You are a risk, you wanted to terminate the employment relationship, and your employer wanted to terminate the risk you pose.
Excuse me, but... where's the risk? Anything the OP wanted to do to "trash the system" could have been done before he handed his notice in. How does immediately cutting him off (and probably pissing him off in the process) decrease the risk?
In every job I've had that I've left (five in the last 12 years), I've never had my access cut off until I actually leave. I've always worked until the last day, and I would be surprised if an employer didn't want me to. Mind you, I've never been fired, and in all but one case, I was actually on fairly good terms with my employer. I've never even heard of employers terminating access for people who are leaving of their own accord.
As a matter of fact, in most of the occasions I've left a job, I needed to keep access to the last minute to assist with a smooth handover of my work.
In a situation where an employee has notified their employer that they wish to resign, there is no security risk in letting them keep their access (and do their job) until they leave. If they were disgruntled and were going to do anything nasty, they would already have done it prior to tendering notice.
(It's a very different situation if the employee is let go, of course)
Of course, there's also the so-called "LQ" or Literacy Quotient. It's determined by how readily you can post to Slashdot without containing spelling or grammatical errors. This test is also a high predictor of intelligence, but is subject to bias - notably against LOE subjects and dyslexic people
If you can get a high score on an IQ test, then yes, you're probably "smart", "intelligent" or "brainy". But a low IQ score doesn't mean you are not, either. That's the problem with them - all the false negatives.
Because by sticking up an web-site, you've said "Hey, this is publicly available. Do what you want with this". If you don't like that, you need to put in some controls.
Take a musician: if you take your instrument and start playing in the park, you can't stop people stopping and listening. You can't stop them recording or videoing you. You can't even force them to pay money, though some may toss some change into the case. If you want to be able to do anything like that, you need to change the environment in which you play your music (ie, rent a hall and charge admission).
Either he stole the iPod, or he fraudently convinced a Target employee that it had a lower price. He shouldn't be charged with _both_ fraud and theft. What did he do - convince the shop assistant that it was $4.99 and then shop-lifted it?
Well, it's always possible that they hadn't thought of that particular tactic earlier, and are willing to thank you for pointing out the possibilty... so that they can now exploit it in even more imaginative ways.
The assumption here is that the owner of the machine installed the monitoring software.
There are some basic scenarios here: 1) The owner installed the monitoring software. In this case, they knew about it already. Big deal. 2) The owner _wasn't_ the person who installed the software. In this case, it's spyware.
A closed-circuit camera may be a monitoring device, or it may be a tool for spying. It depends on if you point it at your yard or your neighbor's bedroom (you know, the one where the attractive blonde always changes without closing the curtains first).
Australia has had a do-not-call register for years; I've been on it since 1997, and have had exactly _one_ telemarketer call, which had actually turned out to be a wrong number.
The difference here is that it is going from an industry-sponsored organisation to a federally mandated one.
"And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." (Exodus 14:21)
A tidal wave drawing the waters away from the sea would not have caused the waters to be divided. At least some artistic license has been taken here if that is how God parted the sea.
Umm... how about that the KKK was facist? And they surged forth even more during the depression, not least because of the concerns of "niggers taking our jobs"?
Don't forget: "However, there is historical evidence that suggests that the (documented) flight of the Jews from Egypt may well have co-incided with the eruption of Thera, a volcano in the Mediterranean. This would have resulted in a large tidal wave down the Red Sea. Tidal waves are preceded by a withdrawal of the ocean. The timing may well have been good enough to allow the Jews to escape, or it could have occured shortly afterwards and worked into the propaganda myths that the Jews spread about themselves."
Well, for starters, the Depression was a lot worse in Germany due to the post-WWI problems. Furthermore, many parts of the US _did_ resort to facism. Case in point: discrimination against Negroes skyrocketed, with the Klu Klux Klan getting a degree of respectability.
May I suggest studying some psychology rather than physics or maths? If you insist on sticking to physics and maths, study chaos theory, particularly the emergent properties of dynamic systems.
To put it bluntly: identity is an illusion. There is no one "you" - "you" are a composite, at a first pass, of several different drives within the external person presented to the world. If you can't handle that, tough. Get over it.
It's not a question of "Is there an intelligent designer". The questions are:
* Could (not did) random mutation, natural selection, and emergent properties of dynamic systems result in complex life such as humans? * Is there any clear-cut evidence that isn't what happened with humans?
Scienctists have answered the first question in the affirmative, and the second question in the negative. The belief that an outside force guided evolution does not conflict with science unless the belief overrides the first two questions. However, it doesn't fall under the realm of science unelss you can add another question to make it testable and thus (dis)provable.
