Sounds like an important development. These are the kind of stories I'd love to see more of, no agenda, an accurate non-clickbait headline, no opinionated assumptions in the summary. Refreshing.
Thanks for the insight. Some companies do have a lazy solution, some have more robust ones yet overlook something simple or don't stay on top of change.
It would be great if there were an independent review, from credible and qualified individuals, of the conflicting studies to perform some sort of validation and also to point out the potential flaws or margins of error. But who would choose and fund that review? It would be ideal if the two opposing entities funded it together, but that's not gonna happen.
My biggest concern with these 'causes cancer' studies is that its always a matter of levels of exposure, and there often is a big hole when it comes to what level of exposure a typical user would encounter, and what risk that presents, and how that compares with other risks. In my opinion, any study that puts forth an association of cancer to a product is incomplete, and sometimes even negligent, when they stop without attempting to answer that questions whilst leaving the public to assume the worst. But to be fair to those performing the studies, often its the media that simply takes the study and mis-characterizes its findings for either clicks or agenda.
I never accused you of lying about the number of pages.
Everyone can see that you are lying again. Another lie to defend a previous lie.
Oh, I see it was your very poorly worded response that led me to that mistake, where you quoted me saying it was 10 pages and responded with a sentence saying 'anyone who read it know that is is not...." So my apologies for misreading your poorly worded post, I may have paid closer attention if you had indicated any kind of thoughtfulness that would warrant it. But with all that it is still irrelevant. While you might not agree with my characterization of someone distributing a 10 page document to co-workers as a campaign, you are no more correct in having a differing opinion. That is my assessment, you can disagree but by resorting to 'liar liar' you pretty much diminish any credibility you have to make an actual point. And rather you show a propensity to find peripheral excuses for dismissal of my primary point rather than showing any ability to make a thoughtful counterpoint. Therefore, you are pretty much relegated to looking stupid.
After exposing the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) plans, I'm betting that's the last government contract they work on.
It seems to only show a black box room location from one facility. This is not necessarily info that is required to be secured. In reading the article, most of the information is pretty useless for any kind of attacker on the actual power systems, some of it is business sensitive. Its a security hole they need to plug in general, and certainly a good example of carelessness, but the article makes this out to be a much more significant breach that it is.
I'm sorry for being blunt but "a port misconfiguration" should not even be theoretically possible on mission critical devices. They should not be accessible directly (and indirectly as well) from the world wide net.
This was a business LAN folder access, not a mission critical device or system.
move as many systems as possible off the power grid. Blackouts need not cripple our civilizations.
This wasn't a grid system. This was a business LAN. Of course the headline is crafted in such a way as to hope someone is confused and assumes actual electrical equipment/systems were involved.
Yes, I agree entirely that Google may be exposed. I suppose that there is the possibility that they have had some past, well documented issues with this employee that would get them off the hook, of course that information, if it even exists, can't be made public or they'd be in really deep stuff. But with this much publicity, it is hard to imagine Google taking the action without a very deliberate internal legal/HR review to ensure they are confident that they have standing.
I called it a campaign. You can narrow your definition to suit your purposes, but that is irrellevent. So, why do you avoid correcting my mistake on number of pages? I assume you don't know and you just threw out that accusation of me 'lying' about the number of pages.
And you may want to do a maturity check on yourself. I checked and my pants are not on fire.
Look at the summary above. It states he wrote a 10 page document.
..and anyone who read it knows that it is not, as you the fucking liar claims, a "campaign"... stop being a fucking liar. its really that simple. Stop being a fucking liar.
I also have managed fairly large groups at a large company, and have fired enough employees to know that you don't just do it on one bad action unless very clear lines are crossed. I needed a file with recurring instances of unacceptable behavior or performance, with documented attempts/opportunities given to the employee to improve. Much of that meant some really poor employees stuck around much longer than we'd have liked and did damage to group morale. I did have one instance where the employee improved significantly, which was quite rewarding for both of us.
That said, it was the safe path, but legally much more rapid action could have been taken in some cases had we wanted to take that path.
The people that read "the 10 pager" know that you are a liar.
Look at the summary above. It states he wrote a 10 page document. So, exactly what is the lie? Was it 11 pages? 9? Please tell me as I may have the page count wrong. Then tell me why that error matters.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
No, I don't work for Google. I don't even know if they are wrong or right, I am simply putting forth a legitmate consideration, one that you seem to want to dismiss. If you don't think having employees passing their manifestos around the business network should be of any concern, please say so rather than choosing to make ridiculous accusations as your rationale for dismissal of the point.
Please state the 'lie' you are accusing me of, with specific proof of it being a lie, or don't bother responding.
So, maybe I missed something, please show me where a fact states he wrote the ten page document with the expectation it would be ignored. I get that he might not have expected so much penetration of it, but that's not the point.
You can support that right and yet have limits on the appropriate ways to do it. I'm just presenting another side, some here seem to thing I'm only defending Google and getting offended (kind of interesting). I personally would never send out such a thing on a business platform, I would never even consider that would be the appropriate venue.
Edit to fix formatting.
