Re:You've been working for 12 years, right?
on
Disillusioned With IT?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Got Karma to burn, I'll troll this one for fun...
Thirty years of age is the earliest I've heard recommended by some of my currently breeding peers, as the age when they should've started breeding.
Is that *breeding* in doggy or human years?
Depends on what you want to have to show for your life... toys and gadgets or family and relationships of real value? You're right, in a family, parents 'serve' their children and husbands and wives should 'serve' one another, but it's not (should not be) some master/slave (against one's will) relationship. I got married of my own free will. But I see how grateful you are for that service rendered to you by parents and/or caretakers.
And besides, let's see who's changing your diapers when you're 90!?!?!:P
Back to the original point... balancing responsibility to one's family along with responsibility and attention to their job and professional development is the way it must be done. I propose those who put off marriage or children for such selfish reasons are scared (and yes, it can be scary) and will only delay their opportunities and development in life
OK... enough, enough already... RTFROTD (RTF rest of the discussion) before posting people! I will also show restraint before posting so hastily... or at least clarify myself better.
Reading the rest of the discussion would highlight that:
1) I admit not having memorized the constitution or even having read it lately. Yes, I can admit hypocrisy and mistakes. One might wonder what I'm doing on/. 2) It was mostly a matter of semantics 3) The real point/issue is that uninformed herded masses of people who don't think before voting (kind of like posting hastily in my case)... are not good for for our government and society. That, and the media doesn't help a lot because following an issue until the truth is settled doesn't always sell ads and pay the bills immediately.
But, I'll give you credit... you are the first to actually cite constitution in the discussion. Congrats, go to the front of the thread.
When Monty Python is referenced, it is probably not a serious post (or not a serious portion of a post). I'm done with this... see my other comments if you have further questions.
All good points... and when you think about it in a computer system access perspective, "right's" or "privileges" are essentially the same.
Being the one who started the semantic battle, my point is best summed up by slackoon I think (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=505248&cid=22921798)
While I haven't read the constitution lately and admittedly can't cite where that is. IANAL and suppose are a rocket scientist. I would equally challenge you to show me where it is specifically cited as a right.
And whether or not it is a *right*, the point is... voting is of significant consequence and should not be performed by masses of uninformed. Any party could complain equally on uninformed voting toward the other I'm sure. Thing is, it hurts us all. Is that a ridiculous assertion?
That part was mostly meant as a funny (hence the Monty Python reference)... oh well, no funny mod this time.
But if we're being serious here and pretending my suggestion was for real: There are such things as un-biased third parties, or committees/commissions composed of equally-and-oppositely-biased members with a few referees that at least claim to be neutral (been on one myself). There could be a question such as: 1) On the issue of X, candidate Y proposes: a) foo b) bar c) Support CowboyNeal
And you can't vote for a candidate unless you know their position on at least one or two issues (figure up some fancy algorithm that everyone can disagree on)
Theoretically, of course... but not really. Three problems right away.... 1) Half the time, no one knows what candidate Y proposes about X anyway. You can't get through the media and campaign crap to see... 2) Yeah... someone could bias the assessed 'stance' of candidate Y. 3) I could never throw my support behind CowboyNeal except as a/. poll option. That's what I take when I'm uninformed. It's also what we get when we vote uninformed (speaking metaphorically now of course).
if you're not paying attention, maybe you shouldn't vote. *shrug*
Bingo! If parent wasn't a 5, I'd say mod it up. Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe. It should not be granted or denied based on irrelevant factors such as race or gender, but I worry about the effect of our cluelessness and lack of perspective when voting in America.
Admittedly, I have been guilty of clueless voting in the past.
Maybe there should be a quiz to get to the polls, replete with being cast off of a cliff (Monty Python style... Holy Grail) for trying to vote w/o being informed on the issues.;) Thing is... I'm certain we'd lose those administering the quiz, just like in the Holy Grail.:O
"No critical updates were available or needed for your computer, but the friendly P2P patchWorm decided to reboot you anyway. None of your open documents were saved in the process."
Previous poster (parent) has a point though.. and I think it is.... unless you're absolutely confident of your 'anonymity' in reporting, then you are highly likely to become suspect. Your story is at least going to be checked out. If it's not on, then someone may sick their lawyer on you for slander/libel.
