As an employee, you have access to sensitive data. When you announced your intention to leave, they took the necessary steps to protect that sensitive data. It's just the way it works in this industry now. Take the money and move on to the next thing.
Clark Howard recommends that one never carry checks outside the home, and that they only be sent to reputable places and used only to pay bills. The reason is precisely what you are asking: identity theft.
See, if someone steals your checkbook*, he can write checks on your account and take them to various places. Faking the necessary driver's license and credit card is not difficult, so he can pass these checks easily. If he does this and checks start to bounce from your account, one of the payees can swear out a warrant for your arrest! Then, if you ever get stopped by the police for any reason, such as a minor traffic violation, you will be arrested on the spot.
All this without a SSN.
* - or has checks made using the routing and transit numbers on a check you sent him. NEVER SEND PERSONAL CHECKS TO STRANGERS!
I have, as Clark Howard calls it, the poverty package. I am not interested in spending more than 4x the money just so I can get a DVR from my cable company... I already have a TiVo, so I'd rather just be able to get at the video stored on that unit.
Is there any way to do this on OS X? I have no PCs in the house, and I'm not about to buy a Windows box just to be able to convert video from my TiVo...
I'm hoping for exactly the same thing! I like (and use) Excel, but Improv is so much better! I really wish there was a NeXT emulator for OS X so I could use Improv on my current hardware.:(
Yup. I mean - oh, the horror of learning that things in life really aren't free!
This is a story?
PS - there was an article in the local paper recently about how "the fees add up fast." Indeed they do, and this is why I don't have many of these monthly-fee services.
Nobody on my system ever corresponds with anyone in Korea or China, so I too have set up a bunch of netblock filters.
If I ever need to correspond with someone from those networks, I can update my filters, but I don't ever see that happening.
I used to block individual IP addresses of spam hosts, but that list got unbelievably huge (well over 1,200) so now I filter entire CIDR blocks from which I get spam. I only do this for non-US CIDR blocks. I'd love to do it for US CIDR blocks too, but that's a bit too restrictive. Instead, I just block hosts.
My spam levels have gone WAY down. If only the same trick could work for my.Mac address...:/
I would never switch to Windows on PPC, because Windows is just a crappy OS. The UI stinks, the OS isn't well thought out or laid out, the filesystem is in complete disarray, and the OS just constantly gets in my way.
With OS X, the system rarely gets in my way. I have a few minor issues with the UI, but pretty much the OS & UI just stay out of my way and let me do what I need to do. I call it "Computopia."
Now, I haven't used Windows at all for 3 years (except at work, and even that is very rarely; most of my work is on a PowerBook G4 running Panther). I haven't used Windows much at all for over 10 years, and in the interim it was mostly for stuff like Quicken, things I couldn't get on Linux. With OS X I can have it all: Unix on the back end, and "real world" commercial apps on top. As I said, computopia.
I do still own one x86 box though; it's my lone Linux server. Everything else I have runs NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Mac OS X Server, or Mac OS X. Well, except for my Plus & SE, that is...
However, I'm not totally anti-MS like most Slashdotters - their mice are the best (I have two Intellimouse Explorers, wireless at home and wired @ the office), and Office v.X is one of their best products ever, even better than its Windows counterpart. RDC is also better than the Windows solution.
Try setting the "TERM" environment variable to "ansi80x25" or something like that, to see if that helps. You probably don't need a new application - you probably just need to set different terminal emulation in your current app.
So, OK, with Mono I can compile it on OS X -- and I get a Windows executable. A fat lot that does me since I don't own a Windows box. Has anyone gotten an OS X binary out of this source code?
Merely looking at outsourcing won't provide the whole picture - they need to make sure they look at insourcing as well as outsourcing. And when they do, they will find that many more jobs are created by insourcing than are "lost" by outsourcing.
I will respond to more later (because many of your points are worth of a response), but I'm limited for time at the moment. For now I will address a single point of yours:
The principal that the government should do only what the people cannot do is false. Nothing ever runs at 100% all the time, especially people. They do not do all that they can do, and it is the governments task to do everything they won't do.
