I know who/what Gaia is in the context of Greco-Roman mythology. That knowledge does abosolutely nothing to illuminate the context or meaning of the quoted statement, however.
I have no idea if you know me. I'm a theoretical transhumanist, at least. But I don't know what form the transhuman process will take (mechanical? bio-genetic? informational?). I'm also deeply religious, so I'm more concerned about the moral and ethical aspects of the transhumanist impulse. Any transhumanist process that does not result in a clearer, more intentional expression of what it means to be fundamentally human can only be a Bad Thing, IMHO.
Of course, what, exactly, "being human" means in the moral and ethical (and spiritual) sense is a violently debatable question. But it's the question I'd be most interested in debating. The form and function of the human mind and body, and the technology used to achieve it, is secondary to the will and purpose driving the changes.
I wonder if this problem has occured to any of the geologists, physicists, geophysicists, astrophysicists, or other smarty men contemplating the issue. Wouldn't it be funny if all their plans were undone by a Slashdot journal entry?
How, exactly, is evolution supposed to refute my arguments? I think you meant to say that if you ignore me long enough, I'll no longer be around to bother you. In which case, you misspelled "old age".
My arguments, meanwhile, are as old as recorded history, and show no signs of evolving out of the gene pool anytime soon.
Anyway, your claims are naive. How do you know that a genetic predisposition to debate the meaning of life isn't beneficial to the species? As far as you can tell, evolution is just as likely to substantiate my arguments as refute them. Or have you been to the future, and seen what it holds, and returned to Slashdot to offer these words of encouragement (such as they are)?
Thank you. Credit where credit is due: "Yog-Sothothery" is attributed to H.P. Lovecraft in the Call of Cthulhu D20 rulebook, which claims that he sometimes used it to describe the genre of his stories. Naturally, I couldn't wait to use it in a sentence.
Here is why Terraforming is good. It turns an otherwise dead planet into a living one.
You're presupposing that "life" is inherently "good". Most gases expand to fill every available niche, too. So wouldn't vaporizing Mars be just as "good" as terraforming it? I mean, look beyond us mere humans. Think of all that interstellar hydrogen. Shouldn't we be devoted to making more of, rather than locking it up in our puny ecosystems, which are so limited and meaningless on a truly cosmic scale?
Seriously, though, if "life" is just the mindless expansion of a system to fill every niche, then terraforming is neither "good" nor "bad"--it just is. By your logic, the question isn't "why should we terraform Mars", the question is... well, there is no question. We will terraform Mars, because that's what "life" does. Terraforming is no more "good" than supernovas are "good", or the Second Law of Thermodynamics is "good".
I may be against terraforming not because I'm against life, but simply because I'm against this idea of life as mindless, cancerous Yog-Sothothery. If life is "good", it has to come up with a better reason for its actions than that. And if it can't, if life just is, then it needs no reasons at all, and this discussion is meaningless.
1. Choose the nth least congested path, where n is the statistical "sweet spot".
2. Add randomness, so that your actual choices oscillate around n.
3. Include logic to keep your random deviations from getting too far from n, where "too far" is "unacceptably sucky".
4. For great justice!!!
The sooner people realize this, the sooner we will have implemented a just society.
You've got to be kidding. If implementing a "just society" (whatever that means) were so simple, we'd already have one. Everybody would already have one. Your "just society" doesn't really depend on the sudden enlightenment of 21st-century statisticians. It depends on something else entirely--something that so far nobody seems to have produced.
Speaking of statisticians, all of our data so far clearly shows that "just societies" have a 100% failure rate over the long term. Why should a forced dampening of the natural power distribution law be the one solution that magically turns the world into a utopia? Assuming, of course, that such a thing could somehow be implemented without weakness, corruption, or human error.
And what kind of "justice" are you talking about, anyway? The kind where innovators and explorers are punished for innovating and exploring, rather than reaping the rewards of their efforts? Legislating entitlements to the have-nots is not a substitute for compassion, service, and humility. Forget about a "just" society. You want to make your community a better place? Give more than you get, instead of clamoring for an equal share of what everybody else has. Set an example. Teach your neighbors to do the same.
Analogies have their place in conversation. If the writer knows their place and keeps them there, but the reader does not, whose fault is that?
