Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: Idiocy. (Score 1) 392

Read what I wrote again.

I was a customer not an employee. I was paying the training company for the training and certification I needed for accreditation. (And I most certainly will be finding another company next time it comes due.)

The staff couldn't do their job because of the failure of their IT dept to do their job.

As a result, we (the clients) had to use our own computers, and in doing so we discovered that we had full network access (often more than the staff had) because the IT dept failed to do their jobs and secure the network properly. Meanwhile, the company lost reputation and lost business because of the actions (and inactions) of those IT dept employees. From what I heard, they lost a major contract due to this kind of bullshit, and had to close down an entire regional centre.

And I'm sure that the same incompetent IT dept probably patted themselves on the back and told stories about idiot end lusers, just as you do. Congratulated themselves on fighting the good fight against the lusers.

I mean, you couldn't even listen to a user enough to understand that I was not employee, but a paying client. You were already so far up your own ass, so ready with your excuses "if you don't like it, go find another job", that you couldn't even read the words.

Comment Re: Idiocy. (Score 1) 392

Ah, so unless it's a dev or engineer ("one of us"), all the people who complain about not being able to do their jobs because of shitty IT policies and lazy/crazy IT people must all be lying.

For eg,
I was doing a cert update (accounting) through a trainer, their IT dept at head office had the training machines boot from a saved state. Which is fair enough: training machines. Except that they'd left all the autoupdates turned on, and it looked like they hadn't updated that saved state for over two years. So each time you turned on a machine, it started trying to update every piece of software for an hour or so. And half the updates failed (anything except the core OS) because they were set to require admin-level confirmation to confirm the final install, which, of course, no-one had.

Meanwhile, for the entirety of the six month course, the IT dept refused to install the corporate accounting package that we were there to train on... You know, the actual function of the company. The site manager (and apparently her boss) couldn't get the IT dept to install the (already purchased) software, nor explain why they were refusing. So we students (and half the staff) just used our laptops...

And funnily enough, the actual office network (not just the training network) was so poorly secured you could just plug in any random laptop to any random ethernet port and get access without so much as a login. Near the end of my six months there, one weekend they set up a wi-fi network in the office, without telling anyone in the office, including a guest account for students (judging by the SSID - "Student (Guest)"), but didn't give passwords to anyone who actually worked there.

But no, I guess we were just trying to install a pirated, malware laced version of solitaire.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 685

The structure of the sentence doesn't specify militia membership as a pre-condition for keeping and bearing arms. It merely implies that a well regulated militia requires arms, that militias are composed of citizens and thus grants citizens the right to bear arms, implying that they thereby would be able to join together into a militia if they so chose.

I've always felt it works better if you flip that around, the "militia" part is a sort-of apology for not disarming the government. "Unfortunately, the ability of the government to command a militia is necessary to security, so the people must have the ability to defend themselves against abuses by that militia." "Government" in this case doesn't have to mean Federal, just a militias don't have to be national.

It makes less sense that people are armed in order to allow the government to call them up, since the government already has that power under Article 1; and indeed there were early laws requiring able-bodied free men to own a suitable weapon to join the militia.

In fact, the entire original BoR works better, IMO, when read as giving people the ability to plot against the government.

Freedom of the press, the literal printing press, in order to print pamphlets of grievances, in order to recruit. Freedom of religion, because churches were historically used recruit; and as havens to plot against tyrants, and thus control of churches a way to suppress such plots.

Arms. Obviously.

Absence of military intimidation of potential supporters. (A common tactic in the day. If there's unrest in the area, the govt houses troops on the land or even in the homes of sympathisers, consume their food, etc. As well as the less savoury aspects of having random soldiers set up in your home.)

The ability to hide documents, either at home or while travelling. To carry messages between conspirators, etc.

The right not to be compelled to testify against your fellow rebels. Nor to be held without charge or warrant. Or have your property arbitrarily seized. Etc. And to prevent jury-shopping by continually re-charging you even after you are acquitted.

Not to be held for an unlimited time, nor be prevented from being able to conduct a defence.

To have a jury of peers, not govt appointed judges, nor ring-ins brought in from loyalist areas.

