Slashdot Mirror
Geer Comments On Firing From @Stake
dwbryson writes "Last week Dan Geer, co-author of the CCIA Microsoft security report, was fired from @stake for expressing 'values and opinions [of the report] not in line with @stake's views.' Now Geer has been talking to eWeek and comments on his dismissal."
In fact, it was the employer excercising their rights to fire an employee for making statements they didn't like(...) (emph. mine)
The term 'statement' does not exactly cover what he said. It is an scientifically well-known fact that monoculture leads to vulnerability. Genetic diversity exists for a specific reason: to ensure survival of the species.
So, he got fired for speaking the truth. No great miracle considering that religious zealots in the same country want to prevent Darwins theories from being talked about in schools.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
>It's so funny when people get carried away by the
>expertise they possess in aparticular area, and think they
>can apply it for an another -especially, when they speak
>on behalf of their employer.
RTFAs.
1) Geer is both well known and well respected inside this field, he was speaking inside of his area of expertise.
2) He wasn't speaking "on behalf of [his] employer." The paper specifically states that the individuals who signed it represented themselves and not their companies.
3) From what he has said he has a long list of job offers already.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Yes, they are both theories. There is nothing scientifically factual about evolution whatsoever.
Your post demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge about evolution and about science. While I don't have time to get into specifics (late for work), I will post some links:
A nice set of links at syacuse university
Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education
National Center for Science Education
God is imaginary
I spent 8 years in the USAF. I completely disagree with that statement.
It might be worth stressing that US military members do give up many of the rights they have sworn to protect. They becomes something other than a US citizen. But they do have certain rights and duties.
You, as a member of the US military, are not allowed to attend political events or make political comments in uniform. Doing so would imply an official position of the US military. But you are (or at least should be - I certainly was through my career) encouraged to take part in the political process. That includes being involved in legal political activity, holding a personal opinion of our political leaders, and voting - be it for or against a sitting president.
Go ahead. Hold the opinion that Bush is a moron. Devote some of your off duty time to campaign against his office. Get up in front of people and state your opinion without rank or tittle.
But he is still Commander in Chief and you will follow all lawfull orders coming from his office.
One final comment - just because you are in the military, it does not excuse you from the duty of having your own mind. I'm not sure what branch you are in but in my training the concept of a lawfull order was stressed again and again. One is required and duty bound to review all orders given by superiors and ensure that they are, in fact, lawfull orders. In short, one is responsible for one's own actions.
I had a few superiors in my military career that seemed to forget this concept. They took every utterance of a political leader on CNN as both as binding as an order and a personal guide to their own opinions. These are the ones I most fear. Thankfully they were few and far between.
It was pretty painful, but not like you'd think.
"For those who don't know, Geer wrote an article talking about the risks of monoculture that situations like we have with Microsoft expose."
Lets look at the article's title:
Does anyone see the word Monoculture in there? No, just monopoly. It's up there next to "Dominance", "Cost", and "Insecurity".
Somewhere along the lines, this paper jumped from technical analysis to political polemic, and Geer got the political response. Don't get me wrong: The vast majority of the conclusions reached in this article have way more than a grain of truth in them. But the degree to which Schneier backpedalled on the tone was pretty noticable, and stood in stark contrast to the near-rage of the paper itself.
Would Geer have kept his job if the paper was more objectively written? I don't know. But I sure note what I see reported on doesn't match what I read in that paper, and I have to wonder why.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky, CISSP
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com