TOO LAZY TO WIPE YOUR ASS? HELP AT LAST!
OTHER STUFFYOUR TOILET TISSUE ALLOCATION, MA’AM – by Jim Hightower
It has taken years of secret research, consultations with focus groups, and trial-and-error engineering work –- but, at last, the corporate scientists have come up with the answer we've all been anxiously awaiting: five sheets.
That's the amount of toilet paper that Kimberly-Clark Corporation has determined that its new product –- the world's first-ever, hands-off, fully-automatic, wonderama, electronic tissue dispenser –- should dole out. Wave a hand in front of one of the device's motion sensors and –- zzzt –- out zips your five-sheet allocation.
A Kimberly-Clark spokesman excitedly says that this gizmo will help the corporation capture the $1 billion a year "away-from-home toilet paper market." Pointing out that washrooms in restaurants, offices, airports, and other places already have automatic faucets, flushers, and towel dispensers, he notes, "the one part of the room where there's not an automatic option is toilet tissue."
Oh, great –- as anyone knows who's been to washrooms in those places, the machinery constantly goes on the fritz, and now they're going to extend this same electronic "convenience" to toilet paper. I think the CEO of Kimberly-Clark should have to list his personal cell phone number on each machine, so we know whom to call when it refuses to give us our five sheets.
By the way, what if you want six sheets? Oh, said the enthusiastic corporate spokesman, "People generally in life will take what you give them." So, Kimberly-Clark is betting that America has devolved from the rebellious spirits of the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence to a people so compliant that we'll meekly accept whatever amount of toilet tissue our corporate providers allow.
I think that Kimberly-Clark's honchos are in for a surprise. My guess is that this corporation is going to find quite a few of its electronic dispensers ripped from the walls of washroom stalls all across America.
gster said:
After much reflection, I think this a case for having a machine handle the situation rather than farming it out to illegal immegrants! IMHO
Danny said:
This probably isn't the place to post this, but as I peruse the WE online and read some of the stories and associated comments to some of the stories. Why is that it seems we bash ourselves so badly when someone wants to give us something to do, people seem to come out and say its just going to fail.
Wichita is what I call home, and frankly when I see people wanting to improve or provide a service(entertainment, city wide wifi(though personally I think wimax might be better and perhaps limited to downtown and key areas around town with expansion occuring over time), etc) I see people come out and say its just going to fail. Then I hear people complain there is nothing to do. Yet, I can name plenty of things to do: Wichita Art Museum, Exploration Place(more so as it begins to attract travelling exhibits which was something it had sorely needed), to professional(even if minor league) sports for those into sports, and thats just naming a very small number of things.
Yes, I agree sometimes things do fail. Usually due to poor planning up front or not really qualifying the needs and wants of the customer. Overall though, Wichita isn't bad, but at that stage of trying to find a way to move from a "mid-major" city to a "major" city. I suspect that it is at this point where we aren't big enough for some of our needs and wants, but it sometimes is going to be exactly those things we need and want that make us more attractive to people thinking about moving to Wichita.
I've thought about it, one of things I think Wichita definitely needs to do is diversify its job base. Something that isn't going to be easy. I certainly think Wichita can with hard work do just that. Technology, biology, sciences, etc. This is something that we as the people who live here need to demand of our leaders who in turn need to demand things that the state(talking to our state legislators and representatives) can do to help.
I view Wichita as being in that cusp of either growing or becoming stagnant. Sometimes I read the WE online and think, we do we bash ourselves so much? Does this poor self-image hurt our chances of getting things done? I think it does. After all, who wants to move to a community where people who already live there thinks "sucks". I'm just not sure myself how things need to be fixed, but some of things I've liked are some things the Visioneering group has done but we need to push for this job diversification hard. Make Wichita a place business wants to come to. I think some of that may be really working toward getting good prices and destinations from our airport, and that isn't going to be easy.
Thoughts? I took a break while at work and decided I needed to rant a little bit.
Wichita is what I call home, and frankly when I see people wanting to improve or provide a service(entertainment, city wide wifi(though personally I think wimax might be better and perhaps limited to downtown and key areas around town with expansion occuring over time), etc) I see people come out and say its just going to fail. Then I hear people complain there is nothing to do. Yet, I can name plenty of things to do: Wichita Art Museum, Exploration Place(more so as it begins to attract travelling exhibits which was something it had sorely needed), to professional(even if minor league) sports for those into sports, and thats just naming a very small number of things.
