Funny, from what I've heard, winmo7 would be groundbreaking 3 years ago, but today is sort of underwhelming. Makes you wonder how much MS could do if they didn't saddle their divisions with MS mgmt.
What would happen if the fire department were privatized? It would fail. If you don't put out a fire blazing in a building that is not covered, what happens? Does the fire just go out on its own? Or does it spread to the buildings of those covered, as well?
No, the fire department would come out and wet the buildings that had fire insurance so they didn't burn. Shoulda bought insurance.
That's why you do things like lock the input/output to sane values and have a default failure mode for just about everything. The thing that bothers me is the idea of a wholly electronic gearshift; I love my manual cars for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that, with runaway throttle, I can clutch in any time I want to.
The co-worker later came back to ask me if I thought he was a moron, I wasn't quite sure how to answer, is a moron still a moron when they become self aware of the fact they are a moron?
No, they're moving out of moron status by the simple knowledge of their position and the desire to change it.
Of course a lot of employers try to pull the non-compete clauses contract BS too which is along the same lines, trying to get you to agree to something that you actually can't sign away because in most states at least it is not legal to deny your right to make a living with any employer.
Those usually come down to the specificity of the restriction - if you agreed not to jump from one vertical player to another player in the same niche and it wasn't a contract position, it be reasonable, but I have also heard about companies that define their competitors as everyone within 50 miles - clearly unreasonable.
In the recent past, the only real noncompetes I've seen have been ones that say I can't contract through a body shop then work directly for the same client when the contract expires. This is a reasonable thing - they found the contact and spend a fair amount of effort maintaining the relationship.
And lots of people are claiming that calling something 'work for hire' doesn't make it so. I tend to believe that, but IANAL, and if it actually matters to you, I'd go talk to one. Retaining rights isn't a stunt, by the way - how else do you justify using the contractor's existing libraries if they aren't allowed to retain ownership of pieces of the code?
When I buy software in a store, I generally ignore the license agreement. I've already paid for the product, so I don't see the EULA as offering me anything additional, hence no reason to pay it any heed.
He's talking about the contracts that his company signs with clients - they don't own the code, they just get to use it/modify it. The company can still take code written in one project and use it on a subsequent one.
It's called a counterexample. Most Photographers retain the rights to things they do and sell prints later. Likewise, writing software as a contractor isn't a settled matter - it varies from contract to contract.
No, I'm looking at the policy and saying that divulging passwords to unauthorized people is something that is not done. The COO can pass them along later, but I wouldn't leave the concall open when I did the handover. There are a bunch of people he didn't know and couldn't see on the phone - how is this hard to understand?
Try malicious prosecution. The bail is out of all proportion to his alleged offense, and they paraded him in the media as a dangerous threat - might make it hard to maintain his life or get another job. I know I don't have $500k to throw away on bail. If he can show that the prosecution did this primarily for political reasons, he might manage a hefty award.
With better social skills, he would have understood why the organization wanted a more institutionalized, standard procedure based, and redundant way of operating the vital network, and he would have made concessions in this regard while still maintaining
a high level of operational security and technical integrity.
I suppose you missed the part where Childs attempted to set this up on several occasions only to be rejected - there was no written policy for a lot of what was in his job description. Further, the auditor he caught snooping around after hours should be enough to set anyone on edge. Demanding passwords shortly afterwards is hardly sensible.
They let the situation get out of hand, allowing non-documentation and informal operation for a long time, and allowing a non-team-based, non-redundant
approach to the operation of the network. And they were unable to effectively use management and leadership skills to
get the changes they needed from their senior technical employee, or failing that, to put in another senior technical person
to whom Childs was ordered to train on the full operation of the network.
It's entirely possible that Childs was the only competent admin in the group. Not even surprising seeing the antics of his boss.
This is all just a huge misunderstanding, and a situation that management let get out of control from the get-go of that
network's creation. It does not justify the criminal skapegoating that has occurred.
totally agree. I think handing him the $5MM + tax gross-up and a pension should go most of the way towards mending this rift.
and the unknown engineers on the concall? These are the keys to the kingdom, and access must be strictly controlled. If I gave out passwords like that, I'd expect to be fired on the spot and sued.
None of those passwords were his. None of those systems were his. It doesn't matter if his employers were competent or not; he should have let them have access to their own property. If he thought they were going to ruin things, speak out.
Guess they should've thought about the keys before firing him. And besides, handing the keys over to some idjit over a speakerphone just sets him up for further prosecution when they screw the network and blame him over it.
Terry Childs will have an awful hard time convincing anyone that he isn't a threat to the continuity of their projects.
How so? It's not like he had an obligation to ever divulge passwords (save an ethical one) - he'd been fired, and the demander was some yahoo he didn't know. The fact was that management knew about this for over a year, and beyond doing nothing, actually endorsed the state of things - I don't blame Childs. I blame The city for holding him for 2 years for what, in my opinion, isn't actually a crime.
This isn't fear so much as a frank assessment of risk and an acknowledgment that 1099 isn't for me right now. In a year or so, the answer may be different.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, from what I've heard, winmo7 would be groundbreaking 3 years ago, but today is sort of underwhelming. Makes you wonder how much MS could do if they didn't saddle their divisions with MS mgmt.
Don't be daft - I'm describing how it actually operates where fire insurance is sold.
or southern treason...
What would happen if the fire department were privatized? It would fail. If you don't put out a fire blazing in a building that is not covered, what happens? Does the fire just go out on its own? Or does it spread to the buildings of those covered, as well?
