Jump to content

VaKo

Dedicated Members
  • Posts

    7,713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by VaKo

  1. The job market is shitty atm, there are jobs since its a employers market atm a lot of people are finding themselves under-employed. This may well be one of those cases, they know there are enough people out there who can do what they want done, so its just a case of finding the person who will accept the lowest offer. At some point your just going to have to suck it up and take a job that may not be as suitable as you would like. I don't agree with just staying on welfare until the perfect role comes up.
  2. VaKo

    Blue Hat

    Doesn't anyone here think that getting the people who wrote Windows et al together with the hackers who exploit it is a good thing? Because maybe they will look at the way Windows is designed from a different viewpoint? Or are we all content with snide "M$ lulz" comments?
  3. But working for a wage is better than being on welfare, even if it is for the same amount of cash. Not only are you not relying on handouts when you could be working, your getting something on your CV which looks better than an extended period of not working.
  4. A side note here, you will be working for your wage, not £10 day. I assume from this you are not working atm?
  5. Money is money, and shit money is better than no money. So it depends on how badly you need at least some money compared to how long you can hold out for a better deal. It does seem a little odd that they knocked £12K from the salary though, unless it was "up to". See if your agent can get you more? Personally I wouldn't touch a £20K position myself, its low even for a helpdesk role. As I've said, IT Contracting is a quick way of getting money, experience and possibly a perm position.
  6. LOl, it was a Chancellor at a university I worked for briefly, that was 2 jobs back now.
  7. Nope, it was Novel Groupwise, bit hard to explain away as I'd dropped his HDD and couldn't recover all the files. Spent 30mins hiding in the bathroom trying to figure out how to lie my way out of it, then thought fuck it and went straight to the VIP user and admitted what I'd done. He was actually pretty cool about it, thanked me for be honest and professional. Support or Programming? Not really sure what to do with a Security Degree, so let Jobsite decide. Back in 2008 I did the same, took a helpdesk job at a weird little company for the money, now I'm a consultant for a company everyone on the forums will have heard of lol.
  8. Depends what your after, the market is tough atm, especially for graduate jobs. My suggestion for keeping the wolves from the door is to do contracting in a support role and use your free time to look for something permanent. Upload your CV to jobsite, monster and reed (update them every friday), and take it from there. If you need an umbrella, check out Parasol, I used them for some time and they were ok. As for fuck-ups, everyone has one, mine was loosing 4 years worth of email for a VIP user. It depends how you handle it.
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_l..._United_Kingdom In practice, its rare to see them used. They are usually reserved for people who are going out of there way to cause offence or stir up trouble. You could say "I happen to dislike the Welsh" on national TV, but standing on a street corner with a megaphone trying to get others to hate the Welsh would be a problem.
  10. Yeah, the reaction is usually "you can say that on television?!?"
  11. And that is the reason why *content* should not be regulated but delivery should be. If you allow ISP's to start controlling what they deliver and what they don't then they automatically loose Transitory Network Communications Safe Harbor protection, become liable for the content their network delivers and then have a legal requirement to filter out anything which could be deemed remotely illegal. But then Americans do have a weirdly vocal moral minority who complain about the content, its always funny seeing some American celebrity doing their first interviews on British TV, and being absolutely stumped by the amount of swearing and innuendo that's normal for us.
  12. Because doing so would reduce compition and lock in profit for a select group of sites. One of the amazing things about the internet is that a start-up run in someone's garage can take on people like Microsoft or IBM, and to loose that would make the internet into yet another bland cesspool of corporate desire. Content providers only have the power if they have the money, so sites like Hak5 wouldn't be able to get enough of an audience together to get the popularity required to have enough power to dictate terms to the ISP's. It would be like cable TV, with a few companies running services and anything non-mainstream relegated to the 0300 on a Sunday slot. All the FCC has to do is what it does now, set rules and deal with issues on a case by case basis, so no need for monitoring equipment etc. Its just the same as the FTC preventing anti-trust and fraud, its required because corporations will go to any length to make sure they have all the money.
  13. Oh trust me I know. I've lived in areas with a high percentage of Muslims so its not alien to me. There is very little difference between a fanatical Christian and a fanatical Muslim when it comes to how annoying they are.
  14. Programming here as well, just don't have the time to get stuck in. Work, weight training and my gf all seem to take up way to much time. (On bit of advice I have, cherish the time you have free as a youth, when your older its the one thing you never have enough of).
  15. I think Zimmers sudden interest in Net Neutrality stems from this. Which could explain why his arguments are so poorly thought out and almost wilfully ignorant.
  16. I want laws that say "aside from reasonable traffic management controls, ISPs are not allowed to sell variable access speeds or block competitors sites", nothing more. As we've already established government control is not perfect, and there will always be things they block for various reasons (the society you live in and the politicians you vote for will decide what is blocked). But simply saying, its not perfect so there will be no regulation at all is far more damaging than a bit of limited profit here and there, and some "good-enough" rules about what you can and cannot do as a ISP. But preventing someone from accessing information is becoming just as bad given that we live in an information economy now. Simply preventing someone from accessing something like a medical information site on a rare condition or preventing poor people from accessing online library services or job sites is just as bad. Telecomms companies are extremely expensive to setup and run. If you in a poor area, then how are people going to be able to get together to setup a rival service if they cannot afford a DSL subscription. And if they can't afford a DSL subscription, who is going to setup an open access system for them?
