Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Survey? (Score 4, Interesting) 347

Having really dumb terminals does simplify end support though. Computer not working? Pull it out, put in a new one. Send the old one back to the manufacturer. It means one IT worker can support many more computers, and needs less training thus lower pay.

Only if you've divided up your roles... But so many companies have people "wearing many hats" that, in practice, it will be the same person doing the virtualization AND the "desktop" support of the virtual-desktops... Which means he'll need far MORE training than current helpdesk people. In fact, what it really does is makes IT hiring that much harder for most organizations because now you can't just hire somebody who knows Windows desktops for the helpdesk/workstation VM admin role--you would need to hire somebody who knows VDI or Xen Desktop (or something else.)

Comment: Re:Penny wide; Dollar foolish. (Score 1) 277

by Karl Cocknozzle (#40094825) Attached to: Ten Cops Can't Recover Police Chief's Son's iPhone

Yeah, I just slipped right out of the kid's school locker and manged to hop a bus to Oakland. That Siri is far more adept than I ever expected.

That Siri is a wild bitch... One weekend a few years back, she and I rented a convertible, drove out to Vegas, and took mushrooms with 8 strippers. Yadda yadda yadda, three days later Siri has maxed all her (and my) credit cards, done all 8 strippers (and me) and passed out naked on a craps table. I might hang with her again, but I'm not bringing my credit cards... I just now got out of debt.

The worst part is I she talks like that during sex, too. The bonging gets a little old...

Comment: Re:Unfair (Score 5, Insightful) 278

What sort of response would you have the police make?

You do realize it is possible to have an investigation and not file criminal charges, right? That there is no requirement to file criminal charges just because there has been an investigation, correct? That prosecutors aren't just "allowed" but are "expected" to not file charges in unwinnable cases because the defendant in question is somebody who has ridiculed them publicly for years. Don't you?

That prosecutors and cops pressing an un-winnable case to the hilt, and just happen to be doing so against somebody who has been criticizing them publicly for years is a pretty large coincidence. But you're right, I'm sure his years-long criticism of Canadian anti-terrorism "security" theater had nothing to do with the reason he was used (correctly) to "send a message" to anybody else that might say the "wrong" things and "reveal our weaknesses" to "terrorists."

You're right, nothing to see here: Big Brother always knows whats best, and ours is not to reason why.

Comment: Re:Unfair (Score 5, Insightful) 278

Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making.

So what? Not illegal to purchase those components if you aren't making a bomb. In fact, it isn't even illegal to buy those things even if you're "thinking about" making a bomb. Possessing these things isn't a crime unless he actually builds a bomb. He didn't build a bomb, never had any intention of building a bomb, and the cops KNEW full-well he had no intention of building a bomb.

So why the charges, if not to silence a critic?

He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit.

Not illegal. Ever heard of "Freedom of Speech?"

Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing).

More like they saw that a guy who'd been criticizing them publicly for ineffective security regimens and saw an opportunity to tarnish his reputation and chill his speech in the future by branding him a terrrorist. Even though he's been acquitted, the damage is done: In the narrow-minds of many this man is now a "terrorist" and damaged goods as a security analyst. ...All because he criticized the wrong person.

And really, how anybody can claim it is anything else than that is beyond me: Almost every advanced nation factors a defendants INTENT to commit a crime into the equation of whether they're guilty or not. In no scenario can anybody claim this guy had intent to blow anything up: He's said he never intended to, and no investigator when pressed has EVER presented evidence he intended to build a bomb. This is a "wink-and-nod" between the cops involved to strike-back at somebody who is critical of their security-theater gravy-train--nothing more.

Comment: Re:Of course. (Score 5, Interesting) 1174

by Karl Cocknozzle (#39806583) Attached to: TSA Defends Pat Down of 4-Year-Old Girl

But the obvious solution in this case is to have the child go through the scanners again. Why the pat down? Either the scanners are good enough to detect anything that could have been passed from an unscreened passenger to a screened passenger, or they're not. Unless they are implicitly acknowledging that latter...

Except the security isn't the real deal... it's the Pavlovian response of "Yes, I will comply" they're looking for. They must escalate any situation where it appears a traveller--any traveller, even a frightened child--isn't in total subservience and compliance to the rules. Seperating the child is about inducing terror, and specifically conditioning that child to ALWAYS conform to authority. It isn't a coincidence that there are so many incidents with young kids that the TSA is involved in--the youngest generation is being conditioned to expect invasions of their private bodies rather than resist them, as our generation does. They want to turn these invasive "screenings" into part of the background noise of American life so they can ease similar invasive "screenings" into other parts of our lives. Why?

TSA finds far more cash and drugs than they do guns and bombs--and that's what they're really looking for. Cash they can seize (the booty funds "overhead," leaving more money from taxpayers to spend on boondoggle body scanner devices) is the name of the game. Some police agencies get vast swath of their funding from such seizure activities.

Comment: Share the template and any custom code (Score 1) 151

by Karl Cocknozzle (#39735729) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Share a SharePoint Site?

Under an open-source license and be sure to include disclaimers about providing no warranty as to its functionality and suitability for what they're trying to do with it. Best choice would be to consult with a good lawyer who has worked with a "free" distribution of software before. Only in America would you need a lawyer to give something away safely, but here we are.

Comment: Doesn't go far enough (Score 1) 274

by Karl Cocknozzle (#39728337) Attached to: Asian Call Center Workers Trained With US Tax Dollars

Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts.

How about we make this into a law that actually keeps desirable jobs in the country? For example, why only call-center jobs? Those jobs suck and don't pay shit, anyway. How about we say "If more than 5% of your total workforce is outsourced outside the U.S., no government contracts."

If you want to save mega-bucks on salaries by hiring foreigners for 10center per hour? More power to you: But you won't be lining your pockets with tax-money anymore, either.

Comment: Re:If the ISP wont give, they'll just take it. (Score 1) 184

by Karl Cocknozzle (#39726073) Attached to: Super-Privacy-Protecting ISP In the Planning

What everyone fails to consider is the feds can just take the data they want whether you legally give it to them or not. The feds have all the technological and physical means to take any information from any ISP or entity.

Of course, they can only get that data via an ISP if it is transmitted across the Internet in the first place, and while they probably have the resources to pay somebody to break into just about anything, that's still a fruitless exercise if the lending records are anonymized the moment the books get returned. Likely their network admins have considered the "backup hole" and have already dealt with it, since IT people at libraries have librarians for bosses who understand the issues in play, even if some IT folks don't.

In like a dimwit, out like a light. -- Pogo

Working...