Is it your fault if I don't live up to my potential? Should you support me if I decide to be a slacker and sit on my rump all day, instead of contributing to society? It seems your answer to both of these would be a resounding "yes." Anyone who is self reliant would say "no" - and this includes the Founders, with their intent codified in the Constitution and other founding documents.
That you should provide for me if I refuse to provide for myself is an extremely foolish way of thinking, and it is that line of thinking that has contributed to the sad state of affairs in America today.
The whole concept of self reliance has been lost over the last 70 or so years, since the Great Depression. Much of this was caused by FDR's policies. Contrary to popular myth, FDR did not bring us out of the Great Depression - he lengthened the depression with his foolish policies. Research it and you will see that this is so. A great place to start would be here.
Because of policies that were enacted over the last 70 years or so, we: - expect the government to provide for our retirement (Social Securyt) - expect the government to provide for our health care needs (Medicare, Medicaid) - expect the government to provide our education (Department of Education) - expect our employer to provide for our health insurance needs - expect our employer to contribute to our retirement
All of these things are so because of FDR and events during WW2.
The problem is that there is no limit to an individual's perceived needs, so if we have a government that is tasked with doing "everything [citizens] won't do," government has to do everything, for there is no limit to the list of things that someone won't do if he can get someone else to do it. It is simply not possible for the government to do everything, and it is foolish to act like it can or should.
The better answer is that government should do as little as possible.
Ok, actually I'm going to respond to a second of your points, because it is a quick response. You're wrong about the schools around here. The reason I'm not going to let my kids near them is not because they are of poor quality, but because they are merely indoctrination centers, essentially babysitting centers for big kids. There is very little redeeming about the indoctrination our kids receive in public schools today. It is quite different from when I was in school, when we were taught to think and to explore. I want my kids to grow up and be the best they can be, to be contributors to society, not merely "sit down, shut up, do what you are told" serfs.
As for working to better the schools here, well, that's a nice idea, but when the politicians have their own agenda in mind (nevermind what the majority of parents want), then what's a parent to do? The only solution at that point is to extract your children from the clutches of an out of control school board.
There are certainly things that a government should do - I am not an anarchist, and I think anarchism is foolhardy. However, the set of things a government should do, the set of things a government can do more efficiently than the citizens, is an extremely small set. Put simply, the government should only do things the citizens cannot do for themselves.
Our federal government has a charter clearly detailing its responsibilities. This charter is found in the United States Constitution, and anything the government does or attempts to do beyond this is extra-constitutional, and thereby decidedly unconstitutional.
It can certainly be argued that some areas of infrastructure are best done by a single entity, or at least with central planning. The power grid and national road system are two examples of things that would fall into this category. I personally would rather see the road system paid for by purely use fees (think 'gasoline taxes'), because that is the fairest of all systems, but the central planning aspect of it is a good idea. We need a cohesive national system, as well as cohesive state/local systems, and having different "road systems" from different "vendors" just wouldn't work. The power grid is the same way.
The problem is that there is a very fine line between "central planning" and "central control," and controlling our nation's road system and power grid is decidedly not in the best interest of the citizenry.
Pray tell, how does the rail system example of the 1800s support your thesis? What is its relevance here? It is not "obviously not good for the consumer." Is your goal a healthy economy or economic equality? If charging differently people from different regions is not right (charging them differently for what?), what is right? Obviously charges will differ for shipping identical items to different areas, so what do you propose?
What do you believe is the goal of government, specifically? You say that the government doesn't know better than I do how to spend my money, but your next statement is that the government "is simply able to use the collected monies to produce a much greater effect" than I can with a bunch of my friends, so it seems your desire is that the government govern to the "greatest effect." I challenge your thesis that the government even can "produce a much greater effect." Even the most cursory examination of Federal government programs indicates quite the opposite. Besides, I don't want the "greatest effect" from the government except that for my liberty.
That - protecting the individual liberty of the citizenry - is the government's prime (and sole) objective. Providing a "safety net" is not the government's job. Providing a safety net for one's self and family is the responsibility of one's self, and that of one's friends, family, and church.
I went through public education as well, and you know what? I wouldn't let my kid within 1000 feet of one of those institutions. Today's public schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers for the nanny government we have today. Kids today are coming out ignorant -- by design. That's no way to run a country, and I fear for our nation's future because of it.