I sat down at a courtesy kiosk at an auto dealer once to find a guy still logged into his Yahoo mail had walked away. I sent him a mail from himself and did not put my name in it, suggesting he ensure that he had logged out before walking away. No worries there.
However, anyone reports anything on my network/sites, I am going to triple-check their story and their activity (if I can relate it to them). Some people won't do that, they'll just call the person into suspicion right away. We had a guy interview for a job and make a comment about how something on our web site was insecure. Not so bad, except he gave no specifics or suggestions. Only made himself suspect and guaranteed he would not get a job with us. This is different from being helpful, but honestly... even if he gave some details, I'd still be checking up on the veracity of it all and looking for attempts.
That all said, I would seek to be the good samaritan and report it. I would also be sure to document my steps/actions and have witnesses where possible. The more you do alone, the less credible you become in this sort of instance.
The previous senator (retired.... can't even remember his name now) never replied to my follow-up question as to what guarantees there were with Social Security. I wrote in favor of partial privatization of SS accounts. The initial reply I got was FUD about the stock market. My return question was (in more elaborate terms... and some crayon pictures to help him out; well, no crayon pictures, but maybe it would have helped...) "OK, So tell what certainty and guarantees I will have with SS as it stands?" [sound of crickets still chirping].
Sadly/ironically, I've had my head so buried in code lately, that I didn't even have time to notice this one, otherwise I would have written in.
I've not been impressed with O'Malley. Yes, I get to complain, because I did vote... and not for him.
Exactly! Technically not a security threat, but that still doesn't make the acquisition and leak of it necessarily legal, right or even helpful. I personally don't need to read it and won't benefit from it. And I'm sure there are others who can't wait to read it and even have some interest/use in reading it. Hopefully, whoever perpetrated the leak finds it was worthwhile in the case that they are found out.
"Only wrongdoers demand secrecy"
Yes, wrongdoers want to keep things secret, but I wouldn't say 'Only'. I mean, since you're doing nothing wrong with your sysadmin account, can I have your system's configuration files and event logs please?
I work in IT as a technical lead. I do some management, but mostly have to 'get things done'. That's why I'm interested in people who can not only follow directions, but *evaluate* them when they are ridiculous. You can question things and do so without being 'obstructionist' or 'difficult'. If you've read my other posts in the thread, you'd understand that I'm not advocating putting *legal* blame on the kid. I'm advocating him *thinking*, learning from his mistake, and not trying to hide behind "but they told me to take home tape backups with 800K unencrypted SSN's and I was just doing what they told me." You're in IT, right? You would do that? You wouldn't question it?
Management in this case should be roasted for bad policy, bad oversight and generally shady dealings. My original comment was only in regards to the intern flailing his arms and saying nothing at all was his fault. This kid was a 'yes man'. Had he not been so, (had be been 'obstructionist') he would not be in this situation. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, I am in IT management and despite all you seem to know about me from one post, I do take full responsibility for my actions (good and bad). I even post as a with a non-AC account on slashdot.;)
I agree with you 100% in *legal* terms. I agree that they ("management") should go down in flames for such pathetic policy and oversight.
I also believe that the intern should have had the sense to question what they were asking him to do... policy or not. Taking official work backups with SSN's on them home?!?!?! Maybe I misread something in the article, but he never claimed not knowing what was on those tapes. But if he did claim that... even worse... taking backups home from work and you have no idea what's on them! I don't want the boy handling anything with my data on it. And yes... I don't want inept management hiring someone who would do such a thing. Vicious cycle, eh?
I'm not at all for roasting the kid legally. I would just hope he had the sense to admit his 'lessons learned' and not try to play the blame game that they are. It's not going to get him anywhere or make him any more valuable of an asset in the future.
I'm only speaking to to the intern's statement(s) and his value as a potential employee. If he raises the flag that he should have... give him a raise and fire the consultant. He's not a mindless worker at a Fast food restaurant. If he's a CS/IT intern of some kind... he should be at least be aware that taking a tape full of SSN's home is not a good position to be in.