Bail can't be used to get around the Sixth. Nor minor offences used to justify a major punishment.

And no cheating by sneaking laws into the gaps between the literal wording.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 685

The real question is, Would our troops accept the government telling them to mount an offensive against the populace?

Judging by the police, sure.

Provided you first dehumanise the enemy in some way...

the radically pro-government types (Occupy *, et al),

...And there you are. See? Easy. You're already well on your way to turning on your own countrymen.

Comment Re:Idiocy. (Score 1) 392

To be fair to the old timers, both Wordperfect and Word were equally pieces of shit, but with Wordperfect you could turn on the format codes and actually see what it was fucking up and fix it yourself. Word hid everything behind a pseudo-WYSIWYG. And it's the "pseudo" that makes you tear your hair out.

Comment Re: Idiocy. (Score 2) 392

You need something installed, put in a ticket with a justification. You don't need War and Peace, just a blurb on how the software relates to your job.
If you can't do that, you don't need it and most certainly do not need to be able software at will.

Wow. That sounds great. But... how do you reconcile that with an IT dept (in the story) that apparently doesn't know how to install a text editor in Linux?

I mean, forget running Windows-only shit in a VM, a fucking text editor. In Linux.

(Or a place I used to do training, which locked training machines (Windows) to a saved state... but with all the autoupdates left on. Every time you booted up the training machines, they started trying to install hundreds of updates for every single piece of software. Which half would fail to install after downloading anyway because you needed admin privileges to confirm the install. (And as near as I could tell, the saved state hadn't been updated in at least two years.) Same (off-site) IT dept wouldn't install a widely used accounting package onto the training computers (the thing we were meant to be training on), with no explanation given. At least six months while I was there, the site manager (and her boss) couldn't get the IT dept to either install the already purchased software, or at least give them some idea of why they were refusing. We all just used our laptops. Funnily enough, the actual office network (not the training network) was so poorly locked down, you could plug in any random laptop to any random ethernet port and get access without so much as a login. One weekend, they set up a wi-fi network in the office, without telling anyone in the office, including a guest account for students (judging by the SSID - "Student (Guest)"), but didn't give passwords to anyone who actually worked there.)

Comment Re: Good for greece (Score 5, Insightful) 1307

Germany will return to the DM, which all the sensible people in Europe will shift their savings and investments to, at which point the "new drachma", as the euro will be called then, won't be worth the paper it's printed on.

The vast majority of German exports are to Europe, and the majority of those to the Eurozone.

If Germany had a separate currency, it would appreciate relative to the rest of Europe. That would result in German exports being effectively becoming much more expensive. Similarly, with a drop in the value of the currencies (or joint currency) of the PIIGS countries, their own exports would suddenly become much more competitive and their wages much lower (without the pain of internal deflation).

That is the whole freakin' point of floating currencies. It allows effective inflation/deflation without internal real inflation/deflation, allowing the system to respond much more fluidly and rapidly. For example, German sovereign debts would have appreciated in cost (relative to other currencies), while Greek sovereign debts would depreciated sharply (relative to other currencies).

Switching to the Euro froze that, pushing all revaluations back internally, but the Eurozone failed to implement the internal corrective mechanisms that nations use (Federalised revenue and payment systems to compensate for regional downturns.)

Essentially, Germany has been gaining a huge advantage from the Euro. It prevents them pricing themselves out of the European markets via currency appreciation, while simultaneously not having to pay for failed regions within Europe. All the advantages of Euro-Federalisation with none of the costs to Germany that true Federalised economies like the US have.

Even better, Germans can play this bullshit "holier than thou" game when the system finally collapses in on itself.

Comment Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 623

I oppose same sex marriage because:

A) It reinforces heteronormative conventions in a way which is harmful to the broader queer/trans community, and even to the acceptance of alternative hetero lifestyles. Instead of helping us move away from insistence on (and assumption of) conventions like marriage, nuclear families, and the cookie-cutter heteronormative lifestyle, gay-marriage reinforces it. It reinforces the idea that pre-marriage relationships are judged by whether they are moving towards marriage. Marriage by whether its moving towards having a family. Career, marriage, family, church, little-league... Look at how most gays are represented on TV shows, they are always excessively heteronormal suburban couples. Their lifestyle is otherwise identical to hetero couples (probably even more vanilla that the central family), their issues are always mundane hetero issues (like trying to adopt kids, or buy a home), with only a token issue of "gaining acceptance" thrown in for flavour.