Yes, I agree sometimes things do fail. Usually due to poor planning up front or not really qualifying the needs and wants of the customer. Overall though, Wichita isn't bad, but at that stage of trying to find a way to move from a "mid-major" city to a "major" city. I suspect that it is at this point where we aren't big enough for some of our needs and wants, but it sometimes is going to be exactly those things we need and want that make us more attractive to people thinking about moving to Wichita.
I've thought about it, one of things I think Wichita definitely needs to do is diversify its job base. Something that isn't going to be easy. I certainly think Wichita can with hard work do just that. Technology, biology, sciences, etc. This is something that we as the people who live here need to demand of our leaders who in turn need to demand things that the state(talking to our state legislators and representatives) can do to help.
I view Wichita as being in that cusp of either growing or becoming stagnant. Sometimes I read the WE online and think, we do we bash ourselves so much? Does this poor self-image hurt our chances of getting things done? I think it does. After all, who wants to move to a community where people who already live there thinks "sucks". I'm just not sure myself how things need to be fixed, but some of things I've liked are some things the Visioneering group has done but we need to push for this job diversification hard. Make Wichita a place business wants to come to. I think some of that may be really working toward getting good prices and destinations from our airport, and that isn't going to be easy.
Thoughts? I took a break while at work and decided I needed to rant a little bit.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Danny, from my perspective, I fear Wichita will become stagnant unless and until there is not only a change in the jobs base, but also frankly a change in attitude about who is welcome here. Much like the comparison between Pittsburgh, PA and Minneapolis, MN over time I've posted on before. Wichita is Pittsburgh in this comparison.
On the airport issue, I fear given the deregulated market, there will be no natural growth in destinations and lower fares. I opine that the subsidy will be needed indefinitely, and if anything, made available to other carriers. This is not all the fault of Wichita, but given the Hub and Spoke model used by the airlines, I don't see (absent dramatic population growth and thus growth in demand) any real beneficial change in the system. KC and OKC are too close for Wichita to be a big enough market in and of itself to obtain better service, given the population of the state and its dispersion.
The Visioneering "goals" are, IMHO, a joke in general.
BTW, Danny, you're an appropriate person of whom to ask. The "bomb threat and strip" things that are going on across the country; is someone hacking into the various stores' security camera system to be able to see what's going on? I believe there are "wireless" cameras in use in many stores, which feed into a computer for monitoring, thus the question.
On the airport issue, I fear given the deregulated market, there will be no natural growth in destinations and lower fares. I opine that the subsidy will be needed indefinitely, and if anything, made available to other carriers. This is not all the fault of Wichita, but given the Hub and Spoke model used by the airlines, I don't see (absent dramatic population growth and thus growth in demand) any real beneficial change in the system. KC and OKC are too close for Wichita to be a big enough market in and of itself to obtain better service, given the population of the state and its dispersion.
The Visioneering "goals" are, IMHO, a joke in general.
BTW, Danny, you're an appropriate person of whom to ask. The "bomb threat and strip" things that are going on across the country; is someone hacking into the various stores' security camera system to be able to see what's going on? I believe there are "wireless" cameras in use in many stores, which feed into a computer for monitoring, thus the question.
Danny said:
Vaughn,
In response to your first three sections:
1. Agreed job base needs to change and diversify and the people and our attitudes about people do need to change. Being more tolerant of those with differing ideas. We all certainly aren't going to agree on everything, and that is just evidenced all the time in daily life.
2. Airport, yeah I think in order for the airport see some success, the City, County, and State are probably all going to have subsidize it until the population base grows. I think to some extent this is going to be necessary until the job base grows and the population base grows also.
3. Which is why I said some things(like job diversification). For the most part, I don't know that the visioneering group was really needed, because it seems to me they have stated much of the obvious. However, maybe it takes a group similar to that to make alot of noise. I think our local leaders need to work hand in hand with the state if Wichita is to really accomplish something.
Addressing your concern about "bomb threat and strip":
In answer to your question, possibly. I've read a few stories about this, and I wonder if there is something related to that going on. There are really a few possibilities that come to mind about how this may be accomplished:
1. If the cameras are wireless as you stated and the wireless network is not properly secured. Thus the criminal behind the crime is nearby(depending on interference, and other things few hundred feet to a 1500 or so feet away). This isn't as far fetched an idea as it sounds, because if the local responders are not looking for that kind of activity then the perpetrator gets away fairly easily.
2. The wireless network is secure, but the computer they relay information to is connected to the internet and compromised in some way(due to false belief that a firewall would stop everything). With how many worms, trojans, viruses that exist it isn't entirely difficult to ignore this as being possible. I've read time and time again about poor security implementations at businesses, and so this too me seems like a fairly high probability.
