tshile

This is the guy that, when asked by congress (I assume under oath) if the NSA was collecting data on US citizens, he responded "No sir." That was just 3 months ago.

So... not sure what his statements are worth now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs&t=6m10s (starts at 6 minutes 10 seconds)

As an American that doesn't care, I can say that the media is in quite a hypocritical situation with this one.

They've had 10 years to look into this, to take a stance, to confront the US Government on the issue. For 10 years they've ignored, or not cared, about issues like wire tapping, searching through emails and phone records, etc without a warrant. Issues like locking up an american citizens indefinitely without a right to trial. Issues like using drones to kill americans.

They've ignored these issues for going on 10 years because, I assume, they felt they were immune to them. That they had protections against them that 'regular' Americans didn't.

Now they find out and they are just as susceptible to those rules as the rest of us an want to put a rallying cry for us to come to their side? Even further they want special legislation protecting them from it, while leaving the rest of us unprotected?

Please. The media deserves absolutely zero sympathy on this one. Maybe if they were doing their jobs, maybe if they actually cared about the American people the way they claim, they wouldn't be in this mess.

Which has its own irony

Yeah, and I'm not sure how I feel about giving my info and saying just saying 'Send me ideas!'

It'd be nice if there was a way to browse/view what the service is doing/offering before signing up.

If you want to follow that line of logic then you still have an issue with Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al being forced (via national security letters, and through other means) to turn over data and gag orders issued to prevent them from disclosing it.

Fair enough :)

There are quite a few people that have completely lost faith in the government, especially as it expands its powers by exploiting fear in the masses, to handle newly acquired power with the responsibility we would expect them to have. We've already learned the federal government does not give up power, so when it takes steps in this direction it's worrying to some of us. There is no way to reverse this now, this will be acceptable policy for the foreseeable future.

Next the limits to what gets flagged will be lowered. Eventually the banks wont be trusted to flag anything, and all transactions will be filtered by the government for later analysis.

I don't blame anyone for calling that outlook one of a conspiracy theorist, or an unhealthy cynic.

sigh maybe you should read it? what qualifies for suspicious activity pretty lose. Any transfer of more than $10,000 is reported as suspicious.

You should also considering comparing that with other 'privileges' certain government agencies have and their record of abusing those privileges.

Or you can be intentionally obtuse about it.

I think the objectionable part is where government agencies, with no oversight (they just claim it's to protect 'national security' when congress asks), are given full access to the financial records of every citizen.

Just a guess though.

The FBI having previous access is not a justification for giving it to every agency. Finally, having a problem with this doesn't mean you don't have a problem with the FBI having access.

You may be late to the game but some of us have been complaining about this since the first version of the Patriot Act. Just because you decided to jump in now doesn't mean the criticism of these moves is new or somehow leaving out the previous expansion of government access to previously considered private data.

Right, but your article is talking about outlook.com.

Office 365 and stand alone (ie: private) exchange installs certainly support it.

Comparing outlook.com to 'Microsoft Exchange' (whether you're talking about Office 365 which is MS's 'cloud' solution, or private Exchange servers) is not exactly fair. One is designed as a free email hosting solution for personal use (essentially replacing Hotmail), the other is designed for business/organizational use and costs money.

Sounds to me like the bigger issue is with the people taking the classes. I've taken a few online classes, and it was hard because it requires that you be on top of the work; otherwise the whole class can quickly slip away to a point where you can't catch up and have any expectation of decent results in knowledge gained or grades earned.

Not every class should be taught online, not every professor should teach online, and not every student should take online classes. That doesn't mean online classes are inherently bad; they're just different and require different people/circumstances to provide a successful experience.

that's only if you believe that not having security bulletins implies there are no problems.

Maybe you should do some more reading. There are certainly supported configurations for two factor authentication.

I don't understand why someone cannot walk out in a peaceful way that both sides understands.

You tell the other person you've decided you don't want to work there, due to whatever reason, and in the interest of not wasting their time or effort it would make the most sense to stop the interview.

Why would anyone take offense to this? I'd appreciate someone not wasting my time once they've made their decision...

I like the algebra side, love emacs, and am currently thoroughly enjoying learning lisp. I eat my corn in rows :)

Was a fun read!

The one thing the article didn't touch on, one that I feel is the biggest problem larger companies face, has to do with the constant cycling of the tier 1 and 2 support staffs. You have 3 different types of people that work in the lower tiers. The first being the hard working, knowledgable, and often fresh out of college/training people who are only going to be there for a few months before their potential is realized and they're snatched up by another deparment or (even worse) another company. The second group would be the ones who are good enough to keep their job; they show up, know enough to not fall on their face every day, but otherwise are not going to move up the ladder. The third group are the ones that simply can't hack it and are fired or quit after a few months, or sometimes years if they can fly under the radar often enough.

This leaves the teir 1 and 2 support staffs in a crappy condition. The only people worth keeping are the ones jumping at the first chance to get out of the 'helpdesk' role. So the IT deparment is left with their only real interface to the rest of the company being comprised of (often) barely adequate people. An individual's experience when contacting the IT department litteraly depends on who answers the phone; will it be a person from the first, second, or third group as mentioned above?

Hopefully the trend will change in the future, but it's probably going to require higher pay while allowing those people to also do more advanced things to keep them challenged/happy (that still may not be enough, because to be honest we don't like dealing with the regular day to day helpdesk-style problems anymore than anyone else in the company likes having them). Large companies are just too compartmentalized to do that, so we may all be doomed :(