Anyway, if your independent argument is clearly stated, but someone wants to ignore it and pick apart the irrelevant analogy instead, a simple "you've missed the point, please read my post again" will suffice. If it doesn't, further discussion with that particular reader is pointless anyway.
One time pads are not uncrackable by definition. They have two weak points.
The definition of "uncrackable" is mathematical. It's a theoretical, ideal, definition. Failure to meet the defined conditions of uncrackability doesn't in any way invalidate the principle of uncrackability.
1) The generation of the pads.
For example, the OTP is only uncrackable if the generation meets the requirements. If you fail to meet the requirements, your instance of an OTP will not be uncrackable, but the principle of the OTP-as-uncrackable is still completely valid. If you're not standards-compliant, you don't enjoy the benefits of the standard. That doesn't mean the standard has no benefits.
One time pads are as crackable as your method for generating the pads. If your pad is TRULY random than it can't be cracked via statistics and probability...
What? You didn't use a truly random number to generate your pads? Oops! Guess they're not uncrackable. But then, they're not really even OTPs at this point, are they? That's what you get for using a crackable book cipher instead of an uncrackable OTP.
2) The distribution of the pads.
Distribution is an important issue that merits careful consideration. But it's not related to the crackability of the cipher per se.
Both parties need a copy of the pad for it to work. How do the parties get the pads? Is this process secure? If not, than the quality of the pad is moot.
Giving the key to an untrusted entity has no bearing on the uncrackability of the OTP. Your trusted friend can decipher the message at will, so long as he has the key. That doesn't mean the cipher has been cracked, does it? Anybody who has the key can decipher the OTP, which is exactly as it should be. Anybody who doesn't have the key can't decipher the OTP. And that is what "uncrackable" means, by definition.
You could, of course, dispute the mathematical proof of the OTP's uncrackability, and show on those grounds that the OTP doesn't meet the definition, but I believe that's already been done, and the OTP passed that test with flying colors.
Remember, kids: Having an uncrackable cipher is completely useless if you're not standards-compliant, you can't trust your people, or your physical security sucks. But hey--at least your cipher is still uncrackable!
Yeah, but he wasn't arguing by analogy. His argument stands on its own without the rather witty coda at the end. No betrayal of principles has taken place.
with an OTP alone i could generate all possible messages the same amountt of bits, and somewhere in the solution set would be the answer.
Um... you could do that anyway. Hell, you could sit in a room all day thinking of all the possible messages of any bit length. Once you've filterd out all the false messages, the enemy will have no secrets at all!
"Decryption" is about applying a specific formula with the correct variables to a single instance of encrypted data. What you're talking about is called "profiling", or "intelligence analysis".
The OTP is termed unbreakable because the formula and variables can't be derived from the encrypted data instance itself. The only way to decrypt it is through other means, and then you're not breaking the cypher at all--you're using social engineering, or theft, or bribery, or betrayal, or smarty-man James Bond spycraft, or anything other than actually breaking the cypher. Which can't be done.
Yes, I know you were probably being funny. I'm just being bored. Boring? Whatever.
And it does. The "heat death" thing refers to what happens when the average temperature is evenly distrubuted across all the particles in the system.
See, discrete objects exist, and discrete events occur, because there's an energy gradient between one state and another. This energy gradient makes change possible. This is achieved by an uneven distribution of the average temperature. Stars are hotter than the average temperature of the universe, and on a good day revenge is colder than the average temperature of the universe. Distribute the average temperature evenly throughout the universe, and you won't be able to tell the difference between stars and revenge.
The weather system is so complex that our understanding is at the level of stone knives and swinging dead chickens.
Technically, this can't be true. Stone knives and swinging dead chickens is at the level of stone knives and swinging dead chickens. Meteorology is on a different level altogether. You might choose to measure these things on such a scale that the distance between the two levels is apparently none, but on any scale that allows for advancement, the two can't be on the same level. The only way they could be on the same level is if the current state of the art truly is theoretically and practically identical to the past state of the art. Hrm. I guess that could be possible, but not so much that I'd hestitate to discard the possibility as ludicrous.
Oral contracts are only binding if the terms of the contract are orally communicated such that both parties understand what they are agreeing to, or if the agreement itself is orally communicated such that both parties understand that they have so agreed.
Implied contracts likewise only binding if the terms of the contract are clearly implied to both parties, or if both parties clearly imply that they understand the terms of the contract, and are agreeing to those terms.