3. This one really is another example of 2. Poor wired security practices at the network level. Such as, not segregating the security computer from the rest of the network, and having it report unsecured over the internet. It isn't unheard of to see this happen. Then it doesn't matter if the cameras are wired or wireless but just that they be connected to a computer some how.
Given the locations where I read these incidents have occured at, I would be more likely inclined to go with option 1. With 2 being fairly close there also.
In response to your first three sections:
1. Agreed job base needs to change and diversify and the people and our attitudes about people do need to change. Being more tolerant of those with differing ideas. We all certainly aren't going to agree on everything, and that is just evidenced all the time in daily life.
2. Airport, yeah I think in order for the airport see some success, the City, County, and State are probably all going to have subsidize it until the population base grows. I think to some extent this is going to be necessary until the job base grows and the population base grows also.
3. Which is why I said some things(like job diversification). For the most part, I don't know that the visioneering group was really needed, because it seems to me they have stated much of the obvious. However, maybe it takes a group similar to that to make alot of noise. I think our local leaders need to work hand in hand with the state if Wichita is to really accomplish something.
Addressing your concern about "bomb threat and strip":
In answer to your question, possibly. I've read a few stories about this, and I wonder if there is something related to that going on. There are really a few possibilities that come to mind about how this may be accomplished:
1. If the cameras are wireless as you stated and the wireless network is not properly secured. Thus the criminal behind the crime is nearby(depending on interference, and other things few hundred feet to a 1500 or so feet away). This isn't as far fetched an idea as it sounds, because if the local responders are not looking for that kind of activity then the perpetrator gets away fairly easily.
2. The wireless network is secure, but the computer they relay information to is connected to the internet and compromised in some way(due to false belief that a firewall would stop everything). With how many worms, trojans, viruses that exist it isn't entirely difficult to ignore this as being possible. I've read time and time again about poor security implementations at businesses, and so this too me seems like a fairly high probability.
3. This one really is another example of 2. Poor wired security practices at the network level. Such as, not segregating the security computer from the rest of the network, and having it report unsecured over the internet. It isn't unheard of to see this happen. Then it doesn't matter if the cameras are wired or wireless but just that they be connected to a computer some how.
Given the locations where I read these incidents have occured at, I would be more likely inclined to go with option 1. With 2 being fairly close there also.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Thanks, Danny; I'd considered options 1 and 2, but hadn't thought about number 3 before.
I've seen how the 259 buildings are set up with their security cameras, and have often wondered just how secure those are (the cameras/monitoring system in use). I've got an idea that they aren't all that secure, but I'd rather not explore this here.
I've seen how the 259 buildings are set up with their security cameras, and have often wondered just how secure those are (the cameras/monitoring system in use). I've got an idea that they aren't all that secure, but I'd rather not explore this here.
Danny said:
Vaughn,
To complicate matters further, there are wireless camera systems that broadcast fairly openly to something just plugs into a TV system. They are similar to a close circuit setup, except they are wireless. Problem with some of the implementations of these is that many of them are not in anyway secured. So anyone who has the right equipment can capture that. But this would fall into category 1 I mentioned above.
But, not to make matters worse. Even with a very secured network. If a computer has access to the outside world through a public network(such as the internet), no matter how secured it is made, if someone is determined they'll get in. So those in charge of security should log activity and monitor their networks if a system is 'critical' to their operations or contains sensitive information(such as security cameras in my opinion).
So many options, but I'm not exactly the expert in security that I'd like to be. One of the classes I'm considering taking in the Spring is Cybersecurity. I think it is important to understand how vulnerabilities are found and then by understanding that, one can make better secured systems.
The only thing I really tell people, don't click on links in email blindly(even if you know the person the email is from). Hover the mouse over the link, make sure it really is going where it says.
Example: someone(maybe even someone you know) sends a link to blah.xyz for some item they think you might like. But if you hover the mouse over it, it has numbers in some format like: #.#.#.#/something or there here. Likely, that is a fake email that is trying to get you to download a trojan.
That example is a trust issue or social engineering attempting to get you to do something. If you receive an email from a friend, not thinking their computer might be compromised, and you blindly click the link then you run the risk of also compromising your computer.
It isn't meant to scare people though with common sense, keeping computer up-to-date with security patches, and using a good anti-virus(plenty of free ones available: avg and avast are two examples), and having a firewall are pretty good measures to protect yourself and your computer.
To complicate matters further, there are wireless camera systems that broadcast fairly openly to something just plugs into a TV system. They are similar to a close circuit setup, except they are wireless. Problem with some of the implementations of these is that many of them are not in anyway secured. So anyone who has the right equipment can capture that. But this would fall into category 1 I mentioned above.
