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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Gawd I hated it! (Score 3, Informative) 231

by khasim (#48662783) Attached to: The Slow Death of Voice Mail

Voice mail etiquette.

(speak slowly and distinctly here) Hi. This is (your name). My number is (your number).

(speak normally here) Now state the situation as clearly as you can. But be brief. This is a message. Not exposition.

End with repeating your name (slowly and clearly) and your phone number.

Thank you.

The easiest way to do this is to realize that you MIGHT run into voice mail before you pick up the phone. Go through the message in your head before dialing. This will cut down on the uh and um and huh and em and other noises.

Comment: Re:Gawd I hated it! (Score 4, Insightful) 231

by khasim (#48662675) Attached to: The Slow Death of Voice Mail

You're right! That's, um, the, uh, problem.

"People north of 40 are schizophrenic about voice mail," says Michael Schrage.

Bullshit. I'm old and I hate voice mail. No one knows how to leave a message and they're just going to follow up with an email or come see you in person anyway.

If you're just going to leave a message that says "call me back" then send an email or a text or an IM. Or use the scheduling function in email to set up an appointment with me.

The worst offender was a manager I worked with some years ago. He would do the stream-of-consciousness thing whenever he got voicemail and you'd end up with 10 sentences covering 10 different topics. Which I would then turn into 10 different email messages and send back to him.

It's communication! It is NOT the same as talking. Just because you're talking does NOT mean you're communicating.

Comment: Re:Yet another clueless story on automation (Score 1) 621

by khasim (#48643087) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

What makes you think those places will still be more polluted than the US by that time?

Science.

There's this magic assumption on your part that the current state remains unchanged.

No. But YOU have not explained WHO would clean up the YEARS of pollution or WHY they would do so.

Greece is first world too.

Yes, as I have specifically pointed out to you.

Those Greek workers aren't pursuing opportunities in Greece. They are actually chasing opportunities in the developed world.

Again, as I have specifically pointed out to you.

You are restating the points that I have made while ignoring your own claims.

If the EU ceases to be developed world, ...

HOW would that happen?

Also Greece isn't an unusual case of a first world country with net emigration. The article mentions Ireland, Spain, and Portugal as well.

And, again, it is the WORKERS who are pursuing jobs in other 1st world countries.

It is NOT the OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES moving to the 3rd world. The OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES are moving the manufacturing jobs to the 3rd world while they keep their families in the 1st world.

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between a WORKER and a person who OWNS THE COMPANY.

Comment: Re:Yet another clueless story on automation (Score 3, Interesting) 621

by khasim (#48642709) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

I already noted the developed world as a counterexample.

It isn't a "counterexample". It is where the people who own the factories that are deploying robots live. 3rd world companies still use people because they're 3rd world and people are cheaper than machines for them.

This is a non sequitur.

*sigh*

Of course, when portions of the developed world are no longer developed, then the people who own companies and many other people as well, will move to places where basic services are still supported.

So when the USofA becomes "no longer developed" then the rich will move to the countries that have been polluted by their factories.

No. That is not going to happen.

That need not remain the case, as Greece has demonstrated (they already are emigrating at a substantial rate to other parts of the EU).

The Greeks looking for work are moving to other 1st world countries where the job opportunities in their fields are better. So they chase those opportunities ... in the 1st world.

The Greeks who own companies that were moving manufacturing to the 3rd world are not moving to the 3rd world.

Comment: Re:Yet another clueless story on automation (Score 3, Insightful) 621

by khasim (#48642377) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

Call it "race to the bottom", "exporting the pollution", whatever, but it remains that a growing amount of valuable economic activity has been chased out of the developed world and it's not coming back.

It has not been "chased out" of any where. What you see is the people who own the companies looking for the cheapest means to produce their products.

Look closer and you will see that the people who own the companies are NOT moving their families to the countries where they've moved their companies.

They want cheap for the workers ... but they want all the benefits and luxuries of the 1st world available to themselves.

If it really was "chased out" then they'd also be moving their families to those less-regulated, less-restricted countries.

As can been seen when people leave countries/governments that they believe ARE oppressive. They take their families with them.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 3, Informative) 340

From what I've read, the Target crack was funnelled through a 3rd party HVAC company that did not secure their systems sufficiently.
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/target-hackers-broke-in-via-hvac-company/

They may have done more AFTER the scripts gave them access. But it appears that the scripts gave them the initial access.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 4, Interesting) 340

And one of the aspects where I disagree with him:

Low-focus attacks are easier to defend against: If Home Depot's systems had been better protected, the hackers would have just moved on to an easier target.

He is phrasing it incorrectly. The attacks are scripted and BLIND. They don't attack X and skip Y if X is vulnerable. Or attack Y if X is not vulnerable. They attack A - Z regardless of the success or failure of any single attack.