No, the fire department would come out and wet the buildings that had fire insurance so they didn't burn. Shoulda bought insurance.
Thank god for mississippi, huh?
In the meantime, I'm practicing quickly hitting the Neutral gear lever.
Good luck with that. From what I've heard, that may not do anything.
That's why you do things like lock the input/output to sane values and have a default failure mode for just about everything. The thing that bothers me is the idea of a wholly electronic gearshift; I love my manual cars for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that, with runaway throttle, I can clutch in any time I want to.
The co-worker later came back to ask me if I thought he was a moron, I wasn't quite sure how to answer, is a moron still a moron when they become self aware of the fact they are a moron?
No, they're moving out of moron status by the simple knowledge of their position and the desire to change it.
Of course a lot of employers try to pull the non-compete clauses contract BS too which is along the same lines, trying to get you to agree to something that you actually can't sign away because in most states at least it is not legal to deny your right to make a living with any employer.
Those usually come down to the specificity of the restriction - if you agreed not to jump from one vertical player to another player in the same niche and it wasn't a contract position, it be reasonable, but I have also heard about companies that define their competitors as everyone within 50 miles - clearly unreasonable.
In the recent past, the only real noncompetes I've seen have been ones that say I can't contract through a body shop then work directly for the same client when the contract expires. This is a reasonable thing - they found the contact and spend a fair amount of effort maintaining the relationship.
And lots of people are claiming that calling something 'work for hire' doesn't make it so. I tend to believe that, but IANAL, and if it actually matters to you, I'd go talk to one. Retaining rights isn't a stunt, by the way - how else do you justify using the contractor's existing libraries if they aren't allowed to retain ownership of pieces of the code?
When I buy software in a store, I generally ignore the license agreement. I've already paid for the product, so I don't see the EULA as offering me anything additional, hence no reason to pay it any heed.
He's talking about the contracts that his company signs with clients - they don't own the code, they just get to use it/modify it. The company can still take code written in one project and use it on a subsequent one.
It's called a counterexample. Most Photographers retain the rights to things they do and sell prints later. Likewise, writing software as a contractor isn't a settled matter - it varies from contract to contract.
More likely, he's a 1099 contractor/consultant. Since that isn't an employment relationship, your argument falls apart.
No, I'm looking at the policy and saying that divulging passwords to unauthorized people is something that is not done. The COO can pass them along later, but I wouldn't leave the concall open when I did the handover. There are a bunch of people he didn't know and couldn't see on the phone - how is this hard to understand?
Try malicious prosecution. The bail is out of all proportion to his alleged offense, and they paraded him in the media as a dangerous threat - might make it hard to maintain his life or get another job. I know I don't have $500k to throw away on bail. If he can show that the prosecution did this primarily for political reasons, he might manage a hefty award.
With better social skills, he would have understood why the organization wanted a more institutionalized, standard procedure based, and redundant way of operating the vital network, and he would have made concessions in this regard while still maintaining a high level of operational security and technical integrity.
I suppose you missed the part where Childs attempted to set this up on several occasions only to be rejected - there was no written policy for a lot of what was in his job description. Further, the auditor he caught snooping around after hours should be enough to set anyone on edge. Demanding passwords shortly afterwards is hardly sensible.
They let the situation get out of hand, allowing non-documentation and informal operation for a long time, and allowing a non-team-based, non-redundant approach to the operation of the network. And they were unable to effectively use management and leadership skills to get the changes they needed from their senior technical employee, or failing that, to put in another senior technical person to whom Childs was ordered to train on the full operation of the network.
It's entirely possible that Childs was the only competent admin in the group. Not even surprising seeing the antics of his boss.
This is all just a huge misunderstanding, and a situation that management let get out of control from the get-go of that network's creation. It does not justify the criminal skapegoating that has occurred.
totally agree. I think handing him the $5MM + tax gross-up and a pension should go most of the way towards mending this rift.
Yes, he could have handled it better. But I'm not at all certain I would have.
The source of my outrage is that Childs is on $5MM bail for essentially being a jerk. Really, in what world is that ok?
and the unknown engineers on the concall? These are the keys to the kingdom, and access must be strictly controlled. If I gave out passwords like that, I'd expect to be fired on the spot and sued.
Well, surrendering a master password to persons unknown on a conference call isn't what I'd call responsible.
More like, they're pissed that childs is being treated more harshly than a specific illegal asshole that shot up some people last year.
I can't think of any reason his bosses were not cleared to have the passwords.
Who cares? The fact is, only the mayor was cleared for that, so any reasoning is moot.
None of those passwords were his. None of those systems were his. It doesn't matter if his employers were competent or not; he should have let them have access to their own property. If he thought they were going to ruin things, speak out.
Guess they should've thought about the keys before firing him. And besides, handing the keys over to some idjit over a speakerphone just sets him up for further prosecution when they screw the network and blame him over it.
Terry Childs will have an awful hard time convincing anyone that he isn't a threat to the continuity of their projects.
How so? It's not like he had an obligation to ever divulge passwords (save an ethical one) - he'd been fired, and the demander was some yahoo he didn't know. The fact was that management knew about this for over a year, and beyond doing nothing, actually endorsed the state of things - I don't blame Childs. I blame The city for holding him for 2 years for what, in my opinion, isn't actually a crime.
This isn't fear so much as a frank assessment of risk and an acknowledgment that 1099 isn't for me right now. In a year or so, the answer may be different.