It this is exploitation, by all means, let the blame fall on the $125/hour consultant. All I'm saying is that this intern is playing the same 'blame' game... the cards are just stacked against him and he shouldn't play that game. Fess up to your mistakes, learn, show you've learned something... and move on.
From his statement:
As an intern, I do not create policy, I do not interpret policy, and I do not question policy. I do what I am instructed to do.
1) He also obviously did not take time to investigate or read the policy. Granted.. this can be also blamed on supervisor's. But there is no 'patch' for ignorance, correct? Sometimes you only get one shot.
2) If he had any idea what was on the tape, he should not have left it in his car. I don't know if it was in the open or not, but 'intern' or not, he should be aware of the sensitivities of that sort of data. He commented on the policy (which he was not aware of until after the fact... we've covered that) and said it was "unreasonable to assume that the person would not stop somewhere on their way home". (He is questioning the policy, but we'll cover that next.) Again... if I knew what was on that tape (granted, I am not an innocent, young 'intern'), I wouldn't take it. If forced to, I wouldn't let it out of my sight til in my home.
3) He *should* question policy if he wants to be valued.. hopefully he learns from that. That's something I look for in a valuable employee. Questioning does not necessarily mean 'defy' (which I think is what he is trying to say). If not questioning the policy, he should be asking "This stuff is encrypted, right?"
They are kind of going after the young intern as someone to pin this on, I'm sure. However, I don't think he can/should hide behind his 'intern' label and fire his pop-gun back saying none of it is his fault. He should admit his part in the mistakes and what he would not repeat... then point to the broken policy / security model.
Also hope they have fraud alerts set up on those 770,000 people and are ensuring they have state-provided equifax accounts!;)
Granted, I went to public schools. Despite that, I know that you shouldn't mix taxes and efficiency in the same sentence or paragraph without a '!', 'not', or 'never'.
Slashdot Mirror
Thirty years of age is the earliest I've heard recommended by some of my currently breeding peers, as the age when they should've started breeding.
Is that *breeding* in doggy or human years?
Depends on what you want to have to show for your life ... toys and gadgets or family and relationships of real value? You're right, in a family, parents 'serve' their children and husbands and wives should 'serve' one another, but it's not (should not be) some master/slave (against one's will) relationship. I got married of my own free will. But I see how grateful you are for that service rendered to you by parents and/or caretakers.
And besides, let's see who's changing your diapers when you're 90!?!?! :P
Back to the original point ... balancing responsibility to one's family along with responsibility and attention to their job and professional development is the way it must be done. I propose those who put off marriage or children for such selfish reasons are scared (and yes, it can be scary) and will only delay their opportunities and development in life
[Steps down from soapbox]To paraphrase from a movie ...
That file type, I do think it is what you think it is.
OK ... enough, enough already ... RTFROTD (RTF rest of the discussion) before posting people! I will also show restraint before posting so hastily ... or at least clarify myself better.
/. ... are not good for for our government and society. That, and the media doesn't help a lot because following an issue until the truth is settled doesn't always sell ads and pay the bills immediately.
... you are the first to actually cite constitution in the discussion. Congrats, go to the front of the thread.
Reading the rest of the discussion would highlight that:
1) I admit not having memorized the constitution or even having read it lately. Yes, I can admit hypocrisy and mistakes. One might wonder what I'm doing on
2) It was mostly a matter of semantics
3) The real point/issue is that uninformed herded masses of people who don't think before voting (kind of like posting hastily in my case)
But, I'll give you credit
Nobody RTFD the rest of the discussion before posting do they?!?!? Of course not ... this is /.
Hint:
When Monty Python is referenced, it is probably not a serious post (or not a serious portion of a post). I'm done with this... see my other comments if you have further questions.
All good points ... and when you think about it in a computer system access perspective, "right's" or "privileges" are essentially the same.
Being the one who started the semantic battle, my point is best summed up by slackoon I think (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=505248&cid=22921798)
While I haven't read the constitution lately and admittedly can't cite where that is. IANAL and suppose are a rocket scientist. I would equally challenge you to show me where it is specifically cited as a right. And whether or not it is a *right*, the point is ... voting is of significant consequence and should not be performed by masses of uninformed. Any party could complain equally on uninformed voting toward the other I'm sure. Thing is, it hurts us all. Is that a ridiculous assertion?