  17. A: What if you only have one choice of ISP due to market consolidation? B: Users don't care about the ISP, its just a pipe. They care about 3rd party services, Facebook, Google, Amazon, iTunes, Flickr etc. Allowing ISP's to pick and choose what you can access will result in an internet that is like cable TV, where you ISP sells you a package of sites, based on what you want to pay for. This removes the open internet, and you can kiss any idea of free speech or free exchanges of information like Wikipedia or open source projects goodbye.
  18. Again, stunning ignorant. There are multiple problems with this, firstly you are assuming that all methods of making profit are good. There are many ways of making a profit where you really shouldn't. That's why we have things like food safety standards (to prevent incidents like China has were food is contaminated with dangerous levels of dangerous substances), or product safety standards (to prevent a company from making a profit by cutting corners on safety issues, like lead paint on children toys). Hypothetically, a nursing home could make a profit by claiming ownership of your relatives possessions on the event of there death. Secondly, you didn't dispute my argument that allowing a company to profit from limiting access to a competitors service would harm competition. All net neutrality laws do would be to force ISP's to provide a level playing field for internet commerce to compete on based on the quality and cost of the service provided. By not enforcing it you are simply ensuring that enterprises that make profit continue to make profit based not on the quality of the service but on the ability to control the market. The consumer looses in this model, as innovation is not required to maintain market leadership. Prices rise, the market stagnates and small businesses suffer. Most importantly, profit is not the most important thing in the world. If you simply believe that profit is the only thing you should worry about then you will end up as a very shallow person. Yes, allowing people to make money on the back of their hard work is a good thing, but having a market where the only people who can play are gigantic corporations is a bad thing.
  19. Yes, but given the dramatic consolidation of the US telecomms market since Ma Bell was broken up choosing a new ISP isn't that easy. Its even worse when it comes to cell phone coverage. I simply cannot understand why, given your initial problems with governments limiting access to information your suggesting that a better solution would be to allow profit to dictate what information you can access. Why should my ISP force me to use Bing over Google? What if your live in an area where your only choice of ISP chooses to back a political candidate you despise and blocks all your access to your preferred candidates campaign? Your attitude of "all government regulation is never perfect so it should be done away with" is stunningly ignorant.
  20. Wireless spectrum allocation is something that does require the government to get involved in tbh. Before regulation the situation was a mess, as anyone with enough money could setup a service on any frequency they wanted, no matter who or what was using it prior to that. So you need to mark of different sections of the spectrum for different uses, so you can use your cell phone with a wireless bluetooth headset while looking up something on your wireless internet connection using a wireless mouse and keyboard while the TV is on and your wife is listening to the radio next room while talking on a cordless land line phone and your daughter is opening the garage from her car and the ambulance dealing with your neighbours heart attack can radio ahead to prep the hospital... You get the idea? You need someone who is as near as impartial as possible to run an open process of allocating chunks of frequency for each service so they don't interfere with each other. If it was just a free for all, nothing wireless would work together.
  21. No, the problem is allowing ISP's to be (or be owned by) media companies. Most people just consider there ISP to be a dumb pipe they get so they can google, facebook etc, like a utility firm, whereas the ISP's want to be the people you go to for social networking, music, VOD, news etc. Just look at mobile phone firms, they spent billions on there crappy portals and new media services, but no one wants to use them. So now they want to make money from these 3rd party services by charging them for access to there customers. This is the problem, not free speech issues. As for the USSR, the gulags and laws like that were mostly ended by Khrushchev's Thaw, and the process of de-Stalinization he embarked upon in the early 50's. Stalin was a bastard, yes, but the USSR was no more evil than the USA post Stalin.
  22. What I would consider fair is for any company on the internet to have equal access to the consumer, not a situation where you could pay to have traffic from your online movie site prioritized over your rivals sites. This means that if your smaller rival offered better prices, a wider selection or had a better service, you would have to compete with them on those terms, and not make it so your site was the only one that was usable, effectively forcing the consumer to pay higher prices for less.
  23. I thought it was more of a community center than a mosque, and that the protest was due to the Tea Party idiots making a fuss about it?
  24. I would rather we had sensible laws in place that forbid ISP's et al from using traffic management to make a profit. I know your on the verge of being a Tea Party member, but there is no real need for the government to get any more involved than that. Otherwise you might find that your ISP has launched a new DRM laden online music "experience" and suddenly iTunes or Amazon downloads at dial-up speeds. Or that Last.fm can't stream without buffering. That's what worries me, not some Tea Party fantasy of the Big Bad Government suddenly blocking all the sites that question Obama's citizenship status, or spying on you (newsflash: the government has been spying on your web access since the Bush days).
  25. As the web is used for more and more things, we will need to implement sensible traffic management polices to prevent congestion (p2p traffic is a problem for example, as is on-demand media). I see no problem with this. What I don't like is using these traffic management polices as a means to make profit, charging sites to get there content delivered faster. This will just negatively impact competition and give make it harder for the Microsofts, Googles, Apples etc of tomorrow to become successful.
×
×
  • Create New...