I find it interesting (and truly sad) that you think your car is safe "because of the government." Let me be clear: your car, while it is safe, is not safe "because of the government." It is safe because the engineers who designed it did so with safety in mind. Sure, they had to meet certain government regulations in order to sell a car in the United States, but it is not those regulations that make your car safe. There are certain cars on the road in the USA today that pass these same safety regulations, but I would never own one of them. Why? Because they are unsafe. Pay attention to advertising: some auto manufacturers tout their safety, while others do not. There's a reason for this
Perhaps you have it all wrong. Perhaps some of us value our liberty more than we do the illusion of government-provided "security." To be sure, government cannot provide security - it is completely illusory, albeit a potentially desirable illusion.
How would you feel with no national police orginization(not a reduced force, none, absolutly no cross border investigations), no social security, no FDIC, no Federal Reserve, no CDC, and absolutly no national regulation agianst corporations?
I would be all for some of these. There is good reason to have a national law enforcement agency of some kind - someone has to enforce the laws. And I personally think that border patrol is a good idea. But Social Security is clearly unconstitutional so it should be abolished. Ditto Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Department of Education, and many other government organizations.
As for the FDIC, well, it has already been shown in this thread how much of a joke that is. As for the Federal Reserve, perhaps you don't realise that it is neither Federal nor a Reserve. Do some research on the Federal Reserve system and you will find that it is a system of privately owned banks, and that these banks no longer hold the reserve they once did.
As for the CDC, while it's not explicitly constitutional, the government does have an interest in maintaining disease control, so such an organization might have some merit.
As for "absolutely no national regulation against corporations," what sort of regulation do you think you need? Competition is a better regulator than the government could ever provide...
It truly saddens me to read here on Slashdot that so many of you don't value your liberty, the liberty our nation's Founders fought for. So many of you are completely willing to give the federal government whatever they ask, instead of realising that this is your money. It saddens me to see that so many of you think the government knows better than you do how to spend your hard-earned money.
Like many of you, I grew up launching model rockets every Saturday, and I have long wanted to take up that hobby again, but have not done so. It is sad to see that this hobby may die because of some stellar amount of idiocy in DC, but what concerns me more is that UPS and other shipping contractors may also start refusing shipments of small arms ammunition.
The second amendment to the US Constitution assures citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and its purpose was to ensure that the citizens can fight back against an overbearing government. If you can have arms but no munitions, you might as well not have the arms. This part of the Homeland inSecurity Act could be used to effectively deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and that scares me.
To read the comments here, it would seem that every Slashdot reader thinks that goods purchased online are subject to neither Use Tax nor Sales Tax.
This is nothing new. It's not a new tax, and it is not any less legitimate than the sales tax you pay when you go to a brick & mortar establishment. (The legitimacy of that sales tax is debatable.)
If anything, this agreement helps consumers in that we no longer have to track our out-of-state purchases in order to pay Use Tax on those items. You do pay Use Tax on those items, right? If you don't, you're breaking the law if your state has a Sales Tax.
As for curbing sales, this move will only curb online sales for sites that are already not competitive. Them's the breaks in a free market.
Jim's beef with the PCI-SIG is that they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers.
Uh, that's how it works. When you have a problem in the legal realm, you send your lawyer as your representative. There's nothing else to do!
Unfortunately some organizations -- in thise case PCI-SIG -- don't share the communal "information wants to be free" utopian idealism shared by many here on \..
Sure, it would have been nice for PCI-SIG to thank Jim for his work, but the simple fact is that this is not how things work in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
As an employee, you have access to sensitive data. When you announced your intention to leave, they took the necessary steps to protect that sensitive data. It's just the way it works in this industry now. Take the money and move on to the next thing.
Clark Howard recommends that one never carry checks outside the home, and that they only be sent to reputable places and used only to pay bills. The reason is precisely what you are asking: identity theft.
See, if someone steals your checkbook*, he can write checks on your account and take them to various places. Faking the necessary driver's license and credit card is not difficult, so he can pass these checks easily. If he does this and checks start to bounce from your account, one of the payees can swear out a warrant for your arrest! Then, if you ever get stopped by the police for any reason, such as a minor traffic violation, you will be arrested on the spot.
