The person that made the decision to allow it will have to suffer the consequences, not the network guy person two or more levels below that implemented it because he/she was told to do it. That was my point and also why I stressed to try to get something in writing or producible form like an email. If you are the top IT guy making the decisions and others are coming to you with these request, get the approval of your authority. If he okays it, you are in the clear. If you get fired for implementing someone elses business decision, you probably would be better off working some where else anyway.
As for the other persons chair comment. If your supervisor or his supervisor approves it, he should get the 60K chair, that is not your concern as the employee, same with the leaving the doors open. Joe Schmo tier2 tech is not going to get fired because the building manager or department manger in that area requested that the doors stay open.
Many people like to feel they have more responsibility in the work place then they really do. If someone higher than you makes the decision, it is their ass. If you are not asking a higher authority when asked to do something you think is wrong, it is your ass. It really is that plain and simple.
Agree with your opinions but... IT departments working in a non IT business is to serve the users. IT does not run the business. If the users are not satisfied and can not do their work they want, you have failed. Your job is to point out the potential problems (in writing if possible) of doing things their way from an IT prospective and let someone else make the business decision if they want to do that or not. If you have a strong IT department manager, you will be able to achieve a balance of ease of use and security.
Meaning: If someone wants to run no firewall and allow direct access to their PC from the internet so they can work from home bypassing your RSA frontend, you should point out the security problems with that setup in writing/email/group forum to your supervisor and/or to that person. If they choose to still do it, come up with a plan to minimize the risk as much as possible or present alternatives with what that user wants. At that point, you've done your job that you were hired to do and you should move on to the next issue.
I know you stated you goal is good quality footage to catch a thief but is that really your ultimate goal? I believe preventing theft or to limit the loss from theft would be a better goal.
Take the standard precautions everyone else takes and get home owners/renters insurance from a reputable company.
A camera shot of the perp MIGHT help catch him eventually but what are the chances that your stolen stuff is going to be found and in returnable condition after that? The odds do not seem to justify the cost and complexity of above average high quality video surveillance to me.
The market, however, is not a game, and the concept of fairness has no place in it.
Huh? I agree they are unfair right now and laws are being passed to make it more fair but you are saying that they should not be fair and no attempts should be made to make them fair? That's what I get from "fairness has no place in it".
You whole theory ignores the inside information that the one client has that others do not. If everyone had the same information, most people would buy and sell in the same manner as the person with the inside information. The competence of the people advising clients is not the question, it is the information available to make the decision. We ALL have full access to the tax code and we can all exploit the loop holes given the right guidance, there is a level playing field for that process. There are no hidden tax laws that only a certain amount of people with that information can take advantage of. IMHO, JP Morgan is in a position involving a conflict of interest with its many investors. Legal or not, they are practicing a system where they are actively screwing over those without inside information with those that do. Remember, this inside information is not a competence issue based on better decisions and better guidance from more experienced decision makers that only the "weathly" can afford. It is information that is specifically not supposed to be used for stock dealings because it is not public information. This is not the same as you choosing a cheap newbie stock broker that is inexperienced compared to a 60 years team of proven winners and complaining they did not perform at the same level. If this inside information was actually public, the newbie would be able to pass it along as well.
This situation is no more unethical than Mercedes or Volvo building a "safer" automobile that is only available to those wealthy enough to afford it
It is not the same at all. When the insider takes advantage of this inside information, the money or advantage is not created out of thin air, it comes from the other investors that did not have that inside advantage. This is not paying more for something better like your car example. This is using information that others will not find out about until a future date.
The second problem is that it is JP Morgan's fiduciary duty to offer the best product available to its clients, including taking advantage of the specifics of SEC regulations,
Wrong again. I don't think JP Morgans only "clients" are only a few people with inside information. What about JP Morgans other clients? Help a few and screw over every other client they have? Not quite fiduciary duty.