>The employee is not being fired for his opinion, or at least that would be very hard to proven.
Actually, it will be very easy to prove that he was fired directly for discussing work conditions, which is protected activity in California. Google's VP of HR and the CEO of Google all but confirmed that what he wrote was unacceptable and that he was terminated because of it.
That may very well be true, however the law doesn't protect every venue of distribution of one's beliefs. It may not be an acceptable venue for such a discussion to use the business network. Throwing out accusations, or even implications, isn't protected when you've totally bypassed the appropriate channels. It can be disruptive. I have no opinion one way or other, I am just presenting a side that some seem to assume doesn't matter.
Is my speculation more reasonable than your speculation? (that he was campaigning and flooding?) At least my speculation is written in a reasonably neutral tone. The larger point is that you were using prejudicial language to describe his behavior. Disagree with that?
"prejudicial language"??
Neither has to be more reasonable for either of us to have a valid point, after all it is an unknown. But I think it is questionable to assume somebody would write a 10 pager with the expectation nobody reads it.
But to not stray from my initial point...having employees passing manifestos across the business network might very well be a legitimate concern, but it seems some don't want to acknowledge that possibility. I am not claiming it is the case, but certainly feel like it is a legitimate point to consider.
State of California.
It is illegal to prevent workers from discussing work conditions.
It is illegal to discriminate based on political opinions.
it is illegal to implement affirmative action.
Welcome to California, Google. Did you have a look at the States laws before you gave your diversity monster power?
Not allowing manifesto's to be campaigned through the business network does not prevent workers from discussing work conditions. The employee is not being fired for his opinion, or at least that would be very hard to prove. As for affirmative action, if there are facts to support they are not implementing in accordance with law, there should be an investigation and properly prosecuted if evidence pans out. A claim in a manifesto doesn't automatically mean anything.
Maybe we've gotten to the point where Google thinks that its business network is not the place to conduct such a campaign, and such a campaign is a distraction from the business focus. Or maybe all employees should start flooding their manifestos during work hours. Its not necessarily the content that is the concern.
Tesla is making a big bet that they can stay ahead or at least even on the battery technology front. If a competitor comes out with a newer/cheaper/better battery solution, Telsa is stuck with what they are investing huge sums into. They can overcome some of that by managing their own margins, but if something were to drag the battery part of their business down, it could drag heavily on the car business (and other Telsa businesses). Its a strategy that can pay off big or be painful.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like an important development. These are the kind of stories I'd love to see more of, no agenda, an accurate non-clickbait headline, no opinionated assumptions in the summary. Refreshing.
Thanks for the insight. Some companies do have a lazy solution, some have more robust ones yet overlook something simple or don't stay on top of change.
But how often do Google and Facebook look at the Brits?
It would be great if there were an independent review, from credible and qualified individuals, of the conflicting studies to perform some sort of validation and also to point out the potential flaws or margins of error. But who would choose and fund that review? It would be ideal if the two opposing entities funded it together, but that's not gonna happen.
My biggest concern with these 'causes cancer' studies is that its always a matter of levels of exposure, and there often is a big hole when it comes to what level of exposure a typical user would encounter, and what risk that presents, and how that compares with other risks. In my opinion, any study that puts forth an association of cancer to a product is incomplete, and sometimes even negligent, when they stop without attempting to answer that questions whilst leaving the public to assume the worst. But to be fair to those performing the studies, often its the media that simply takes the study and mis-characterizes its findings for either clicks or agenda.
I never accused you of lying about the number of pages. Everyone can see that you are lying again. Another lie to defend a previous lie.
Oh, I see it was your very poorly worded response that led me to that mistake, where you quoted me saying it was 10 pages and responded with a sentence saying 'anyone who read it know that is is not...." So my apologies for misreading your poorly worded post, I may have paid closer attention if you had indicated any kind of thoughtfulness that would warrant it. But with all that it is still irrelevant. While you might not agree with my characterization of someone distributing a 10 page document to co-workers as a campaign, you are no more correct in having a differing opinion. That is my assessment, you can disagree but by resorting to 'liar liar' you pretty much diminish any credibility you have to make an actual point. And rather you show a propensity to find peripheral excuses for dismissal of my primary point rather than showing any ability to make a thoughtful counterpoint. Therefore, you are pretty much relegated to looking stupid.
After exposing the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) plans, I'm betting that's the last government contract they work on.
It seems to only show a black box room location from one facility. This is not necessarily info that is required to be secured. In reading the article, most of the information is pretty useless for any kind of attacker on the actual power systems, some of it is business sensitive. Its a security hole they need to plug in general, and certainly a good example of carelessness, but the article makes this out to be a much more significant breach that it is.
I'm sorry for being blunt but "a port misconfiguration" should not even be theoretically possible on mission critical devices. They should not be accessible directly (and indirectly as well) from the world wide net.
This was a business LAN folder access, not a mission critical device or system.
move as many systems as possible off the power grid. Blackouts need not cripple our civilizations.
This wasn't a grid system. This was a business LAN. Of course the headline is crafted in such a way as to hope someone is confused and assumes actual electrical equipment/systems were involved.