The 44% of the US population that don't believe in evolution of any form believe there's a God who's idea of a good time is toss dinosaur bones around the world making them look millions of years older than our 4000 or 5000 year old Earth. As if his time couldn't be better spent smiting creationists or something.
Actually, a good percentage of them believe that dinosaur bones are a consipracy on the part of those evil godless scientists who have been attacking the Church since the Middle Ages.
I would argue that it is impossible to be both a good scientist and a fundamentalist "The Bible is the literal word of God" Christian. A more relaxed Christian, yes, but not the fundamentalist kind.
I know more than one practising Christian who sees science as a form of spirtuality - they see it as an attempt to understand the mind of God by understanding the tools that God chooses to use.
Since it depends on faith (which by definition means that something must be believed in, even in the face of evidence against it)
Faith is not the act of believing "in the face of evidence against it". Faith is the act of believing where there is no evidence either way.
Believing God created the universe in such a way as to be consistent with the observed evidence (for example, that God made the universe via the Big Bang, or that God deliberately created the universe old) is faith. Believing that there is intelligent design behind human evolution is faith. Believing that random chance could _not_ have produced humans is not faith, as there is sufficent evidence to demonstrate that it is possible (not that it did, but that it could have)
Science works in the area of the (dis-)provable. Faith works in the areas of the not-provable. Note that the boundary shifts over time.
Science can not disprove intelligent design, for example. One reason being that the ID crowd don't put a stake in the ground and say that "here is definitive proof of a designer". Science can not prove that there isn't a power that subtly assisted human evolution - by definition, the "evidence" is blurred into the background noise. But there is no evidence to support that, either.
The thing that the Mythbusters missed out on is that real ships have sails. Sails were always the first thing to catch fire on a wooden ships not least because canvas (dry, dusty and with a good breeze) have a lower point of ignition than wood or even tar. This is true even when wet.
Furthermore, you don't need to burn the ships - at least, not immediately. A diffuse heat ray simply cooking most of the boat to about 80-90 C will make the ship uninhabitable - the crew would be forced to pull out or abandon ship. The Mythbusters were able to put a diffused heat ray of a few hundred F easily enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but... where's the risk? Anything the OP wanted to do to "trash the system" could have been done before he handed his notice in. How does immediately cutting him off (and probably pissing him off in the process) decrease the risk?
Well, as you say, the OP got paid anyway, but...
In every job I've had that I've left (five in the last 12 years), I've never had my access cut off until I actually leave. I've always worked until the last day, and I would be surprised if an employer didn't want me to. Mind you, I've never been fired, and in all but one case, I was actually on fairly good terms with my employer. I've never even heard of employers terminating access for people who are leaving of their own accord.
As a matter of fact, in most of the occasions I've left a job, I needed to keep access to the last minute to assist with a smooth handover of my work.
In a situation where an employee has notified their employer that they wish to resign, there is no security risk in letting them keep their access (and do their job) until they leave. If they were disgruntled and were going to do anything nasty, they would already have done it prior to tendering notice.
(It's a very different situation if the employee is let go, of course)
Of course, there's also the so-called "LQ" or Literacy Quotient. It's determined by how readily you can post to Slashdot without containing spelling or grammatical errors. This test is also a high predictor of intelligence, but is subject to bias - notably against LOE subjects and dyslexic people
If you can get a high score on an IQ test, then yes, you're probably "smart", "intelligent" or "brainy". But a low IQ score doesn't mean you are not, either. That's the problem with them - all the false negatives.
Because by sticking up an web-site, you've said "Hey, this is publicly available. Do what you want with this". If you don't like that, you need to put in some controls.
Take a musician: if you take your instrument and start playing in the park, you can't stop people stopping and listening. You can't stop them recording or videoing you. You can't even force them to pay money, though some may toss some change into the case. If you want to be able to do anything like that, you need to change the environment in which you play your music (ie, rent a hall and charge admission).
This got marked interesting? The bacteria lives in a sodding volcano... where do you think that the CO comes from?
Now that's just wrong...
Either he stole the iPod, or he fraudently convinced a Target employee that it had a lower price. He shouldn't be charged with _both_ fraud and theft. What did he do - convince the shop assistant that it was $4.99 and then shop-lifted it?
That's why they'll have to bring back capital punishment.
Well, it's always possible that they hadn't thought of that particular tactic earlier, and are willing to thank you for pointing out the possibilty... so that they can now exploit it in even more imaginative ways.
The assumption here is that the owner of the machine installed the monitoring software.