All this without a SSN.
* - or has checks made using the routing and transit numbers on a check you sent him. NEVER SEND PERSONAL CHECKS TO STRANGERS!
He is a fool who thinks this type of thing won't one day be used to track individuals.
I have, as Clark Howard calls it, the poverty package. I am not interested in spending more than 4x the money just so I can get a DVR from my cable company... I already have a TiVo, so I'd rather just be able to get at the video stored on that unit.
Is there any way to do this on OS X? I have no PCs in the house, and I'm not about to buy a Windows box just to be able to convert video from my TiVo...
I'm hoping for exactly the same thing! I like (and use) Excel, but Improv is so much better! I really wish there was a NeXT emulator for OS X so I could use Improv on my current hardware. :(
Yup. I mean - oh, the horror of learning that things in life really aren't free!
This is a story?
PS - there was an article in the local paper recently about how "the fees add up fast." Indeed they do, and this is why I don't have many of these monthly-fee services.
Nobody on my system ever corresponds with anyone in Korea or China, so I too have set up a bunch of netblock filters.
.Mac address... :/
If I ever need to correspond with someone from those networks, I can update my filters, but I don't ever see that happening.
I used to block individual IP addresses of spam hosts, but that list got unbelievably huge (well over 1,200) so now I filter entire CIDR blocks from which I get spam. I only do this for non-US CIDR blocks. I'd love to do it for US CIDR blocks too, but that's a bit too restrictive. Instead, I just block hosts.
My spam levels have gone WAY down. If only the same trick could work for my
Oh, the beauty of iptables.
since the XBox 2 will use the PowerPC G5, it shouldn't be that difficult to port future XBox games to the Power Mac G5 and the iMac
Dude, that's like saying that since both AtheOS and Windows run on x86, it'd be easy to port between them.
Now, if the Xbox 2 were to run Mac OS X, you might have something, but it doesn't.
I would never switch to Windows on PPC, because Windows is just a crappy OS. The UI stinks, the OS isn't well thought out or laid out, the filesystem is in complete disarray, and the OS just constantly gets in my way.
With OS X, the system rarely gets in my way. I have a few minor issues with the UI, but pretty much the OS & UI just stay out of my way and let me do what I need to do. I call it "Computopia."
Now, I haven't used Windows at all for 3 years (except at work, and even that is very rarely; most of my work is on a PowerBook G4 running Panther). I haven't used Windows much at all for over 10 years, and in the interim it was mostly for stuff like Quicken, things I couldn't get on Linux. With OS X I can have it all: Unix on the back end, and "real world" commercial apps on top. As I said, computopia.
I do still own one x86 box though; it's my lone Linux server. Everything else I have runs NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Mac OS X Server, or Mac OS X. Well, except for my Plus & SE, that is...
However, I'm not totally anti-MS like most Slashdotters - their mice are the best (I have two Intellimouse Explorers, wireless at home and wired @ the office), and Office v.X is one of their best products ever, even better than its Windows counterpart. RDC is also better than the Windows solution.
Try setting the "TERM" environment variable to "ansi80x25" or something like that, to see if that helps. You probably don't need a new application - you probably just need to set different terminal emulation in your current app.
So, OK, with Mono I can compile it on OS X -- and I get a Windows executable. A fat lot that does me since I don't own a Windows box. Has anyone gotten an OS X binary out of this source code?
Merely looking at outsourcing won't provide the whole picture - they need to make sure they look at insourcing as well as outsourcing. And when they do, they will find that many more jobs are created by insourcing than are "lost" by outsourcing.
I will respond to more later (because many of your points are worth of a response), but I'm limited for time at the moment. For now I will address a single point of yours:
The principal that the government should do only what the people cannot do is false. Nothing ever runs at 100% all the time, especially people. They do not do all that they can do, and it is the governments task to do everything they won't do.
Is it your fault if I don't live up to my potential? Should you support me if I decide to be a slacker and sit on my rump all day, instead of contributing to society? It seems your answer to both of these would be a resounding "yes." Anyone who is self reliant would say "no" - and this includes the Founders, with their intent codified in the Constitution and other founding documents.