Since the terms of the shrinkwrap EULA cannot possibly be known prior to the purchase, purchasing the software cannot possibly imply agreement to those terms.
IANAL, so the preceeding was pulled out of my ass, of course. Enjoy!
I've overused my credit cards. I've been unemployed long enough to choose food over bills. I've shown up in the emergency room without medical insurance of any kind. Hell, I've had bogus entries show up on my report!
And you know what? The world doesn't seem any more Orwellian now than it did before.
You know what else? I don't use credit cards anymore. Kinda hard to have credit problems when you don't buy on credit, isn't it?
I won't touch the question of marriage and divorce.
Do what you like. Fight the power. Fight the Man. But until there's a better method for getting an independent evaluation of a person's integrity before putting them in a position of trust, credit reports are here to stay. Wake me up when you've solved this conundrum.
And no, "people should just trust each other!" isn't a solution. You trusted your wife, and look what happened there.
Obviously not everybody agrees with your point of view. Some people seem to think that a credit report gives some indication of a person's ability to manage debt, and, by implication, some insight into their overall level of responsibility.
Resumes can be padded. References can be spoofed. Liars can be charming.
And, unfortunately, credit reports can be wrong.
But anecdotal evidence is pretty weak. If someone can prove the system is broken by saying "my credit report is wrong!", then I can easily fix the system by saying "my credit report is right!". Which it is, by the way. And it wouldn't get me the directorship, either.
Have you hired many directors, lately? What do you tell your board, and your stockholders, when they ask you how you justified putting this stranger in a position of trust with their assets? What do you tell them when they ask why they should trust you? How much personal information would you want about your babysitter? Or the guy who's going to be house-sitting for you while you're away in Europe next year?
Nobody's giving up their right to anything. They may be giving up the thing itself, or a part of the thing, but not the right to that thing. Assuming, of course, that privacy is an inalienable right in the first place.
I'm well aware that credit reports are not always accurate, and that an inaccurate credit report is one of the most financially and socially crippling things that can befall a person. I'm well aware that they're open to abuse, and that they're difficult to correct, if their information is inaccurate. That doesn't change the fact that the alternative is equally painful, and much more time consuming: spend ten or twenty years in a community, building up a reputation as a reliable, trustworthy individual, and then go around to people you know personally, and try to get home loans, signature authorities, &c. And pray every day that a little bit of gossip over the back fence doesn't set you back to square one. At least a nationally-accessible credit report database gets you straight to the inaccuracies in a matter of days, or weeks.
And please don't argue by analogy. Nobody thinks that the state of your hobbyist computer systems at home is any indication of your integrity, your ability to plan ahead and plan responsibly, or your track record with handling serious financial matters over an extended period. A man who takes time off from his home network is a hobbyist. A man who takes time off from paying his debts is irresponsible.
Do yourself and everyone else a big favor, refuse to do it. Period. And make sure the company knows why.
Oh, the company knows why, alright: because he's an idiot.
They're offering him a position of trust. They're going to put him in charge of a budget--a significant portion of the company's assets. He'll have signature authority for thousands--possibly millions--of dollars. He'll be responsible for valuable material assets that the company has invested in. He'll be responsible for a number of the company's other employees. Every day he'll be personally underwriting the success and integrity of the department he directs. And they're supposed to trust him why? Because he says so? Would you give someone that kind of power over your finances and operations simply because they seemed like a nice guy? Or would you do your due diligence, and ask for some corroborating evidence? And it's not like it's mandatory, either. If he feels that a Director should be hired without regard to his credit history, he doesn't have to take the job. I'd rather have a Director who was confident of his own integrity. More importantly, I'd rather have a Director who felt that openness and honesty were vital qualities in high-ranking corporate officers.
And don't forget that, as a Director, he'll know much more about his direct reports (and their direct reports) than they know about him. He'll know their employment history, their pay rate, how much paid vacation time they've taken this year... It's something he should think about before demanding that the executives show him their own credit reports, "just to be fair".
How a person gets to be considered for a Director-level position without understanding any of this is beyond my comprehension. Equally astounding is that, in spite of his supposed experience and qualifications, he seems to think that Slashdot is the appropriate place to go for advice on the matter.