That part was mostly meant as a funny (hence the Monty Python reference) ... oh well, no funny mod this time.
... but not really. Three problems right away .... ... ... someone could bias the assessed 'stance' of candidate Y. /. poll option. That's what I take when I'm uninformed. It's also what we get when we vote uninformed (speaking metaphorically now of course).
But if we're being serious here and pretending my suggestion was for real:
There are such things as un-biased third parties, or committees/commissions composed of equally-and-oppositely-biased members with a few referees that at least claim to be neutral (been on one myself). There could be a question such as:
1) On the issue of X, candidate Y proposes:
a) foo
b) bar
c) Support CowboyNeal
And you can't vote for a candidate unless you know their position on at least one or two issues (figure up some fancy algorithm that everyone can disagree on)
Theoretically, of course
1) Half the time, no one knows what candidate Y proposes about X anyway. You can't get through the media and campaign crap to see
2) Yeah
3) I could never throw my support behind CowboyNeal except as a
Bingo! If parent wasn't a 5, I'd say mod it up. Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe. It should not be granted or denied based on irrelevant factors such as race or gender, but I worry about the effect of our cluelessness and lack of perspective when voting in America.
Admittedly, I have been guilty of clueless voting in the past.
Maybe there should be a quiz to get to the polls, replete with being cast off of a cliff (Monty Python style ... Holy Grail) for trying to vote w/o being informed on the issues. ;) Thing is ... I'm certain we'd lose those administering the quiz, just like in the Holy Grail. :O
"No critical updates were available or needed for your computer, but the friendly P2P patchWorm decided to reboot you anyway. None of your open documents were saved in the process."
Previous poster (parent) has a point though .. and I think it is .... unless you're absolutely confident of your 'anonymity' in reporting, then you are highly likely to become suspect. Your story is at least going to be checked out. If it's not on, then someone may sick their lawyer on you for slander/libel.
I sat down at a courtesy kiosk at an auto dealer once to find a guy still logged into his Yahoo mail had walked away. I sent him a mail from himself and did not put my name in it, suggesting he ensure that he had logged out before walking away. No worries there.
However, anyone reports anything on my network/sites, I am going to triple-check their story and their activity (if I can relate it to them). Some people won't do that, they'll just call the person into suspicion right away. We had a guy interview for a job and make a comment about how something on our web site was insecure. Not so bad, except he gave no specifics or suggestions. Only made himself suspect and guaranteed he would not get a job with us. This is different from being helpful, but honestly ... even if he gave some details, I'd still be checking up on the veracity of it all and looking for attempts.
That all said, I would seek to be the good samaritan and report it. I would also be sure to document my steps/actions and have witnesses where possible. The more you do alone, the less credible you become in this sort of instance.
You mean ... like congress?
The previous senator (retired .... can't even remember his name now) never replied to my follow-up question as to what guarantees there were with Social Security. I wrote in favor of partial privatization of SS accounts. The initial reply I got was FUD about the stock market. My return question was (in more elaborate terms ... and some crayon pictures to help him out; well, no crayon pictures, but maybe it would have helped ...) "OK, So tell what certainty and guarantees I will have with SS as it stands?" [sound of crickets still chirping].
... and not for him.
Sadly/ironically, I've had my head so buried in code lately, that I didn't even have time to notice this one, otherwise I would have written in.
I've not been impressed with O'Malley. Yes, I get to complain, because I did vote
Exactly! Technically not a security threat, but that still doesn't make the acquisition and leak of it necessarily legal, right or even helpful. I personally don't need to read it and won't benefit from it. And I'm sure there are others who can't wait to read it and even have some interest/use in reading it. Hopefully, whoever perpetrated the leak finds it was worthwhile in the case that they are found out.
"Only wrongdoers demand secrecy" Yes, wrongdoers want to keep things secret, but I wouldn't say 'Only'. I mean, since you're doing nothing wrong with your sysadmin account, can I have your system's configuration files and event logs please?
Ahhh ... the irony
... general decline of courtesy on our nation's roadways."
To quote:
"... You yell, "*******!" and hit the button, and a powerful EMP zaps their pimped ride"
And then:
"consider
Round 1: Geeks are presented vi and emacs as choice of editor
....