Exactly my point. The person walking around aimlessly looking for a quick buck may be stopped by a locked door and move along to the next car. Someone that is scoping out and planning to specifically steal my car because they want it for for what ever reason is not going to stop the process because the door is locked. A terrorist PLANS to do a very specific thing and will work around the small obstacles. Take 9/11 for example. They went to flight school to learn to fly a specific plane, they rented an apartment and had countless meetings and traveled around getting everything ready for more than a year. Do you think they would have aborted the whole operation because they could not find an overhead view of the Pentagon on Google Earth?
Okay, obviously the area is not secured or completely off limits to someone, after all, Google got in. All a terrorist would have to do is the same thing, walk around or drive around, take some pictures, study the area for a few hours/minutes and they will have all of the same information. I think terrorists are not working spontaneously, their actions are thought out and planned WAY in advance. Its not like a bar fight were someone losses it and grabs a gallon of gas from the bed of their truck and comes back a few minutes later to burn the place down. I feel removing small things that might provide some information is not going to break up a plan as they will work around it or gain the information another way. Now maybe if they have to show up in person to get these recon photos they may be noticed and followed and the plot is uncovered? Hoping that happens does not make me feel any safer.
A union was picketing outside of my office building for months because another tenant in the building was using non union workers for their build out. All of the picketers were some ragged looking old bums off the street and paid cash at the role call at the end of the day. Once they got paid, they caught the bus and went home.
Technically you are right, the total price should have been obvious before a bid was made. On the other side of the though, it still is rediculous that someone charges $15 to ship something that costs $1 to ship. One of the reasons for doing this is to get the item you are selling to show up better at a "lower price". That practice is crooked as well. We can take this to extremes. I can put my car up with a buy it now for $1 and charge $11,500 shipping if I wanted. Doesn't seem right does it? There is a plugin for greasemonkey that will show the total cost with shipping.
I agree with you and have witnessed similar stupid users. If support is that important to Dell and that many idiots can not type a domain with more then 1 or 2 dots, direct them to dell.com or www.dell.com and tell them to click "Support". If that is not the location where you actually need most of the callers to go, put a link where they need to go. IMHO, trying to justify supportdell.com instead of what I described above does not make sense.
I damaged quite a few of those but not through normal use. This was because of the Activision game Decathlon. You had to rapidly go between left and right to run, the faster you did it, the faster your guy ran. Before "turbo" buttons or programable controllers were released. I pulled off the rubber cover over the stick and used a jigsaw (without a blade) to get the left and right motion. My friends dad rigged his joystick to a Kirby vacuum hair cutting attachment. Although the joysticks never broke, it did flatten out the end of the stick and fray the plastic stick after a while.
Regardless of any laws or studies. I know that I am not concentrating on driving and my driving ability is impaired when I am talking to someone on the phone, handsfree, earpiece, or through bluetooth and the stereo. More than if I am talking to a passenger or listening to the radio. Anyone who claims that talking on the phone while driving is NOT impaired or NOT at a reduced awareness level is either a really crappy driver that does not pay enough attention to driving and their surroundings anyway or really doesn't care and just thinks that they are still driving at the same awareness level.
Bottom line, you are maintaining a remote conversation with someone, there is no way you are devoting the same amount of "mind time" to your driving that you would if you were not on the phone. Unless you daydream or are about to fall asleep when you are not on the phone. Accidents happen all of the time because of lack of attention, regardless of what was distracting the person that missed the red light, drifted into a different lane, or did not see the car stopped in front of them, he or she was not paying enough attention to their driving. The more things that distract you, the higher chance you will have an accident. IMHO, the phone is a huge distraction.
I was not thinking from a campfire talk setting;) Maybe you could discuss something else. How about if McDonalds is "responsible" for contributing to the obesity problem in teens or if they as a company are simply supplying what the market demands. Same concept for SUVs and gas mileage. Here's another one but would probably take some background knowledge to maintain a decent argument. Safety devices installed on products. Are companies discouraged from "fixing" a safety issue at the risk of getting sued because they did not install them earlier or is waiting for the US government to mandate a specific feature justified. There are people that sue because their 1990 Honda did not have air bags and that their old lawn mower did not have the engine shutoff handle, should the companies be held responsible because they did not identify these "problems" earlier? Should the government have to step in to get these devices installed? If the company installs something are they acknowledging that the previous products were defective and should have had the safety device which makes them liable?