Yes, I agree entirely that Google may be exposed. I suppose that there is the possibility that they have had some past, well documented issues with this employee that would get them off the hook, of course that information, if it even exists, can't be made public or they'd be in really deep stuff. But with this much publicity, it is hard to imagine Google taking the action without a very deliberate internal legal/HR review to ensure they are confident that they have standing.
I called it a campaign. You can narrow your definition to suit your purposes, but that is irrellevent. So, why do you avoid correcting my mistake on number of pages? I assume you don't know and you just threw out that accusation of me 'lying' about the number of pages.
And you may want to do a maturity check on yourself. I checked and my pants are not on fire.
Look at the summary above. It states he wrote a 10 page document.
How many pages was it?
I also have managed fairly large groups at a large company, and have fired enough employees to know that you don't just do it on one bad action unless very clear lines are crossed. I needed a file with recurring instances of unacceptable behavior or performance, with documented attempts/opportunities given to the employee to improve. Much of that meant some really poor employees stuck around much longer than we'd have liked and did damage to group morale. I did have one instance where the employee improved significantly, which was quite rewarding for both of us.
That said, it was the safe path, but legally much more rapid action could have been taken in some cases had we wanted to take that path.
The people that read "the 10 pager" know that you are a liar.
Look at the summary above. It states he wrote a 10 page document. So, exactly what is the lie? Was it 11 pages? 9? Please tell me as I may have the page count wrong. Then tell me why that error matters.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
No, I don't work for Google. I don't even know if they are wrong or right, I am simply putting forth a legitmate consideration, one that you seem to want to dismiss. If you don't think having employees passing their manifestos around the business network should be of any concern, please say so rather than choosing to make ridiculous accusations as your rationale for dismissal of the point.
Please state the 'lie' you are accusing me of, with specific proof of it being a lie, or don't bother responding.
So, maybe I missed something, please show me where a fact states he wrote the ten page document with the expectation it would be ignored. I get that he might not have expected so much penetration of it, but that's not the point.
You can support that right and yet have limits on the appropriate ways to do it. I'm just presenting another side, some here seem to thing I'm only defending Google and getting offended (kind of interesting). I personally would never send out such a thing on a business platform, I would never even consider that would be the appropriate venue.
Read the article, he put out a 10 pager to fellow employees.
Edit to fix formatting. >The employee is not being fired for his opinion, or at least that would be very hard to proven. Actually, it will be very easy to prove that he was fired directly for discussing work conditions, which is protected activity in California. Google's VP of HR and the CEO of Google all but confirmed that what he wrote was unacceptable and that he was terminated because of it.
That may very well be true, however the law doesn't protect every venue of distribution of one's beliefs. It may not be an acceptable venue for such a discussion to use the business network. Throwing out accusations, or even implications, isn't protected when you've totally bypassed the appropriate channels. It can be disruptive. I have no opinion one way or other, I am just presenting a side that some seem to assume doesn't matter.
Is my speculation more reasonable than your speculation? (that he was campaigning and flooding?) At least my speculation is written in a reasonably neutral tone. The larger point is that you were using prejudicial language to describe his behavior. Disagree with that?
"prejudicial language"??
Neither has to be more reasonable for either of us to have a valid point, after all it is an unknown. But I think it is questionable to assume somebody would write a 10 pager with the expectation nobody reads it.
But to not stray from my initial point...having employees passing manifestos across the business network might very well be a legitimate concern, but it seems some don't want to acknowledge that possibility. I am not claiming it is the case, but certainly feel like it is a legitimate point to consider.
I'm sure when he shared it on some internal messaging platform, he expected it to largely be ignored, as most unsolicited opinions are.
And the basis for your assumption is what? Why would somebody write such an in depth piece with the expectation that it is largely ignored?
State of California. It is illegal to prevent workers from discussing work conditions. It is illegal to discriminate based on political opinions. it is illegal to implement affirmative action. Welcome to California, Google. Did you have a look at the States laws before you gave your diversity monster power?
Not allowing manifesto's to be campaigned through the business network does not prevent workers from discussing work conditions. The employee is not being fired for his opinion, or at least that would be very hard to prove. As for affirmative action, if there are facts to support they are not implementing in accordance with law, there should be an investigation and properly prosecuted if evidence pans out. A claim in a manifesto doesn't automatically mean anything.
Maybe we've gotten to the point where Google thinks that its business network is not the place to conduct such a campaign, and such a campaign is a distraction from the business focus. Or maybe all employees should start flooding their manifestos during work hours. Its not necessarily the content that is the concern.
But if the jamming source needs to be in the vicinity, you can locate it and blow it out of the water.
I have just read your post and it has no point.
Tesla is making a big bet that they can stay ahead or at least even on the battery technology front. If a competitor comes out with a newer/cheaper/better battery solution, Telsa is stuck with what they are investing huge sums into. They can overcome some of that by managing their own margins, but if something were to drag the battery part of their business down, it could drag heavily on the car business (and other Telsa businesses). Its a strategy that can pay off big or be painful.