Round 2: Geeks are presented vi and pico as choice of editor
1) A good laugh
... w00t!
2) For pointing out this ad-block for me
Now ... if only I had a cat and lived in Australia!!! Then, I would gladly do the environment a favor.
I work in IT as a technical lead. I do some management, but mostly have to 'get things done'. That's why I'm interested in people who can not only follow directions, but *evaluate* them when they are ridiculous. You can question things and do so without being 'obstructionist' or 'difficult'. If you've read my other posts in the thread, you'd understand that I'm not advocating putting *legal* blame on the kid. I'm advocating him *thinking*, learning from his mistake, and not trying to hide behind "but they told me to take home tape backups with 800K unencrypted SSN's and I was just doing what they told me." You're in IT, right? You would do that? You wouldn't question it?
Management in this case should be roasted for bad policy, bad oversight and generally shady dealings. My original comment was only in regards to the intern flailing his arms and saying nothing at all was his fault. This kid was a 'yes man'. Had he not been so, (had be been 'obstructionist') he would not be in this situation. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, I am in IT management and despite all you seem to know about me from one post, I do take full responsibility for my actions (good and bad). I even post as a with a non-AC account on slashdot. ;)
I agree with you 100% in *legal* terms. I agree that they ("management") should go down in flames for such pathetic policy and oversight.
I also believe that the intern should have had the sense to question what they were asking him to do ... policy or not. Taking official work backups with SSN's on them home?!?!?! Maybe I misread something in the article, but he never claimed not knowing what was on those tapes. But if he did claim that ... even worse ... taking backups home from work and you have no idea what's on them! I don't want the boy handling anything with my data on it. And yes ... I don't want inept management hiring someone who would do such a thing. Vicious cycle, eh?
I'm not at all for roasting the kid legally. I would just hope he had the sense to admit his 'lessons learned' and not try to play the blame game that they are. It's not going to get him anywhere or make him any more valuable of an asset in the future.
I'm only speaking to to the intern's statement(s) and his value as a potential employee. If he raises the flag that he should have ... give him a raise and fire the consultant. He's not a mindless worker at a Fast food restaurant. If he's a CS/IT intern of some kind ... he should be at least be aware that taking a tape full of SSN's home is not a good position to be in.
It this is exploitation, by all means, let the blame fall on the $125/hour consultant. All I'm saying is that this intern is playing the same 'blame' game ... the cards are just stacked against him and he shouldn't play that game. Fess up to your mistakes, learn, show you've learned something ... and move on.
1) He also obviously did not take time to investigate or read the policy. Granted .. this can be also blamed on supervisor's. But there is no 'patch' for ignorance, correct? Sometimes you only get one shot.
2) If he had any idea what was on the tape, he should not have left it in his car. I don't know if it was in the open or not, but 'intern' or not, he should be aware of the sensitivities of that sort of data. He commented on the policy (which he was not aware of until after the fact ... we've covered that) and said it was "unreasonable to assume that the person would not stop somewhere on their way home". (He is questioning the policy, but we'll cover that next.) Again ... if I knew what was on that tape (granted, I am not an innocent, young 'intern'), I wouldn't take it. If forced to, I wouldn't let it out of my sight til in my home.
3) He *should* question policy if he wants to be valued .. hopefully he learns from that. That's something I look for in a valuable employee. Questioning does not necessarily mean 'defy' (which I think is what he is trying to say). If not questioning the policy, he should be asking "This stuff is encrypted, right?"
They are kind of going after the young intern as someone to pin this on, I'm sure. However, I don't think he can/should hide behind his 'intern' label and fire his pop-gun back saying none of it is his fault. He should admit his part in the mistakes and what he would not repeat ... then point to the broken policy / security model.
Also hope they have fraud alerts set up on those 770,000 people and are ensuring they have state-provided equifax accounts! ;)
Granted, I went to public schools. Despite that, I know that you shouldn't mix taxes and efficiency in the same sentence or paragraph without a '!', 'not', or 'never'.
I'm hoping they'll notify me of any relatives who may want to sell me amway guised as 'a great new way to save money buying things you already buy'.