Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Encryption (Score 1) 212

I do not, nor have I ever, used my personal cell phone for work purposes. Key work people may have the number for emergency purposes, but it's made clear that me providing that number is a serious point of trust, and that it should never be used except for the most dire circumstances. My work cell not answering doesn't count. Clients are to *never* get that number.

About a year ago, I took a job where they don't provide a phone. I chose instead to purchase a separate line that is used entirely for business. Only a few personal contacts have the number (parents and wife, basically). If I ever leave the company, the line gets disabled (phone was purchased off contract) so I don't have to field calls from clients. Even if I choose to use the phone with a new employer, it will get a different number. The cost of the phone and extra line comes off taxes each year.

When traveling internationally, the phone gets backed up, wiped, and reinitialized with a separate ID that has no links to the old except for necessary work contacts. Something similar happens to the notebook. After returning home, what little new data is present is backed up, then the pre-trip backups are restored.

All devices are fully encrypted, so reinitialization gets a fully clean start.

Comment lot of technology to reduce show costs and speed p (Score 2) 77

Rodenberry said in his book The Making of Star Trek that he eschewed shuttles and invented transporters to cut the cost of filming and avoid the extra time it would take to depict a shuttle in the show. Ditto for many of the other devices. Constrast this to the Iron Man movie why they glory in showing expensive FX gizmos.

Comment Re: (Score 1) 104

Dating is only tiny sliver of what meetup.com. Take for example the hundreds of these politics-related meetups.

And if the results are bad for the Dems, will you all publish?

Of course, they will. Avast is a scamware company. They thrive on misinformation, fear, and publicity.

http://avastscam.com/a-track-record-of-fraud/

Avast's CEO has even blamed its affiliates for their scams, which he claims they deactivated and are no longer forwarding phone calls from their 800 numbers to, but once the bad press died down, nothing changed, and their current affiliates are still scaring grandpas and grandmas everywhere into shelling out hundreds of dollars for worthless Avast products that claim to fix problems that those people didn't even have in the first place.

The only story that everyone seems to be missing right now is the fact that a well-known scamware company was able to place wireless hotspots within the Republican National Convention, and is actually bragging about it after the fact. I ask you. How many convention goers used their credit cards from the convention floor during that time? How many people logged into their banks to wire donations? How many used those hotspots to check email from their own private insecure servers sitting in their homes? Don't tell me that Democrats are the only ones doing it. Colin Powell, for instance, admitted as such for when he was Secretary of State.

By letting Avast scam artists get into their convention, the republicans really made a huge mistake.

Comment Re: Read some Engels (Score 1, Insightful) 437

Marx and Engels big mistake was in not realizing that despite the abuse heaped upon them, the powers that be at that time recognized at the very least that the notion of class struggle as a driver of history had at least some merits. Marx fully expected a series of revolutions in the latter half of the 19th century, and in some cases it almost came true, but then suddenly you see several nations, even the Austro-Hungarian Empire, for goodness sake, enacting liberal constitutions. In Britain, in particular, within 20 years of the Communist Manifesto's release, the Reform Act of 1867 greatly expanded the voting franchise, enfranchising a large number of working class members. This inoculated a good deal of Europe against any kind of Socialist Revolution.

What went really wrong for Marx's economic and political theories was that first Communist states were fundamentally agrarian states; Russia and China. These, even by Marx's own theories, were not yet at a point of economic evolution that they should become Communist, and in fact, the Communist rulers of these states, to keep with Marxist ideas of evolution, had to introduce vast industrial programs, almost trying to create a Bourgeois middle class just so they could fulfill the checkboxes on Communist revolution. The industrialized states that became Communist were pretty much the states that the Soviet Union forced into its sphere after the Second World War, and who had initially gained their industrial capacity through fundamentally capitalist means.

No one has ever actually seen a Communist revolution the way Marx foresaw such a revolution happening, mainly because, as I say above, the Western nations, whether intentionally or by accident, liberalized sufficiently that the working classes could join political parties, or form new ones (like the Labour Party in Britain). I like to imagine that Disraeli, crafty fox that he was, was at least partially cognizant of the potential for a revolution if Westminster didn't let at least some of the lower classes in, and it wasn't all about just taking the piss out of Gladstone.

Comment Re:Read some Engels (Score 3, Insightful) 437

You are aware that the last three or so generations, at least in the West, are overall the richest human beings that have ever lived. Yes, some are a lot richer than others, but the mean still is so much greater than the past that it's pretty stunning. Only the most impoverished go without food, and even the relatively poor have what can only be described as luxuries.

That's not to say any of it is perfect, or that there aren't people with boatloads of money that really should have that money. There are issues surrounding tax shelters (legal or illegal), corporate influence on politics, and many other issues, but to imagine those just go away because you produce some new economic system is absurd. The one thing Communism did teach the world is that there is always a way for people to get rich and use their wealth to influence the system. Changing the rules just means the greedy and powerful find some new way to game the system, or, if you get rid of the wealthy, some new group rises to the challenge and supplants them.

So I'm all for a fairer society, but we've seen enough "utopian" systems to realize that there is no such thing as Utopia, and trying to bring up the lower classes by bringing down the upper classes never ends up the way you thought it would.

As The Who so aptly put it, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

Comment Re:Old stuff "discovered" by the ignorant (Score 2) 437

written by someone who couldn't be bothered to do an hour's research on Wikipedia.

Well, to quote wikipedia:

Input-output planning was never adopted because the material balance system had become entrenched in the Soviet economy, and input-output planning was shunned for ideological reasons. As a result, the benefits of consistent and detailed planning through input-output analysis was never realized in the Soviet-type economies.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of the Turing Tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

Working...