Well usually when I am at the campfire, I am with old friends or relatives and we talk about the stupid crap we did years ago.
They do not directly. In typical usage, you will pull a very specific amount of air through a specific type of paper filter and then messure the counts. The counts can then be used to determine a Microcuries/ml of radioactivity in the air.
There are some concerns as to the accuracy. Is the air pump, filter, and counter calibrated and working correctly? Was background levels taken into consideration, what is the baseline in the area. Is there a temperature inversion happening which is causing a natural radon build up and will the person taking the readings know how to compensate for that? All of these will effect the accuracy. I see the problem of people not having a general understanding of contaminants and exactly what is involved in monitoring them and they could be easily mislead by potentially bogus results. Is that enough of a concern to ban people from taking their own readings? I don't think so.
So do you see the merits in having cable TV at home or do you buy every thing individually that you watch?
I have Rhapsody and it works out great. My kids and I each have a portable unit, for $15/month, we each have an unlimited amount of music to listen too on any of our computers (linux as well), or on our portables. One subscriptions allows 3 authorized computers and 3 portable devices. We can also use the Rhapsody web interface on any computer and and it does not count against the authorized total.
For me, I already have the stuff I want on physical media or FLAC but I like the convenience of using Rhapsody on my portable. For my kids, they listen to new stuff and what is popular right now, not what was popular 6 months ago. Buying the tracks or the physical disk of "NOW That's what I call Music volume 2x" is only good for them for a few months.
So in three years, you spent $540 and have 540 songs. I have paid $540 and have had unlimited access to millions of songs. I don't care if I own it or not, $15 a month is the cost on a single CD or 15 songs.
The system does not work out for everyone but I've listened to more stuff that I would have NEVER bought or heard otherwise. There is no risk. I can drag over play lists, if I do not like them, oh well. I know my daughter has a dynamic play list of some type of top hits, every time her portable syncs, she has what someone considered to be "hot" now on her device. If you really do want to purchase a song as your own like iTunes, you can for $0.79. I've only done that once and that was before we had subscription compatible players.
I don't care what you like better, I know what I like better. Why do you even care what your friend is doing anyway?
Generally, if you played games a lot, experimenting with PCs, software, and programming was a common next step.
I think it was more along the lines of the people that liked experimenting or eventually computers and programming also liked to play games. A lot of my friends were cranking away at the games with me and had their own as well but not many of them were or became interested in "computers" or electronics at all.
If the true goal was to "get the word out", why seperate blogger from traditional reporter? Either one will get the word out and the more the better right? If you bad 5000 bloggers, that is 5000 less blogs that your information and word will be displayed right?
I think there may be some concern from some companies from WHAT a blogger might put out. Traditional media seems to dumb things down or at least average things out for the masses, may be a little more consistent, and has editors and advertisers to please. Bloggers are a little more free to report the experience differently then a traditional source.
Well two things come to mind here. One is this is not a movie that is sitting on e the shelf and no one knows about it. IMHO, Disney is afraid to release this becuase of the potential controversy. I do not think there is an issue with the movie from what I've read about it but it would not surprise me if the media did not play up the hype and cause a controversy if it was released. That point has nothing to do with the copyright of the movie and potential sales though. That leads to another point. Even if the copyright did expire for this movie, that does not mean that Disney has to release it for people to use as they see fit or put it in a form that others can actually view it on. From what I understand, there is not an english version in circulation so nothing prevents Disney from giving up the rights but still not actually releasing it to the public. Think about NFL films, the NFL could give up or have the copyright expire on Superbowls I through X but they do not have to actually give up or release the film for it for others to use.
Slashdot Mirror
The person that made the decision to allow it will have to suffer the consequences, not the network guy person two or more levels below that implemented it because he/she was told to do it. That was my point and also why I stressed to try to get something in writing or producible form like an email. If you are the top IT guy making the decisions and others are coming to you with these request, get the approval of your authority. If he okays it, you are in the clear. If you get fired for implementing someone elses business decision, you probably would be better off working some where else anyway.