And 100% agreement with your air gap recommendation.

With attackers who are highly skilled and highly focused, however, what matters is whether a targeted company's security is superior to the attacker's skills, not just to the security measures of other companies.

He's got it right there. Once you are online you can be attacked by anyone anywhere. The only advantage you have is that you control the wire in your organization. Wireless is more of a pain. But you can see every packet moving on the wire.

It is hard to put a dollar value on security that is strong enough to assure you that your embarrassing emails and personnel information won't end up posted online somewhere, but Sony clearly failed here.

In my experience, the problem is not money. The problem is EGO. Someone is always convinced that what they are doing is more important than following what the IT nerds say and they have the political clout within the company to force exceptions be made.

It is the exceptions that damage your security.

It is the exceptions that allow the easy-to-prevent attacks to get a foothold on your network. THEN the more advanced attacks are unleashed.

Comment: Re:Well, duh (Score 4, Interesting) 388

by khasim (#48636509) Attached to: The Dominant Life Form In the Cosmos Is Probably Superintelligent Robots

Well if you look at what has been "common knowledge" in SF in years past ...

And she gets her terms wrong.

Knowing that we are not alone in the universe would be a profound realization, and contact with an alien civilization could produce amazing technological innovations and cultural insights.

The universe includes all the galaxies. Our sun will probably burn out before we get a message from another galaxy. Stick to your own galaxy. That is difficult enough.

Which brings up the next error:

Even if I am wrong -- even if the majority of alien civilizations turn out to be biological -- it may be that the most intelligent alien civilizations will be ones in which the inhabitants are SAI.

SAI is her term for "superintelligent artificial intelligence". So she has just written a tautology. Unless you want to get into super-superintelligent or ultra-superintelligent.

And the rest is more of the same.

Comment: Re:I don't see the big deal here. (Score 4, Interesting) 182

by khasim (#48624921) Attached to: US Links North Korea To Sony Hacking

It's not as expensive to spend the money to properly maintain your security than it is to have it massively breached and all your data stolen.

Not as expensive if you only count money.

But in my experience, the problem is the upper executives and their insistence on special exceptions for them and their people who are doing work that is just so important that they cannot be burdened with following the security that applies to non-important people.

And I hope Sony, and all other Big Companies (tm), learn a lesson.

I think that this reinforces the wrong lesson. Everything is okay as long as you can find someone else to blame. Whether it's an employee or a hacker group or a country. The focus will be more on THEM rather than Sony executives who broke security so that they could feel more important than the nerds in IT.

Comment: Re:Home of the brave? (Score 4, Insightful) 586

by khasim (#48622319) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

Yep. And even more so.

If you live in the USofA then you have a larger chance of being killed by your spouse / boyfriend / girlfriend / YOUR OWN CHILDREN than by a terrorist.

Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.

And in this specific case, what are the "terrorists" going to do? Steal your credit card number? Pay cash instead.

Comment: Mod parent up. (Score 3, Insightful) 153

by khasim (#48612107) Attached to: In IT, Beware of Fad Versus Functional

And he makes a FUNDAMENTAL mistake by focusing on "defining how a new technology approach will add value".

At the CxO level that is easy to do. It will allow the company to synergize your core with blah blah buzzword blah buzzword.

But the reality is that it is about adding more achievements and buzzwords to someone's resume so that they can move on before their choices bite them.

Comment: Re:Check your math. (Score 2, Informative) 880

by khasim (#48598461) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

Conservative Christians do indeed suck, but I can't think of any serious terrorist or even violent activity by Christians in a very long time, except for a couple cases of some lone wacko shooting an abortion doctor.

The difference is the power structure.

You don't have to personally beat someone for your beliefs if you can have the police do it for you because your beliefs are the law.

Muslims, however, are infamous for organizing to do violent deeds.

The same can be said (and has) about the black "rioters" and the current protests here.

Advocating for various laws (which aren't very successful BTW, gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted in America now and is becoming legal all over; these days I think most ultraconservatives are more worried about illegal immigration, gun control, and various other issues than about gay marriage) is not similar to carrying out violent, terroristic acts.

The difference is whether the majority view them as "legitimate" exercises of violence.

Passing a law that will be used more against X than Y will not be seen as a problem by Y. And the Y's will tend to view any X that complains as being a problem.

100 years ago blacks could not marry whites. And violence against a black man accused of sex with a white woman was "justified".

20 years ago gay marriage was illegal. And it wasn't a "hate crime" to beat someone just because you thought he was gay. I remember online arguments just 10 years ago.

Right now there are states where it is legal to have an abortion BUT it is almost impossible due to the legal restrictions placed upon it. Even if the woman's life is in danger.

Those with the power to make and enforce the laws do not need to personally take hostages.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...