He should walk, suck it up, or talk to a lawyer. But he's pretty much fux0red at this point anyway. If he stays on (winning or losing the argument), he's already marked for termination in the next wave of downsizing (or as soon as they can find a more sensible replacement). If he walks, well, he's out of a job. Either way, he's an ass. The only thing the company has done wrong is retain him for more than a day after he refused their request.
Yeah, because, you know, you haven't entered into a contract with your provider and then intentionally begun violating one of that contract's clauses.
You want to cheat your provider, for real or imagined injustices? Fine. At least have the grace not to complain when they figure out that you're lying to them, and terminate your service for it (as well they should).
STFU. RTFC.
"But they've lied to me, too!"
What's your point? Terminate the contract. Or keep violating it. I don't care. Just don't complain when they fight back.
And yet, for some reason, he was never accused [in court, by the prosecution] of abusing a position of trust. The implication is that the punishment he received is usually reserved for someone who does these things, and that therefore it was strange for him to receive this punishment. The meaning is clear: why did he receive this punishment, if the legal point on which this punishment typically depends was never brought up?
Of course he abused trust. But that fact was never legally resolved, or even brought up. Instead of being punished under the law exclusively for crimes he was proven to commit under the law, it seems that he was punished in part based on hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts, as well as legally established actions which, by themselves, typically do not merit the legal punishment he received.
In short, he was punished for abusing a position of trust, but was never legally accused of doing so, and was never legally proven to have done so. It's a problem, and worth pointing out (as many people have done).
Lest you complain that this is a "distinction without a difference", may I remind you that the U.S. government is currently planning a preemptive strike against Iraq without any clear evidence that Iraq presently merits such a thing? Either we're wrong to put Kevin away for crimes he probably committed but we can't be bothered to prove, or we're right to attack Iraq at this time even though we can't prove beyond doubt that such a thing is necessary. Make up your mind... for great justice!
I'm pretty comfortable with specific sensor modules designed exclusively to detect and report a single condition [or set of conditions]. Easy to design, easy to test, easy to troubleshoot, and no ambiguity about what the event is or how to handle it.
Multipurpose machines, on the other hand--especially machines that are managed by a single "master control program" (WinCE, for example)--are exponentially more complex, and much harder to design for expertise and reliability in every single one of their discrete tasks. And if these tasks share resources with other tasks, proper stress-testing and QA becomes much more difficult, and the possibility of cascading unrelated system failures becomes much more likely.
So, yeah, I'd trust smoke detectors with my life, vis-a-vis fire warnings, but--given the current state of the art--probably not a security robot with integrated fire detection and response functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
I know who/what Gaia is in the context of Greco-Roman mythology. That knowledge does abosolutely nothing to illuminate the context or meaning of the quoted statement, however.
Whatever that means.
I have no idea if you know me. I'm a theoretical transhumanist, at least. But I don't know what form the transhuman process will take (mechanical? bio-genetic? informational?). I'm also deeply religious, so I'm more concerned about the moral and ethical aspects of the transhumanist impulse. Any transhumanist process that does not result in a clearer, more intentional expression of what it means to be fundamentally human can only be a Bad Thing, IMHO.
Of course, what, exactly, "being human" means in the moral and ethical (and spiritual) sense is a violently debatable question. But it's the question I'd be most interested in debating. The form and function of the human mind and body, and the technology used to achieve it, is secondary to the will and purpose driving the changes.
Well, there you go, then. I misunderstood your thesis. Thanks for the clarification.
Interesting.
I wonder if this problem has occured to any of the geologists, physicists, geophysicists, astrophysicists, or other smarty men contemplating the issue. Wouldn't it be funny if all their plans were undone by a Slashdot journal entry?
How, exactly, is evolution supposed to refute my arguments? I think you meant to say that if you ignore me long enough, I'll no longer be around to bother you. In which case, you misspelled "old age".
My arguments, meanwhile, are as old as recorded history, and show no signs of evolving out of the gene pool anytime soon.
Anyway, your claims are naive. How do you know that a genetic predisposition to debate the meaning of life isn't beneficial to the species? As far as you can tell, evolution is just as likely to substantiate my arguments as refute them. Or have you been to the future, and seen what it holds, and returned to Slashdot to offer these words of encouragement (such as they are)?