As for the other persons chair comment. If your supervisor or his supervisor approves it, he should get the 60K chair, that is not your concern as the employee, same with the leaving the doors open. Joe Schmo tier2 tech is not going to get fired because the building manager or department manger in that area requested that the doors stay open.
Many people like to feel they have more responsibility in the work place then they really do. If someone higher than you makes the decision, it is their ass. If you are not asking a higher authority when asked to do something you think is wrong, it is your ass. It really is that plain and simple.
Agree with your opinions but...
IT departments working in a non IT business is to serve the users. IT does not run the business. If the users are not satisfied and can not do their work they want, you have failed. Your job is to point out the potential problems (in writing if possible) of doing things their way from an IT prospective and let someone else make the business decision if they want to do that or not. If you have a strong IT department manager, you will be able to achieve a balance of ease of use and security.
Meaning:
If someone wants to run no firewall and allow direct access to their PC from the internet so they can work from home bypassing your RSA frontend, you should point out the security problems with that setup in writing/email/group forum to your supervisor and/or to that person. If they choose to still do it, come up with a plan to minimize the risk as much as possible or present alternatives with what that user wants. At that point, you've done your job that you were hired to do and you should move on to the next issue.
A guy at work backed over his Lenova T61 laptop that was in his laptop bag. The screen was shattered.
Reactor Operator = limp wristed smooth crotch ;)
JackInTheBox share holders would surely disagree on your assumption that customers will instantly return..
I know you stated you goal is good quality footage to catch a thief but is that really your ultimate goal? I believe preventing theft or to limit the loss from theft would be a better goal.
Take the standard precautions everyone else takes and get home owners/renters insurance from a reputable company.
A camera shot of the perp MIGHT help catch him eventually but what are the chances that your stolen stuff is going to be found and in returnable condition after that?
The odds do not seem to justify the cost and complexity of above average high quality video surveillance to me.
The market, however, is not a game, and the concept of fairness has no place in it.
Huh? I agree they are unfair right now and laws are being passed to make it more fair but you are saying that they should not be fair and no attempts should be made to make them fair? That's what I get from "fairness has no place in it".
You whole theory ignores the inside information that the one client has that others do not. If everyone had the same information, most people would buy and sell in the same manner as the person with the inside information. The competence of the people advising clients is not the question, it is the information available to make the decision. We ALL have full access to the tax code and we can all exploit the loop holes given the right guidance, there is a level playing field for that process. There are no hidden tax laws that only a certain amount of people with that information can take advantage of.
IMHO, JP Morgan is in a position involving a conflict of interest with its many investors. Legal or not, they are practicing a system where they are actively screwing over those without inside information with those that do. Remember, this inside information is not a competence issue based on better decisions and better guidance from more experienced decision makers that only the "weathly" can afford. It is information that is specifically not supposed to be used for stock dealings because it is not public information. This is not the same as you choosing a cheap newbie stock broker that is inexperienced compared to a 60 years team of proven winners and complaining they did not perform at the same level. If this inside information was actually public, the newbie would be able to pass it along as well.
This situation is no more unethical than Mercedes or Volvo building a "safer" automobile that is only available to those wealthy enough to afford it
It is not the same at all. When the insider takes advantage of this inside information, the money or advantage is not created out of thin air, it comes from the other investors that did not have that inside advantage. This is not paying more for something better like your car example. This is using information that others will not find out about until a future date.
The second problem is that it is JP Morgan's fiduciary duty to offer the best product available to its clients, including taking advantage of the specifics of SEC regulations,
Wrong again. I don't think JP Morgans only "clients" are only a few people with inside information. What about JP Morgans other clients? Help a few and screw over every other client they have? Not quite fiduciary duty.
