Unless you're selling your software, IT departments don't make money. They either save money or increase productivity through automating manual processes allowing the company to fire people or produce more product with the same amount of people. Having an IT department that is larger than 1-2% of the company causes the costs to outweigh the gains. You'll have a hard time making your case unless your company can either monazite the work your IT department does or you can prove there will be very significant savings.
So you think it would be better for us to line everyone up on payday and hand out stacks of cash (like they did in World War 2)? What could possibly go wrong?
As someone who is serving and has server for the last 15 years, I can tell you the only times my pay has been screwed up it has been my fault. This is true for everyone of my troops who has had over/under payment issues. Usually it's because a form did not get turned in that starts or stops an allowance, then the member does not notice the discrepancy for some time. The guy in this article was the exception and apparently has shitty leadership. His First Sergeant or Commander should have been able to get this sorted in under a month, or at least get the "overpayment" collected over a year or two so it didn't effect him while they tracked down the source of the error.
I definitely second openSUSE. It's rock solid and ships with KDE as a default but with strong Gnome support as well. Yast is awesome for when you just need to configure something, but don't want to spend hours learning config files. It just modifies the same files, so if you have a more complex setup than Yast can handle you can do the config by hand.
If you're exploring Linux in the server space, SUSE works wonderfully, but you'll want to pick up a RHEL clone (either CentOS or Scientific Linux).
Am I a lawful target? I'm a military member so, yes even when I'm in civilian clothes or at home in bed at night I am a lawful target.
Are all CIA agents lawful targets? Yes. Do they operate from a government facility that is also a lawful target and so clearly identified? Yes. If the US started operating drones from inside elementary schools, then elementary schools would also become lawful targets. The law of armed conflict is really pretty simple, each side attempts to destroy the other's ability to wage war with as little collateral damage as possible. The moment that one side breaks the rules, the other is also permitted to break them as well to stop the damage caused by the original violation. The U.S. generally doesn't respond to enemy LOAC violations with reciprocal violations because doing so make the enemy less likely to surrender.
The bottom line is this:
- If we are at war with a nation and get attacked from within that nation we can and will respond to the attack, probably with kinetic weapons (regardless of the perpetrator).
- If we are not at war with a nation and get attacked, we probably attempt to deal with it diplomatically(regardless of the perpetrator) before proceeding to a military solution. That diplomatic solution may be to seek extradition for prosecution or, possibly clandestine, approval to operate drones in their airspace to eliminate the threat.
Doing so is as much a violation of the Geneva Convention as dressing your infantry in civilian clothes or placing anti aircraft guns atop a hospital. If a nation makes it impossible to differentiate civilians from combatants, their civilians become lawful targets.
All members of the enemy military, military civilians, and military contractors are lawful combatants. There is no special protection for IT guys, just like there is no special protection for cooks or personnelists. That's just the way it is and those of us in uniform accept it.
If we are already at war with a nation and one of their civilian population decides to attack us in any way they become an unlawful combatant and give up their protection under the Geneva Convention. The attacked nation has the right to eliminate the threat in any way they see fit, whether that is a counter hack or a guided missile.
If we are not at war and a civilian attacks our network, then it is a criminal matter handled via the state department. Depending on the political tensions, the attacker's nation's response or lack of response may precipitate military actions. This would be true If the crime were murder, theft, or embezzlement, computer crimes are not special.
Never mind the fact that:
- they did not account for multiple tweets from the same person.
- do not consider any term "racist" unless it has been used to "subjugate a people for generations"
- think that 359 TOTAL geocoded tweets out of ALL geocoded tweets (.05%) is statistically significant.
We should be celebrating that only.05% of the population is outwardly racist. Who cares if the south has a marginally higher number or the 359 racist Twitter users. This story is as ludicrous, sensationalized, piece drivel that doesn't really show anything. I've lived in Alabama for almost 3 years now and have yet to run into an openly racist person.
When the author was confronted with questions regarding why he did not do a reciprocal piece, regarding racism against Romney, he argued that there are not words for whites that have the same power as the "n" word for blacks (although he included the word "monkey" in his "study", a word I've heard used to describe fools both white and black alike). It is clear that the authors view is that is impossible whites to be the subject of racism because they were the oppressor 60 years ago. The article leaves you with the implied conclusion that if someone did not vote for Obama, they must be racist (a implication that the author denies in his follow up).
