions to achieve their goals. Good for them.
Apple can bite ME.
"After reading your post, I'm at a loss to discern whether it is you, or I, who has consumed the most spirits tonight."
It's not night here.
"I can assure you to my great displeasure that the women in my life have no problems playing it under Ubuntu, Debian, or even my personal Gentoo machine."
Welp, that's answered. Game on.
Gentoo? That explains the spirits comment. Aand the answer is, you have.
Remember, I said 'personal' computing. At work, you are trapped in your corporate overlords' world.
"For the most part that is because Google doesn't require using Google software on your personal computing device to access Google services."
"Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to take offense if you are not using their platform."
Taking offense or not, you are actually not required to use Microsoft products on your personal computing device to access Google services. Or many other services, for that matter.
We can, in fact, kiss Microsoft goodbye for our personal computing needs. Your corporate mileage may vary.
And you may have to get creative. Some of your fave apps might not be so easy to work with, might be different, etc. You could get used to it.
Another reason for me to show my wife how Ubuntu is really pretty easy to use. Now, does Firefox on Ubuntu play Farmville?
Oh, the irony...
Example?
N900? Heavily marketed as something a lot like the G1. Usually as a 'Mobile Internet Device and Smartphone'. I interpret that as an even more general-purpose mobile platform. They chose (probably because they started before Android was) to not use Android, the alternative was, um, Linux. And I see them not going to Android, I think they mistrust Google even more.
This is an area where there is disagreement. But phones DO have different needs. Obviously. Nokia accomodated those within the mainline (?) kernel. Google drove Android in a very different direction.
Let's not get into the Maemo thing. It's just a little different, not quite as much as Android.
Oh, and while we're at it, a phone has different needs than a desktop PC or a server. So forking the kernel makes sense.
Google 'adding stuff'? The two-step they pulled off to let Dalvik bypass Java ME and avoid licensing adds complexity but solves a problem. It's necessary to make an open-source platform for phones, and it works. Along the lines of 'why a VM?', I think 'why a fork?' fits in the same slot. But yes, I suspect Google likes this to maintain control of Android.
So much for 'do no evil', but we've known this for quite a while.