Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Doing more with less.. (Score 1) 133

OK, so you have written such scripts to notify you. Now the company decides they do not need you any more. Are you going to rewrite those scripts to notify someone else? Or even bother to mention to someone that they should do so?

Or the other scenario where you get another job midway between renewals (when you have not had a notification in several months). Will you remember to change who gets notified? Will you remember to tell someone? When you remember 3-6 months later that you would be getting notifications about now, will you call your old employer to let someone know the notifications were never changed?

In a lot of companies, certificate renewal becomes someone's job because they are in the right place at the right time to handle it and everyone else forgets that it even happens until something goes wrong. If nothing goes wrong for several years, no one, except the guy who handles it, remembers that it even happens. This happens with a lot of tasks, and is my biggest fear whenever someone leaves our IT Department: what minor tasks were they doing that they were doing so well we all forgot about them?

It has been great at my current job, only one of the people in our IT Department who was here long enough to do anything everyone would forget about who subsequently left was good enough at it for people to forget...that one person only left because they became suddenly ill and died. Dealing with their absence has been a mess.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 1) 904

Only a few years before Bill Clinton did this, the DEMOCRATS has weaponized the same sort of misdeed to remove Senator Packwood from office. Actually that is not true, they had weaponized it before that and had used it against numerous public officials. Then when the Republicans tried to hold Bill Clinton to the standard the Democrats had established they started making the argument you are making. Of course, as soon as they believed that people had forgotten they attempted to go back to the weapon which had worked so well for them in the past.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 1) 904

So you do not remember the people saying that it was "just sex"? The same people who only a few years earlier drive Senator Bob Packwood from office for much the same thing. Only when Senator Packwood had done what Bill Clinton did they said that it was always coercive when a man of his position had sex with an intern.

Comment Re:that's it. the end game. (Score 3, Informative) 387

You started out pretty well, then came this

History has told a story of increasingly decentralized governments, only to have them replaced by increasingly centralized corporate empires.

When, in fact, history tells a story of increasingly centralized governments promoting (and being promoted by) increasingly centralized business empires. This process continues until some disruptive force comes along with which the centralized authority is unable to cope. In all cases power becomes ever more centralized until such a time as the information necessary to maintain that centralized power exceeds the ability of the organization centralizing power to process it. There are three things areas in which an organization may centralize beyond its ability to process information:

  1. Communication--primarily speed of communication, but not necessarily just speed
  2. When the organization is unable to communicate information well enough and fast enough to and from the central decision makers, central authority collapses

  3. Data collection
  4. When the data necessary to make adequate decisions exceeds the ability of the central authority to gather and store it, the central authority collapses.

  5. Data processing
  6. When the amount of data necessary to make adequate decisions exceed the ability of the central authority to process it, the central authority collapses.

Technology has eliminated the problem of speed of communication as a limiting factor on centralized control. I have my doubts about the possibility of overcoming the other communication limits (once the number of people in an organization exceeds some number it appears that words begin to mean different things to different, not clearly defined, groups of people, even when they, theoretically, share the same language). Technology has, at least theoretically, overcome the limit on the ability to gather and store the data necessary to make adequate decisions over the world. However, while technology has massively increased human ability to process the data necessary to manage large centralized organizations, there appear to be emergent qualities to ever larger organizations which cause them to suddenly, and without warning, have different requirements for what data needs to be processed.
Basically, my point is that power tends to become more and more centralized until the organization centralizing the power is no longer manageable. Usually, the people in charge continue to attempt to consolidate ever more power while this is happening until something catastrophic occurs. Occasionally, a visionary has arisen who manages to decentralize authority sufficiently to allow the organization to continue to thrive (or to divide into multiple subgroups which thrive) for some time after the initial singularity.

Comment Re:The new LinkedIn? (Score 1) 85

My first thought was to wonder who would use Facebook to job hunt. My second thought was, "Why does Facebook only want me to log on when I am job hunting?" I only use my LinkedIn account when I am looking for a job, which is not only when I want to change jobs but also when I am curious about other opportunities or about what my market value is.

Comment Re:until IoT manufacturers bother to properly secu (Score 2) 53

You would be right if this only affected individual consumers, but as this story illustrates it affects large organizations. Those organizations are large enough to make the manufacturer pay for their loss, maybe not this time but in the long run. If it was not the case here (and it likely was not), this university (and other large organizations) will put clauses in their contracts when they buy such devices making the manufacturer liable for such losses. Once manufacturers fix it for their big customers, they will fix it for the average consumer as well because it will be cheaper to get it right for everyone than to only get it right for some.

Comment Depends on Australia Anti-Trust law (Score 1) 68

If the banks are not currently ALLOWED to collectively negotiate with Apple because of Australia anti-trust laws, I believe that this request for an exemption should be granted. On the other hand, if the banks are actually asking the government to force Apple to only collectively negotiate with the banks, I would say that the request should be denied.

This looks like something very similar to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The difference being that Microsoft put the competing browser out of business, while Apple is attempting to prevent a competing application from coming into existence.

Comment Re:Should be done in the US too, but won't be (Score 1) 532

Oh no, the poster is correct, long-term smoking causes expensive end-of-life health problems. HOWEVER, the length of time during which a smoker experiences those end-of-life expenses is a lot shorter than the length of time a non-smoker spends dealing with end-of-life health problems (and that is not counting the many more years a non-smoker spends before starting to need end-of-life healthcare).

Slashdot Top Deals

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"