(Indeed, in my opinion, the religious nutters should be on the front-lines of supporting gay-marriage. It reinforces their narrow views on acceptable lifestyle.)

B) When legislators and institutions had to deal with the issue of gay couples without marriage, they tended to also look a multiple potential alternative forms of relationships, and across a whole array of social/legal institutions. And that helps people who aren't just simple gay couples, but who deal with the same issues in employment/taxation/pension/inheritance/custody/medical/etc. But when legislators can just say, "Okay, this subsection of non-heteros will be made honorary heteros for legal purposes", suddenly that allows them to ignore the same issues that affect other types of relationships (including couples who don't marry. "My partner and I have a lot of trouble with the way laws/regs are written" can be dismissed with "Well, you have the choice to get married. If you refused to do that, you only have yourselves to blame if it causes problems.") Gay marriage hides a lot of these bigger issues under the rug.

[Note, this includes issues that affect mundane heteros. Issues like estrangement (where your legal partner isn't the person you currently live with), single parents, serial relationships, mixed families, surrogacy rights, non-parent custody rights, etc etc etc. Gay marriage allows legislators, employers, institutions, to go back to pretending that people get married early and once, have identical family structures, and live together until one of them dies.]

C) It peels away the largest and most hetero-acceptable portion of the GLBTTI community: gay couples. Therefore vastly reduce the visibility and power of the queer community, reducing any future progress on issues that matter to non-heteros and alternative lifestyle heteros. The mundane heteros could identify with simple gay couples, with jobs and homes and otherwise identical lives to their own. That served as a "ice-breaker" to gain broad support for social reforms. Without that common element, and with gay couples encouraged to adopt more and more heteronormative lifestyles, it reduces the ability to the rest of the community to pursue social reforms and address social repression.

Comment Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 623

Because it takes issues that are otherwise straightforward and turns them into a mess if there is no will. If you get in a car accident and end up in a coma, your wife can make medical decisions for you. If you die, she inherits everything and has custody of the kids. But if you're a polygamist who adopted, who gets the kids...Sue or Molly? Who gets the house? Which one makes the call to keep you on a feeding tube while you're in the coma?

How is that any different to the situation for a sick/comatose/senile/end-of-life parent without a living spouse, when the issue of medical power-of-attorney falls to their children, who may be any number? Or which family member (of which there can be any number) take on the children of a deceased sibling. Or any number of similar issues that real societies have dealt with.

The answer is, we develop rules and conventions to work around it. For polyamorists, if they want to avoid that kind of mess, they would need to better formalise powers of attorney, living wills, etc, than a binary couple.

Comment Re:Privacy? (Score 4, Interesting) 776

What? This was a PRIVATE employment agreement between a PRIVATE employer and a PRIVATE employee. If she doesn't like the employers terms she can find a new job. The GOVERNMENT has zero business intruding in a PRIVATE affair!

This was a demand by a Federally licensed LLC on an individual.

If the owner(s) of the LLC wants to be personally legally liable for the actions of the company, I have no problem agreeing with the sentiments in your comment. But as long as those owner(s) want special legal protection by the government, they can respect a few basic social rights.

Comment Re:Not just ineffective (EEO bullshit) (Score 2) 553

Your response is an example of Appeal to Authority

Actually, the one you're trying to reach for is Appeal to Popularity (Argumentum ad Populum) not Appeal to Authority.

However, you started by talking about "immorality", so you've already fallen victim to dogmatism (by Excluding the Middle). While likening the "Pi equals 3" law or creationism to anti-discrimination laws is an Argument by False Analogy, since Pi=3 and creationism are factually wrong, not morally, and are therefore unrelated to the argument you are trying to make.

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken

Working...