Thank you. Credit where credit is due: "Yog-Sothothery" is attributed to H.P. Lovecraft in the Call of Cthulhu D20 rulebook, which claims that he sometimes used it to describe the genre of his stories. Naturally, I couldn't wait to use it in a sentence.
Thank you. Somebody needed to say it.
You're presupposing that "life" is inherently "good". Most gases expand to fill every available niche, too. So wouldn't vaporizing Mars be just as "good" as terraforming it? I mean, look beyond us mere humans. Think of all that interstellar hydrogen. Shouldn't we be devoted to making more of, rather than locking it up in our puny ecosystems, which are so limited and meaningless on a truly cosmic scale?
Seriously, though, if "life" is just the mindless expansion of a system to fill every niche, then terraforming is neither "good" nor "bad"--it just is. By your logic, the question isn't "why should we terraform Mars", the question is... well, there is no question. We will terraform Mars, because that's what "life" does. Terraforming is no more "good" than supernovas are "good", or the Second Law of Thermodynamics is "good".
I may be against terraforming not because I'm against life, but simply because I'm against this idea of life as mindless, cancerous Yog-Sothothery. If life is "good", it has to come up with a better reason for its actions than that. And if it can't, if life just is, then it needs no reasons at all, and this discussion is meaningless.
1. Choose the nth least congested path, where n is the statistical "sweet spot".
2. Add randomness, so that your actual choices oscillate around n.
3. Include logic to keep your random deviations from getting too far from n, where "too far" is "unacceptably sucky".
4. For great justice!!!
You've got to be kidding. If implementing a "just society" (whatever that means) were so simple, we'd already have one. Everybody would already have one. Your "just society" doesn't really depend on the sudden enlightenment of 21st-century statisticians. It depends on something else entirely--something that so far nobody seems to have produced.
Speaking of statisticians, all of our data so far clearly shows that "just societies" have a 100% failure rate over the long term. Why should a forced dampening of the natural power distribution law be the one solution that magically turns the world into a utopia? Assuming, of course, that such a thing could somehow be implemented without weakness, corruption, or human error.
And what kind of "justice" are you talking about, anyway? The kind where innovators and explorers are punished for innovating and exploring, rather than reaping the rewards of their efforts? Legislating entitlements to the have-nots is not a substitute for compassion, service, and humility. Forget about a "just" society. You want to make your community a better place? Give more than you get, instead of clamoring for an equal share of what everybody else has. Set an example. Teach your neighbors to do the same.
Analogies have their place in conversation. If the writer knows their place and keeps them there, but the reader does not, whose fault is that?
Anyway, if your independent argument is clearly stated, but someone wants to ignore it and pick apart the irrelevant analogy instead, a simple "you've missed the point, please read my post again" will suffice. If it doesn't, further discussion with that particular reader is pointless anyway.
The definition of "uncrackable" is mathematical. It's a theoretical, ideal, definition. Failure to meet the defined conditions of uncrackability doesn't in any way invalidate the principle of uncrackability.
1) The generation of the pads.
For example, the OTP is only uncrackable if the generation meets the requirements. If you fail to meet the requirements, your instance of an OTP will not be uncrackable, but the principle of the OTP-as-uncrackable is still completely valid. If you're not standards-compliant, you don't enjoy the benefits of the standard. That doesn't mean the standard has no benefits.
One time pads are as crackable as your method for generating the pads. If your pad is TRULY random than it can't be cracked via statistics and probability...
What? You didn't use a truly random number to generate your pads? Oops! Guess they're not uncrackable. But then, they're not really even OTPs at this point, are they? That's what you get for using a crackable book cipher instead of an uncrackable OTP.
2) The distribution of the pads.
Distribution is an important issue that merits careful consideration. But it's not related to the crackability of the cipher per se.
Both parties need a copy of the pad for it to work. How do the parties get the pads? Is this process secure? If not, than the quality of the pad is moot.
Giving the key to an untrusted entity has no bearing on the uncrackability of the OTP. Your trusted friend can decipher the message at will, so long as he has the key. That doesn't mean the cipher has been cracked, does it? Anybody who has the key can decipher the OTP, which is exactly as it should be. Anybody who doesn't have the key can't decipher the OTP. And that is what "uncrackable" means, by definition.
You could, of course, dispute the mathematical proof of the OTP's uncrackability, and show on those grounds that the OTP doesn't meet the definition, but I believe that's already been done, and the OTP passed that test with flying colors.