But, not to make matters worse. Even with a very secured network. If a computer has access to the outside world through a public network(such as the internet), no matter how secured it is made, if someone is determined they'll get in. So those in charge of security should log activity and monitor their networks if a system is 'critical' to their operations or contains sensitive information(such as security cameras in my opinion).
So many options, but I'm not exactly the expert in security that I'd like to be. One of the classes I'm considering taking in the Spring is Cybersecurity. I think it is important to understand how vulnerabilities are found and then by understanding that, one can make better secured systems.
The only thing I really tell people, don't click on links in email blindly(even if you know the person the email is from). Hover the mouse over the link, make sure it really is going where it says.
Example: someone(maybe even someone you know) sends a link to blah.xyz for some item they think you might like. But if you hover the mouse over it, it has numbers in some format like: #.#.#.#/something or there here. Likely, that is a fake email that is trying to get you to download a trojan.
That example is a trust issue or social engineering attempting to get you to do something. If you receive an email from a friend, not thinking their computer might be compromised, and you blindly click the link then you run the risk of also compromising your computer.
It isn't meant to scare people though with common sense, keeping computer up-to-date with security patches, and using a good anti-virus(plenty of free ones available: avg and avast are two examples), and having a firewall are pretty good measures to protect yourself and your computer.
Vaughn Tolle said:
All good advice, Danny. I follow them with great fealty.
A buddy had his computer hit by something, which from his description was a worm. As I'm in his address book, I started receiving a lot of emails from him with attachments. I mistakenly wasn't paying attention, and tried to open one; well, after it wouldn't open, I started getting suspicious. Seems the attachment, with whatever malware might have been a part thereof, didn't like Linux at all. :-)
Not that I have any illusions about the lack of vulnerability of Linux; not at all. It seems that I'm regularly receiving security updates, etc. for the installed system and apps, which are greatly appreciated, and I'm behind a firewall, as well as running an AV program (ClamAV) which lets me not infect my friends, etc., who are running Windows with anything that might be in a forward from another friend/acquaintance. If Linux would become more popular than it is, there would be, IMHO, a greater risk of attack; but right now, there doesn't seem to be the same level of interest as there is in the Windows world.
A buddy had his computer hit by something, which from his description was a worm. As I'm in his address book, I started receiving a lot of emails from him with attachments. I mistakenly wasn't paying attention, and tried to open one; well, after it wouldn't open, I started getting suspicious. Seems the attachment, with whatever malware might have been a part thereof, didn't like Linux at all. :-)
Not that I have any illusions about the lack of vulnerability of Linux; not at all. It seems that I'm regularly receiving security updates, etc. for the installed system and apps, which are greatly appreciated, and I'm behind a firewall, as well as running an AV program (ClamAV) which lets me not infect my friends, etc., who are running Windows with anything that might be in a forward from another friend/acquaintance. If Linux would become more popular than it is, there would be, IMHO, a greater risk of attack; but right now, there doesn't seem to be the same level of interest as there is in the Windows world.
Danny said:
Vaughn,
I won't deny that Linux, like Windows is vulnerable, but I would argue in some respect it may be less so. Part of my reason behind that is that if Linux were to be infected the virus(or other malware) really can only run at the security level of the user account that was affect, further generally will only affect that particular user account. I could a little bit mistaken about that.
Plus, if it is vulnerable and a fix isn't coming out fast enough, the in house IT department could fix it themselves in theory. Personally, I would like to stay way from operating system. *Shudders when NachOS is mentioned*
I won't deny that Linux, like Windows is vulnerable, but I would argue in some respect it may be less so. Part of my reason behind that is that if Linux were to be infected the virus(or other malware) really can only run at the security level of the user account that was affect, further generally will only affect that particular user account. I could a little bit mistaken about that.
Plus, if it is vulnerable and a fix isn't coming out fast enough, the in house IT department could fix it themselves in theory. Personally, I would like to stay way from operating system. *Shudders when NachOS is mentioned*
Vaughn Tolle said:
One other "security measure" I take is to turn the bloody thing off each nigh as I leave. Kind of discourages anyone from using it in my absence (of course, I've got this thing screen locked, etc., so if by some reason it does come on "accidentally", it's not going to do anyone much good).
Tracy Phillips said:
Grafitti above a urinal at a local mfg. facility:
DON'T WASH - JUST PINCH A WRINKLE!
DON'T WASH - JUST PINCH A WRINKLE!
Loading....