Slashdot Mirror
I do not think it means what he thinks it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Unless you're selling your software, IT departments don't make money. They either save money or increase productivity through automating manual processes allowing the company to fire people or produce more product with the same amount of people. Having an IT department that is larger than 1-2% of the company causes the costs to outweigh the gains. You'll have a hard time making your case unless your company can either monazite the work your IT department does or you can prove there will be very significant savings.
"Interactive Post Install Configuration"
Get him an iPod Touch and just use FaceTime or Skype when he's on wifi at the house.
So you think it would be better for us to line everyone up on payday and hand out stacks of cash (like they did in World War 2)? What could possibly go wrong? As someone who is serving and has server for the last 15 years, I can tell you the only times my pay has been screwed up it has been my fault. This is true for everyone of my troops who has had over/under payment issues. Usually it's because a form did not get turned in that starts or stops an allowance, then the member does not notice the discrepancy for some time. The guy in this article was the exception and apparently has shitty leadership. His First Sergeant or Commander should have been able to get this sorted in under a month, or at least get the "overpayment" collected over a year or two so it didn't effect him while they tracked down the source of the error.
I definitely second openSUSE. It's rock solid and ships with KDE as a default but with strong Gnome support as well. Yast is awesome for when you just need to configure something, but don't want to spend hours learning config files. It just modifies the same files, so if you have a more complex setup than Yast can handle you can do the config by hand. If you're exploring Linux in the server space, SUSE works wonderfully, but you'll want to pick up a RHEL clone (either CentOS or Scientific Linux).
Am I a lawful target? I'm a military member so, yes even when I'm in civilian clothes or at home in bed at night I am a lawful target.
Are all CIA agents lawful targets? Yes. Do they operate from a government facility that is also a lawful target and so clearly identified? Yes. If the US started operating drones from inside elementary schools, then elementary schools would also become lawful targets. The law of armed conflict is really pretty simple, each side attempts to destroy the other's ability to wage war with as little collateral damage as possible. The moment that one side breaks the rules, the other is also permitted to break them as well to stop the damage caused by the original violation. The U.S. generally doesn't respond to enemy LOAC violations with reciprocal violations because doing so make the enemy less likely to surrender.
The bottom line is this:
- If we are at war with a nation and get attacked from within that nation we can and will respond to the attack, probably with kinetic weapons (regardless of the perpetrator).
- If we are not at war with a nation and get attacked, we probably attempt to deal with it diplomatically(regardless of the perpetrator) before proceeding to a military solution. That diplomatic solution may be to seek extradition for prosecution or, possibly clandestine, approval to operate drones in their airspace to eliminate the threat.
Doing so is as much a violation of the Geneva Convention as dressing your infantry in civilian clothes or placing anti aircraft guns atop a hospital. If a nation makes it impossible to differentiate civilians from combatants, their civilians become lawful targets.
All members of the enemy military, military civilians, and military contractors are lawful combatants. There is no special protection for IT guys, just like there is no special protection for cooks or personnelists. That's just the way it is and those of us in uniform accept it.
If we are already at war with a nation and one of their civilian population decides to attack us in any way they become an unlawful combatant and give up their protection under the Geneva Convention. The attacked nation has the right to eliminate the threat in any way they see fit, whether that is a counter hack or a guided missile.
If we are not at war and a civilian attacks our network, then it is a criminal matter handled via the state department. Depending on the political tensions, the attacker's nation's response or lack of response may precipitate military actions. This would be true If the crime were murder, theft, or embezzlement, computer crimes are not special.
Never mind the fact that:
.05% of the population is outwardly racist. Who cares if the south has a marginally higher number or the 359 racist Twitter users. This story is as ludicrous, sensationalized, piece drivel that doesn't really show anything. I've lived in Alabama for almost 3 years now and have yet to run into an openly racist person.
- they did not account for multiple tweets from the same person.
- do not consider any term "racist" unless it has been used to "subjugate a people for generations"
- think that 359 TOTAL geocoded tweets out of ALL geocoded tweets (.05%) is statistically significant.
We should be celebrating that only
When the author was confronted with questions regarding why he did not do a reciprocal piece, regarding racism against Romney, he argued that there are not words for whites that have the same power as the "n" word for blacks (although he included the word "monkey" in his "study", a word I've heard used to describe fools both white and black alike). It is clear that the authors view is that is impossible whites to be the subject of racism because they were the oppressor 60 years ago. The article leaves you with the implied conclusion that if someone did not vote for Obama, they must be racist (a implication that the author denies in his follow up).