Exactly my point. The person walking around aimlessly looking for a quick buck may be stopped by a locked door and move along to the next car. Someone that is scoping out and planning to specifically steal my car because they want it for for what ever reason is not going to stop the process because the door is locked. A terrorist PLANS to do a very specific thing and will work around the small obstacles. Take 9/11 for example. They went to flight school to learn to fly a specific plane, they rented an apartment and had countless meetings and traveled around getting everything ready for more than a year. Do you think they would have aborted the whole operation because they could not find an overhead view of the Pentagon on Google Earth?
Okay, obviously the area is not secured or completely off limits to someone, after all, Google got in. All a terrorist would have to do is the same thing, walk around or drive around, take some pictures, study the area for a few hours/minutes and they will have all of the same information.
I think terrorists are not working spontaneously, their actions are thought out and planned WAY in advance. Its not like a bar fight were someone losses it and grabs a gallon of gas from the bed of their truck and comes back a few minutes later to burn the place down. I feel removing small things that might provide some information is not going to break up a plan as they will work around it or gain the information another way. Now maybe if they have to show up in person to get these recon photos they may be noticed and followed and the plot is uncovered? Hoping that happens does not make me feel any safer.
A union was picketing outside of my office building for months because another tenant in the building was using non union workers for their build out. All of the picketers were some ragged looking old bums off the street and paid cash at the role call at the end of the day. Once they got paid, they caught the bus and went home.
Technically you are right, the total price should have been obvious before a bid was made.
On the other side of the though, it still is rediculous that someone charges $15 to ship something that costs $1 to ship. One of the reasons for doing this is to get the item you are selling to show up better at a "lower price". That practice is crooked as well. We can take this to extremes. I can put my car up with a buy it now for $1 and charge $11,500 shipping if I wanted. Doesn't seem right does it?
There is a plugin for greasemonkey that will show the total cost with shipping.
I agree with you and have witnessed similar stupid users. If support is that important to Dell and that many idiots can not type a domain with more then 1 or 2 dots, direct them to dell.com or www.dell.com and tell them to click "Support". If that is not the location where you actually need most of the callers to go, put a link where they need to go. IMHO, trying to justify supportdell.com instead of what I described above does not make sense.
I damaged quite a few of those but not through normal use. This was because of the Activision game Decathlon. You had to rapidly go between left and right to run, the faster you did it, the faster your guy ran. Before "turbo" buttons or programable controllers were released. I pulled off the rubber cover over the stick and used a jigsaw (without a blade) to get the left and right motion. My friends dad rigged his joystick to a Kirby vacuum hair cutting attachment. Although the joysticks never broke, it did flatten out the end of the stick and fray the plastic stick after a while.
I don't believe your story although I don't think you have a reason to lie but tethering a cell phone to a laptop is not something new.
Regardless of any laws or studies. I know that I am not concentrating on driving and my driving ability is impaired when I am talking to someone on the phone, handsfree, earpiece, or through bluetooth and the stereo. More than if I am talking to a passenger or listening to the radio. Anyone who claims that talking on the phone while driving is NOT impaired or NOT at a reduced awareness level is either a really crappy driver that does not pay enough attention to driving and their surroundings anyway or really doesn't care and just thinks that they are still driving at the same awareness level.
Bottom line, you are maintaining a remote conversation with someone, there is no way you are devoting the same amount of "mind time" to your driving that you would if you were not on the phone. Unless you daydream or are about to fall asleep when you are not on the phone. Accidents happen all of the time because of lack of attention, regardless of what was distracting the person that missed the red light, drifted into a different lane, or did not see the car stopped in front of them, he or she was not paying enough attention to their driving. The more things that distract you, the higher chance you will have an accident. IMHO, the phone is a huge distraction.
I was not thinking from a campfire talk setting ;)
Maybe you could discuss something else. How about if McDonalds is "responsible" for contributing to the obesity problem in teens or if they as a company are simply supplying what the market demands. Same concept for SUVs and gas mileage. Here's another one but would probably take some background knowledge to maintain a decent argument. Safety devices installed on products. Are companies discouraged from "fixing" a safety issue at the risk of getting sued because they did not install them earlier or is waiting for the US government to mandate a specific feature justified. There are people that sue because their 1990 Honda did not have air bags and that their old lawn mower did not have the engine shutoff handle, should the companies be held responsible because they did not identify these "problems" earlier? Should the government have to step in to get these devices installed? If the company installs something are they acknowledging that the previous products were defective and should have had the safety device which makes them liable?