There are some basic scenarios here: 1) The owner installed the monitoring software. In this case, they knew about it already. Big deal. 2) The owner _wasn't_ the person who installed the software. In this case, it's spyware.
A closed-circuit camera may be a monitoring device, or it may be a tool for spying. It depends on if you point it at your yard or your neighbor's bedroom (you know, the one where the attractive blonde always changes without closing the curtains first).
I'm not sure how eliminating income taxes at the federal level helps in this case of paying income taxes at the state level.
But I'm sure an economic genius like yourself will be able to enlighten me.
Australia has had a do-not-call register for years; I've been on it since 1997, and have had exactly _one_ telemarketer call, which had actually turned out to be a wrong number.
The difference here is that it is going from an industry-sponsored organisation to a federally mandated one.
"And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." (Exodus 14:21)
A tidal wave drawing the waters away from the sea would not have caused the waters to be divided. At least some artistic license has been taken here if that is how God parted the sea.
I don't believe in Intelligent Design, nor do I believe in the existance of any deity. I was actualy making the same point you were.
Umm... how about that the KKK was facist? And they surged forth even more during the depression, not least because of the concerns of "niggers taking our jobs"?
Don't forget: "However, there is historical evidence that suggests that the (documented) flight of the Jews from Egypt may well have co-incided with the eruption of Thera, a volcano in the Mediterranean. This would have resulted in a large tidal wave down the Red Sea. Tidal waves are preceded by a withdrawal of the ocean. The timing may well have been good enough to allow the Jews to escape, or it could have occured shortly afterwards and worked into the propaganda myths that the Jews spread about themselves."
Well, for starters, the Depression was a lot worse in Germany due to the post-WWI problems. Furthermore, many parts of the US _did_ resort to facism. Case in point: discrimination against Negroes skyrocketed, with the Klu Klux Klan getting a degree of respectability.
May I suggest studying some psychology rather than physics or maths? If you insist on sticking to physics and maths, study chaos theory, particularly the emergent properties of dynamic systems.
To put it bluntly: identity is an illusion. There is no one "you" - "you" are a composite, at a first pass, of several different drives within the external person presented to the world. If you can't handle that, tough. Get over it.
It's not a question of "Is there an intelligent designer". The questions are:
* Could (not did) random mutation, natural selection, and emergent properties of dynamic systems result in complex life such as humans?
* Is there any clear-cut evidence that isn't what happened with humans?
Scienctists have answered the first question in the affirmative, and the second question in the negative. The belief that an outside force guided evolution does not conflict with science unless the belief overrides the first two questions. However, it doesn't fall under the realm of science unelss you can add another question to make it testable and thus (dis)provable.
Actually, a good percentage of them believe that dinosaur bones are a consipracy on the part of those evil godless scientists who have been attacking the Church since the Middle Ages.
The Chinese have their own dogmas. Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution? That was really anti-science.
I would argue that it is impossible to be both a good scientist and a fundamentalist "The Bible is the literal word of God" Christian. A more relaxed Christian, yes, but not the fundamentalist kind.
I know more than one practising Christian who sees science as a form of spirtuality - they see it as an attempt to understand the mind of God by understanding the tools that God chooses to use.
Faith is not the act of believing "in the face of evidence against it". Faith is the act of believing where there is no evidence either way.
Believing God created the universe in such a way as to be consistent with the observed evidence (for example, that God made the universe via the Big Bang, or that God deliberately created the universe old) is faith. Believing that there is intelligent design behind human evolution is faith. Believing that random chance could _not_ have produced humans is not faith, as there is sufficent evidence to demonstrate that it is possible (not that it did, but that it could have)
Science works in the area of the (dis-)provable. Faith works in the areas of the not-provable. Note that the boundary shifts over time.
Science can not disprove intelligent design, for example. One reason being that the ID crowd don't put a stake in the ground and say that "here is definitive proof of a designer". Science can not prove that there isn't a power that subtly assisted human evolution - by definition, the "evidence" is blurred into the background noise. But there is no evidence to support that, either.
*sigh* The configuration that allows it get this close happens every 60,000 years. The cycle takes a few decade to play out.
The thing that the Mythbusters missed out on is that real ships have sails. Sails were always the first thing to catch fire on a wooden ships not least because canvas (dry, dusty and with a good breeze) have a lower point of ignition than wood or even tar. This is true even when wet.
Furthermore, you don't need to burn the ships - at least, not immediately. A diffuse heat ray simply cooking most of the boat to about 80-90 C will make the ship uninhabitable - the crew would be forced to pull out or abandon ship. The Mythbusters were able to put a diffused heat ray of a few hundred F easily enough.