Remember, kids: Having an uncrackable cipher is completely useless if you're not standards-compliant, you can't trust your people, or your physical security sucks. But hey--at least your cipher is still uncrackable!
Yeah, but he wasn't arguing by analogy. His argument stands on its own without the rather witty coda at the end. No betrayal of principles has taken place.
Um... you could do that anyway. Hell, you could sit in a room all day thinking of all the possible messages of any bit length. Once you've filterd out all the false messages, the enemy will have no secrets at all!
"Decryption" is about applying a specific formula with the correct variables to a single instance of encrypted data. What you're talking about is called "profiling", or "intelligence analysis".
The OTP is termed unbreakable because the formula and variables can't be derived from the encrypted data instance itself. The only way to decrypt it is through other means, and then you're not breaking the cypher at all--you're using social engineering, or theft, or bribery, or betrayal, or smarty-man James Bond spycraft, or anything other than actually breaking the cypher. Which can't be done.
Yes, I know you were probably being funny. I'm just being bored. Boring? Whatever.
And it does. The "heat death" thing refers to what happens when the average temperature is evenly distrubuted across all the particles in the system.
See, discrete objects exist, and discrete events occur, because there's an energy gradient between one state and another. This energy gradient makes change possible. This is achieved by an uneven distribution of the average temperature. Stars are hotter than the average temperature of the universe, and on a good day revenge is colder than the average temperature of the universe. Distribute the average temperature evenly throughout the universe, and you won't be able to tell the difference between stars and revenge.
And that would take all the fun out of life.
Technically, this can't be true. Stone knives and swinging dead chickens is at the level of stone knives and swinging dead chickens. Meteorology is on a different level altogether. You might choose to measure these things on such a scale that the distance between the two levels is apparently none, but on any scale that allows for advancement, the two can't be on the same level. The only way they could be on the same level is if the current state of the art truly is theoretically and practically identical to the past state of the art. Hrm. I guess that could be possible, but not so much that I'd hestitate to discard the possibility as ludicrous.
Oral contracts are only binding if the terms of the contract are orally communicated such that both parties understand what they are agreeing to, or if the agreement itself is orally communicated such that both parties understand that they have so agreed.
Implied contracts likewise only binding if the terms of the contract are clearly implied to both parties, or if both parties clearly imply that they understand the terms of the contract, and are agreeing to those terms.
Since the terms of the shrinkwrap EULA cannot possibly be known prior to the purchase, purchasing the software cannot possibly imply agreement to those terms.
IANAL, so the preceeding was pulled out of my ass, of course. Enjoy!
I have horrible credit.
I've overused my credit cards. I've been unemployed long enough to choose food over bills. I've shown up in the emergency room without medical insurance of any kind. Hell, I've had bogus entries show up on my report!
And you know what? The world doesn't seem any more Orwellian now than it did before.
You know what else? I don't use credit cards anymore. Kinda hard to have credit problems when you don't buy on credit, isn't it?
I won't touch the question of marriage and divorce.
Do what you like. Fight the power. Fight the Man. But until there's a better method for getting an independent evaluation of a person's integrity before putting them in a position of trust, credit reports are here to stay. Wake me up when you've solved this conundrum.
And no, "people should just trust each other!" isn't a solution. You trusted your wife, and look what happened there.
Obviously not everybody agrees with your point of view. Some people seem to think that a credit report gives some indication of a person's ability to manage debt, and, by implication, some insight into their overall level of responsibility.
Resumes can be padded. References can be spoofed. Liars can be charming.
And, unfortunately, credit reports can be wrong.
But anecdotal evidence is pretty weak. If someone can prove the system is broken by saying "my credit report is wrong!", then I can easily fix the system by saying "my credit report is right!". Which it is, by the way. And it wouldn't get me the directorship, either.
Have you hired many directors, lately? What do you tell your board, and your stockholders, when they ask you how you justified putting this stranger in a position of trust with their assets? What do you tell them when they ask why they should trust you? How much personal information would you want about your babysitter? Or the guy who's going to be house-sitting for you while you're away in Europe next year?