Well usually when I am at the campfire, I am with old friends or relatives and we talk about the stupid crap we did years ago.
They do not directly. In typical usage, you will pull a very specific amount of air through a specific type of paper filter and then messure the counts. The counts can then be used to determine a Microcuries/ml of radioactivity in the air.
There are some concerns as to the accuracy. Is the air pump, filter, and counter calibrated and working correctly? Was background levels taken into consideration, what is the baseline in the area. Is there a temperature inversion happening which is causing a natural radon build up and will the person taking the readings know how to compensate for that? All of these will effect the accuracy. I see the problem of people not having a general understanding of contaminants and exactly what is involved in monitoring them and they could be easily mislead by potentially bogus results. Is that enough of a concern to ban people from taking their own readings? I don't think so.
So do you see the merits in having cable TV at home or do you buy every thing individually that you watch?
I have Rhapsody and it works out great. My kids and I each have a portable unit, for $15/month, we each have an unlimited amount of music to listen too on any of our computers (linux as well), or on our portables. One subscriptions allows 3 authorized computers and 3 portable devices. We can also use the Rhapsody web interface on any computer and and it does not count against the authorized total.
For me, I already have the stuff I want on physical media or FLAC but I like the convenience of using Rhapsody on my portable. For my kids, they listen to new stuff and what is popular right now, not what was popular 6 months ago. Buying the tracks or the physical disk of "NOW That's what I call Music volume 2x" is only good for them for a few months.
So in three years, you spent $540 and have 540 songs. I have paid $540 and have had unlimited access to millions of songs. I don't care if I own it or not, $15 a month is the cost on a single CD or 15 songs.
The system does not work out for everyone but I've listened to more stuff that I would have NEVER bought or heard otherwise. There is no risk. I can drag over play lists, if I do not like them, oh well. I know my daughter has a dynamic play list of some type of top hits, every time her portable syncs, she has what someone considered to be "hot" now on her device. If you really do want to purchase a song as your own like iTunes, you can for $0.79. I've only done that once and that was before we had subscription compatible players.
I don't care what you like better, I know what I like better. Why do you even care what your friend is doing anyway?
Well calling or not calling to ask for email that was lost forever is not going to get it back either way.
Generally, if you played games a lot, experimenting with PCs, software, and programming was a common next step.
I think it was more along the lines of the people that liked experimenting or eventually computers and programming also liked to play games. A lot of my friends were cranking away at the games with me and had their own as well but not many of them were or became interested in "computers" or electronics at all.
Yes but let's use yet another car analogy here, what if Ford.... oh wait.
If the true goal was to "get the word out", why seperate blogger from traditional reporter? Either one will get the word out and the more the better right? If you bad 5000 bloggers, that is 5000 less blogs that your information and word will be displayed right?
I think there may be some concern from some companies from WHAT a blogger might put out. Traditional media seems to dumb things down or at least average things out for the masses, may be a little more consistent, and has editors and advertisers to please. Bloggers are a little more free to report the experience differently then a traditional source.
Well two things come to mind here. One is this is not a movie that is sitting on e the shelf and no one knows about it. IMHO, Disney is afraid to release this becuase of the potential controversy. I do not think there is an issue with the movie from what I've read about it but it would not surprise me if the media did not play up the hype and cause a controversy if it was released. That point has nothing to do with the copyright of the movie and potential sales though.
That leads to another point. Even if the copyright did expire for this movie, that does not mean that Disney has to release it for people to use as they see fit or put it in a form that others can actually view it on. From what I understand, there is not an english version in circulation so nothing prevents Disney from giving up the rights but still not actually releasing it to the public. Think about NFL films, the NFL could give up or have the copyright expire on Superbowls I through X but they do not have to actually give up or release the film for it for others to use.