I'm with you on the issue that IT is a function of a business to enable business. I think however there are some real issues with what's going on here.
1) There is a firewall in place which appears to be impeding business from operating 2) The IT guy is trying to get justification from outside to continue impeding business instead of taking the opportunity to identify why the firewall is blocking sites which facilitate their business. 5) The boss seems to believe the users need to access these sites. 6) He wants to handle this on a case by case basis which seems to impede business enough that this has become an issue. This apparently is a solution which doesn't do anything other than impede the workflow of the users.
At the company I work for, there is no web filter because of #5.
The users claim blocking the sites they most visit will impede work flow. They complain about network access speed.
A quick peek at logs shows the website most visited is Facebook. Bandwidth goes to Netflix, Youtube, other video streaming, Pandora, Spotify and other music streaming and then there is noise. The users insist their use of the Internet is work related.
If I were charged with keeping Internet use work related I'd want to review things too. Open access has resulting in a minimum of 90% non-work related traffic to the point that work related use suffers significantly. The worst offenders are the most vocal, and claim all use is work related. HR solutions haven't worked.
Open access doesn't work. Separate from IDS/malware serving website blocking (that needs a subscription from specialists to work effectively), black-lists plus spot check traffic reviews is probably the most open that can work assuming you have the spare manpower in IT to keep up and have management and HR support for dealing with serial abusers. I'd much prefer being able to allow occasional unrestricted personal use provided your work performance is good, but complaining to my boss because your Internet connection is too slow because Netflix is buffering?!?! Screw that!
I've been on Slashdot since you were jacking off to cheerleaders.
Slut shaming cheerleaders? Turn yourself into the Jezebel re-education camp immediately.
Bragging about a high six digit UID is sad. In fact, bragging about the age of your account for any reason at all except to joke about it in a 'get off my lawn' fashion is lame. How about writing intelligently so you have something of worth to brag about.
I think the question people need to start asking themselves, first, is WHY they're filming in the first place.
I'm a photographer. My answer to that question is - so I don't face 10-20 years in jail on falsified charges made by an officer in retaliation for my recording - or just because I was nearby with a professional camera.
Assaulting photographers simply for recording is a crime. Falsifying charges against a photographer is a crime. Destroying a photographers (often extremely expensive) equipment is a crime. Those things became so common, so pervasive that holding a professional camera near an officer was known to be dangerous.
Some news photographers began filming each other so they'd have evidence when they were arrested on false charges. In some areas, the illegal assaults and false arrests escalated.
That's escalation pissed off otherwise disinterested people enough that they'll record just to preserve the right to record. Departments and cities backed the officers actions, so civil lawsuits followed. Repeated losses in civil lawsuits over false arrest didn't stop the behavior. It became so pervasive that courts are sometimes stripping officers of qualified immunity. (see Glik v. Cunniffe for a case where that was upheld all the way to the Federal court of appeals) Interfering this way is a violation of the 1st and 4th amendments, and that's very settled case law.
Simply, if officers stop assaulting and arresting photographers merely for recording, they won't have a problem. If 'showing up' is all it takes to catch you breaking the law, perhaps the problem is you.
Ya'll watch too much TV. If you want to see what a police officer does then ask to do a full shift ride-along. It's rather eye opening.
Except for the times when there was a second photographer the officer didn't spot. Then we get video of the officer disabling the camera and assaulting the first photographer. One case in Florida, we had video of the officer pushing the photographer backwards down stairs. (I've had a serious neck injury - that video gave me chills - if the photographer hadn't been slowed by the railing he could have been killed or paralyzed)
Go photograph a police station from a public sidewalk for a few hours. When you can reliably do that entirely legal action without an armed confrontation get back to me and we'll talk about it again.
After witnessing NOLA police assault a photographer before assaulting and arresting a nearby group of people I'm not accepting the sort of unfounded assertion you've made. (I later found out the group was planning a small 'unauthorized' parade down a sidewalk outside of the crowded parts of Bourbon st. Since they stayed on the sidewalk, and traveled roughly single file they didn't block traffic or impede pedestrians making what they did entirely legal. The officers put a stop to it anyway, and made sure there wouldn't be a record of what they did. I was passing by and got caught in the cordon preventing anyone from leaving while ordering them to disperse. I managed to lean against a light pole and stay as the cordon passed me.)
There is no demand for a crappy head mounted 3D screen, and little demand for a 3D TV that works only from one angle with special glasses.
Working immersive VR is a winner though. These latest headsets are getting very close for the first time. If this generation doesn't manage it, the next one will. It's VR headset time.
It is pretty clear what happens to the assets of criminals
When you lose a war utterly, your property is what the victor says it is. The property of someone as infamous as him is as forfeit as his life.
" Creating such artificial environment will put girls to have wrong understanding of their capabilities, and they will suffer even greater dissapointment when they go out on the competitive labor marker after 5 years of education."
It seems more likely that the goal is to train them to compete in the H1B visa TATA minimum wage STEM market envisioned for the future.
1) If women perceive your "kind and friendly" behavior as "creepy," then you are not behaving "kind and friendly." You are, in fact, behaving like a "creep."
Pardon me for calling bullshit, but I know how to be polite and respectful just as my mother taught me.
The thing is, I'm not tall, dark and handsome-- I'm not tje "bad boy" type that these "rare birds" find sexy, ergo they dismiss me.
Remember, we're talking about "pretty girls," the ones who have been pampered and babied and put on pedestals all their lives. The plain-jane types are much more willing to talk to me and always assure me that I'm not behaving creepy in any way.
If you're a nice guy but not physically gorgeous and/or rich, your attention is not wanted by these women, ergo you are a "creep" for even talking to them.
This is exactly correct. I grew up an ugly duckling, then filled out in my mid twenties. The transition from 'can do no right' to 'can do no wrong' was striking.
One slight adjustment though. If she's a drama queen, talking isn't required. Being in the same place and ignoring her is enough because you're 'gross'.
While wiring under the desk in a cubicle, three women in the next row over were talking and didn't realize I was there. They were coordinating the three false sexual harassment claims they were going to (and did) make to get a male co-worker fired because they considered him unattractive and wanted him replaced with someone hotter. (HR told me to STFU when I reported that, then acted on what the women said - they were concerned with liability/lawsuit expense not truth or justice) Later one of those three women propositioned me, making a threat of a false harassment claim against me if I didn't sleep with her - and I already knew HR would back *her* up without question.
I have this friend. She's blond, six foot, blue eyes, loves wearing five inch heels, and is a bit of an exhibitionist. Gorgeous. Loves dressing up. She also has a BS in computer science and a master's degree in mathematcs. She works conventions as a 'booth babe' for fun. Her stories about tearing into some dork who thinks she's just some dumb blonde are priceless. Shame to spoil her fun.
O M G! I'd love to be a fly on the wall, that sounds hilarious. A bored brilliant woman in a target rich environment - priceless! She could troll for victims all day... I'm still laughing about the concept!
Found it. Spencer Chen, last year: http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/...
They believe it soooo much they've make a clickbait article with more column inches of booth babe pictures than text - and no pics of booth grandma. Suuuuure they think that, this certainly isn't do as I say not as I do...
But, a lot of the slut shaming I see is done by guys. What does that fit into this picture?
White Knighting mostly.