I'm well aware that credit reports are not always accurate, and that an inaccurate credit report is one of the most financially and socially crippling things that can befall a person. I'm well aware that they're open to abuse, and that they're difficult to correct, if their information is inaccurate. That doesn't change the fact that the alternative is equally painful, and much more time consuming: spend ten or twenty years in a community, building up a reputation as a reliable, trustworthy individual, and then go around to people you know personally, and try to get home loans, signature authorities, &c. And pray every day that a little bit of gossip over the back fence doesn't set you back to square one. At least a nationally-accessible credit report database gets you straight to the inaccuracies in a matter of days, or weeks.
And please don't argue by analogy. Nobody thinks that the state of your hobbyist computer systems at home is any indication of your integrity, your ability to plan ahead and plan responsibly, or your track record with handling serious financial matters over an extended period. A man who takes time off from his home network is a hobbyist. A man who takes time off from paying his debts is irresponsible.
Oh, the company knows why, alright: because he's an idiot.
They're offering him a position of trust. They're going to put him in charge of a budget--a significant portion of the company's assets. He'll have signature authority for thousands--possibly millions--of dollars. He'll be responsible for valuable material assets that the company has invested in. He'll be responsible for a number of the company's other employees. Every day he'll be personally underwriting the success and integrity of the department he directs. And they're supposed to trust him why? Because he says so? Would you give someone that kind of power over your finances and operations simply because they seemed like a nice guy? Or would you do your due diligence, and ask for some corroborating evidence? And it's not like it's mandatory, either. If he feels that a Director should be hired without regard to his credit history, he doesn't have to take the job. I'd rather have a Director who was confident of his own integrity. More importantly, I'd rather have a Director who felt that openness and honesty were vital qualities in high-ranking corporate officers.
And don't forget that, as a Director, he'll know much more about his direct reports (and their direct reports) than they know about him. He'll know their employment history, their pay rate, how much paid vacation time they've taken this year... It's something he should think about before demanding that the executives show him their own credit reports, "just to be fair".
How a person gets to be considered for a Director-level position without understanding any of this is beyond my comprehension. Equally astounding is that, in spite of his supposed experience and qualifications, he seems to think that Slashdot is the appropriate place to go for advice on the matter.
He should walk, suck it up, or talk to a lawyer. But he's pretty much fux0red at this point anyway. If he stays on (winning or losing the argument), he's already marked for termination in the next wave of downsizing (or as soon as they can find a more sensible replacement). If he walks, well, he's out of a job. Either way, he's an ass. The only thing the company has done wrong is retain him for more than a day after he refused their request.
Yeah, because, you know, you haven't entered into a contract with your provider and then intentionally begun violating one of that contract's clauses. You want to cheat your provider, for real or imagined injustices? Fine. At least have the grace not to complain when they figure out that you're lying to them, and terminate your service for it (as well they should). STFU. RTFC. "But they've lied to me, too!" What's your point? Terminate the contract. Or keep violating it. I don't care. Just don't complain when they fight back.
Of course he abused trust. But that fact was never legally resolved, or even brought up. Instead of being punished under the law exclusively for crimes he was proven to commit under the law, it seems that he was punished in part based on hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts, as well as legally established actions which, by themselves, typically do not merit the legal punishment he received.
In short, he was punished for abusing a position of trust, but was never legally accused of doing so, and was never legally proven to have done so. It's a problem, and worth pointing out (as many people have done).
Lest you complain that this is a "distinction without a difference", may I remind you that the U.S. government is currently planning a preemptive strike against Iraq without any clear evidence that Iraq presently merits such a thing? Either we're wrong to put Kevin away for crimes he probably committed but we can't be bothered to prove, or we're right to attack Iraq at this time even though we can't prove beyond doubt that such a thing is necessary. Make up your mind... for great justice!
I'm pretty comfortable with specific sensor modules designed exclusively to detect and report a single condition [or set of conditions]. Easy to design, easy to test, easy to troubleshoot, and no ambiguity about what the event is or how to handle it.
Multipurpose machines, on the other hand--especially machines that are managed by a single "master control program" (WinCE, for example)--are exponentially more complex, and much harder to design for expertise and reliability in every single one of their discrete tasks. And if these tasks share resources with other tasks, proper stress-testing and QA becomes much more difficult, and the possibility of cascading unrelated system failures becomes much more likely.
So, yeah, I'd trust smoke detectors with my life, vis-a-vis fire warnings, but--given the current state of the art--probably not a security robot with integrated fire detection and response functionality.