That you should provide for me if I refuse to provide for myself is an extremely foolish way of thinking, and it is that line of thinking that has contributed to the sad state of affairs in America today.
The whole concept of self reliance has been lost over the last 70 or so years, since the Great Depression. Much of this was caused by FDR's policies. Contrary to popular myth, FDR did not bring us out of the Great Depression - he lengthened the depression with his foolish policies. Research it and you will see that this is so. A great place to start would be here.
Because of policies that were enacted over the last 70 years or so, we:
- expect the government to provide for our retirement (Social Securyt)
- expect the government to provide for our health care needs (Medicare, Medicaid)
- expect the government to provide our education (Department of Education)
- expect our employer to provide for our health insurance needs
- expect our employer to contribute to our retirement
All of these things are so because of FDR and events during WW2.
The problem is that there is no limit to an individual's perceived needs, so if we have a government that is tasked with doing "everything [citizens] won't do," government has to do everything, for there is no limit to the list of things that someone won't do if he can get someone else to do it. It is simply not possible for the government to do everything, and it is foolish to act like it can or should.
The better answer is that government should do as little as possible.
Ok, actually I'm going to respond to a second of your points, because it is a quick response. You're wrong about the schools around here. The reason I'm not going to let my kids near them is not because they are of poor quality, but because they are merely indoctrination centers, essentially babysitting centers for big kids. There is very little redeeming about the indoctrination our kids receive in public schools today. It is quite different from when I was in school, when we were taught to think and to explore. I want my kids to grow up and be the best they can be, to be contributors to society, not merely "sit down, shut up, do what you are told" serfs.
As for working to better the schools here, well, that's a nice idea, but when the politicians have their own agenda in mind (nevermind what the majority of parents want), then what's a parent to do? The only solution at that point is to extract your children from the clutches of an out of control school board.
There are certainly things that a government should do - I am not an anarchist, and I think anarchism is foolhardy. However, the set of things a government should do, the set of things a government can do more efficiently than the citizens, is an extremely small set. Put simply, the government should only do things the citizens cannot do for themselves.
Our federal government has a charter clearly detailing its responsibilities. This charter is found in the United States Constitution, and anything the government does or attempts to do beyond this is extra-constitutional, and thereby decidedly unconstitutional.
It can certainly be argued that some areas of infrastructure are best done by a single entity, or at least with central planning. The power grid and national road system are two examples of things that would fall into this category. I personally would rather see the road system paid for by purely use fees (think 'gasoline taxes'), because that is the fairest of all systems, but the central planning aspect of it is a good idea. We need a cohesive national system, as well as cohesive state/local systems, and having different "road systems" from different "vendors" just wouldn't work. The power grid is the same way.
The problem is that there is a very fine line between "central planning" and "central control," and controlling our nation's road system and power grid is decidedly not in the best interest of the citizenry.
Pray tell, how does the rail system example of the 1800s support your thesis? What is its relevance here? It is not "obviously not good for the consumer." Is your goal a healthy economy or economic equality? If charging differently people from different regions is not right (charging them differently for what?), what is right? Obviously charges will differ for shipping identical items to different areas, so what do you propose?
What do you believe is the goal of government, specifically? You say that the government doesn't know better than I do how to spend my money, but your next statement is that the government "is simply able to use the collected monies to produce a much greater effect" than I can with a bunch of my friends, so it seems your desire is that the government govern to the "greatest effect." I challenge your thesis that the government even can "produce a much greater effect." Even the most cursory examination of Federal government programs indicates quite the opposite. Besides, I don't want the "greatest effect" from the government except that for my liberty.
That - protecting the individual liberty of the citizenry - is the government's prime (and sole) objective. Providing a "safety net" is not the government's job. Providing a safety net for one's self and family is the responsibility of one's self, and that of one's friends, family, and church.
I went through public education as well, and you know what? I wouldn't let my kid within 1000 feet of one of those institutions. Today's public schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers for the nanny government we have today. Kids today are coming out ignorant -- by design. That's no way to run a country, and I fear for our nation's future because of it.
I find it interesting (and truly sad) that you think your car is safe "because of the government." Let me be clear: your car, while it is safe, is not safe "because of the government." It is safe because the engineers who designed it did so with safety in mind. Sure, they had to meet certain government regulations in order to sell a car in the United States, but it is not those regulations that make your car safe. There are certain cars on the road in the USA today that pass these same safety regulations, but I would never own one of them. Why? Because they are unsafe. Pay attention to advertising: some auto manufacturers tout their safety, while others do not. There's a reason for this
Perhaps you have it all wrong. Perhaps some of us value our liberty more than we do the illusion of government-provided "security." To be sure, government cannot provide security - it is completely illusory, albeit a potentially desirable illusion.
How would you feel with no national police orginization(not a reduced force, none, absolutly no cross border investigations), no social security, no FDIC, no Federal Reserve, no CDC, and absolutly no national regulation agianst corporations?
I would be all for some of these. There is good reason to have a national law enforcement agency of some kind - someone has to enforce the laws. And I personally think that border patrol is a good idea. But Social Security is clearly unconstitutional so it should be abolished. Ditto Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Department of Education, and many other government organizations.
As for the FDIC, well, it has already been shown in this thread how much of a joke that is. As for the Federal Reserve, perhaps you don't realise that it is neither Federal nor a Reserve. Do some research on the Federal Reserve system and you will find that it is a system of privately owned banks, and that these banks no longer hold the reserve they once did.
As for the CDC, while it's not explicitly constitutional, the government does have an interest in maintaining disease control, so such an organization might have some merit.
As for "absolutely no national regulation against corporations," what sort of regulation do you think you need? Competition is a better regulator than the government could ever provide...
It truly saddens me to read here on Slashdot that so many of you don't value your liberty, the liberty our nation's Founders fought for. So many of you are completely willing to give the federal government whatever they ask, instead of realising that this is your money. It saddens me to see that so many of you think the government knows better than you do how to spend your hard-earned money.
Thank you - if someone else hadn't said it, I would have.
So that I don't sound too snotty, I'll leave it at that.
Wow, and with this story still on the front page?
That is exactly what I was thinking!
Like many of you, I grew up launching model rockets every Saturday, and I have long wanted to take up that hobby again, but have not done so. It is sad to see that this hobby may die because of some stellar amount of idiocy in DC, but what concerns me more is that UPS and other shipping contractors may also start refusing shipments of small arms ammunition.
The second amendment to the US Constitution assures citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and its purpose was to ensure that the citizens can fight back against an overbearing government. If you can have arms but no munitions, you might as well not have the arms. This part of the Homeland inSecurity Act could be used to effectively deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms, and that scares me.
To read the comments here, it would seem that every Slashdot reader thinks that goods purchased online are subject to neither Use Tax nor Sales Tax.
This is nothing new. It's not a new tax, and it is not any less legitimate than the sales tax you pay when you go to a brick & mortar establishment. (The legitimacy of that sales tax is debatable.)
If anything, this agreement helps consumers in that we no longer have to track our out-of-state purchases in order to pay Use Tax on those items. You do pay Use Tax on those items, right? If you don't, you're breaking the law if your state has a Sales Tax.
As for curbing sales, this move will only curb online sales for sites that are already not competitive. Them's the breaks in a free market.
Yes, I do. The lawyers should have been a bit more responsible with the delivery of the first letter, but other than that, yes.
Actually the AC is close - I was referring to the left-leaning-ness of many 'dotters.
Jim's beef with the PCI-SIG is that they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers.
Uh, that's how it works. When you have a problem in the legal realm, you send your lawyer as your representative. There's nothing else to do!
Unfortunately some organizations -- in thise case PCI-SIG -- don't share the communal "information wants to be free" utopian idealism shared by many here on \..
Sure, it would have been nice for PCI-SIG to thank Jim for his work, but the simple fact is that this is not how things work in the real world.
But what they don't say is that you need to Sync before you install iSync 1.0! Which means you also need to do it before you install iCal 1.0.1.
I wonder if I can downgrade iCal to 1.0 so I can sync, then upgrade both. AAAHHH!!! I really wish they had added this caveat to the iCal README!