Last time I checked NPR maintained a marginally higher standard of journalistic professionalism than Oprah. Not all that much higher, perhaps, but enough that Walter Cronkite is still willing to talk to them on-air.
IAmNotALawyer; the next paragraph is general advice I recall being given by a lawyer specializing in NonDisclosure/NonCompete agreements to a class of engineering students. For specific legal advice, either hire your own lawyer or be a fool and an ass.
For every job, you should keep an employment file. This should include a dead-tree copy of every legal agreement you've signed off on in the course of the job, and all employee policies you have agreed to. That way, in the event that they threaten to sue, you can dump everything relevant onto your new lawyer. You should also look through it yourself at least once a year; much of legalese is semi-readable to the intelligent layman and can prevent some problems, but you will need a lawyer if you need to find out what local law has to say about "right to hire", "unconscionable terms", and so forth. If your salary affords such, getting a lawyer to review policies and contracts to point out the landmines before you sign onto a job can be a very, very, very good investment.
As for my advice for the present situation... do call in to HR so you may independently verify that you have been fired. If you haven't, inquire of human resources how you should handle the matter; if you're a vindictive SOB, you might ask a lawyer what your chances are in a personal case against the VP in question, but I doubt they're good. If you have been fired, be sure to file for unemployment for the period until your new job starts.
If there is an ombudsman at your old company, you might make a call and let him know about you being unhappy; it may help some other schmuck who has a beef with the VP later.
If you have any good feeling for any of your coworkers, you might call them at their homes to let them know what happened, offer to give brief advice if they run into unexpected trouble in the next week, and let them know that if they ever have to sue the company or VP-idiot, you'd be happy to testify about the incident to help establish a pattern of behavior.
As for yourself, I'd also consider this behavior a sign that the you-shaped hole in their personnel chart will be a bigger problem than they initially realized. This in turn means you were probably substantially underpaid (or that the company is already on such financially shaky ground that they can't afford the modest raise an emergency hire oft necessitates). It would be tacky to bring up but useful to remember the next time you are discussing raises or salaries.
Now, now. They had a chance when they first went in that IBM would just buy them up to shut them up. Of course, once they started, the best way to get money was to run the company into the ground, selling stock to fools who'd buy it, and keep talking big to keep the stock price up while they dump.
Just because "you can sue anyone anytime", that doesn't mean your lawsuit will last more than thirty seconds in the courtroom. If you're a big enough loon, a judge may even (in theory) make a sua sponte summary motion to dismiss with prejudce, grant it, and let you find an appelate judge to irritate. (In practice, they almost always just look favorably on any vaguely plausible motion to dismiss the defense makes... hoping opposing counsel is any more coherent.)
Additionally, you are not only a troll, but one too lazy to even find a vaguely logical YRO post to specifically link.
Last I heard was that MS didn't stop supporting an OS until a few years after it was last sold by MS.
True; however, I plan to use my laptop for more than "a few years". From past experience, and including repurposing and hand-me-downs, my family usually gets 7-10 years out of a computer, barring massive hardware failure. I'd like to be able to do a clean reinstall before it gets handed down, so my there's zero risk of my then-fourteen-year-old niece stumbling on my pr0n collection and being embarrassed.
Earlier reports indicated that Microsoft would no longer allow its major contract customer's (Dell and similar) to sell XP after Vista's official release. The machines you see listed may be already made and in the supply chain, and thus grandfathered; unless things changed (which they might have; I shop for new machines more in autumn), the XP "option" may go away shortly. This is one reason why I picked up a couple of new XP OEM install packs (with unused keys; yes, I tested one at random) and one retail-full a few weeks back... just in case Vista is as big a downgrade from XP as XP was from 2K3.
The interesting question will be, what happens when M$ stops (re)activating WinXP installs? I guess that laptop I've been contemplating will be a Mac; Apple is almost as evil, but less grossly incompetent than M$ these days.
I can't even ride my universities bus holding a wired up circuit board (for a class) without people looking at me like I'm about to blow them up.
"[...]The embezzlement scheme was got up to support the production of a, um, novel device."
"Secret weapon," Miles corrected. "I said secret weapon."
The Professor's eyes glinted in amusement. "Define your terms. If it's a weapon, then what's the target?"
"It's so secret," Miles explained to Ekaterin, "we can't even figure out what it does. So I'm at least half right."
The proper response for your fellow passengers should be to politely express interest and start asking you about your Novel Device — what it is and how it works. They might then learn what it is, eliminating the need for irrational fear, or determine that you seem to be lying about it, and be able to focus with a much more productive rational fear. But that's probably asking too much of the average American domestic yahoo. (Sigh.)
The movie came out in 1989; ergo, the Little Mermaid will be 18 this November. All in all, I'd say that's close enough. Here's to "dabbling with watercolors"!
Pop quiz, are these the same rusty railroad spikes that are the first thing confiscated by security when an ex-employee latches on to all this as an inroad into "creating a threatening workpace"?
No; since one of the important folk hereabouts is an expert in railroad history, I actually have a plausible excuse for having those around; they're mine, but he uses them as props for talks occasionally. The sledge actually belonged to my predecessor; I have no idea why he had it. Additionally, few openly express doubt, and aside from the historian, no-one's ever taken up the offer to see them. The wrought-iron replica midaeval thumbscrews I picked up in my SCA days and now use as a desktop paperweight will be more likely to be the first security grab, and more of a challenge to explain.
Add in that hanging upside from the five meter high ceiling of my office I have an open-top box with "complaints" stenciled on the inside bottom, and it becomes clear I just have "the usual odd IT sense of humor".
Most companies large enough to claim that kind of intransigent policy also have an ombudsman. Find out who it is at the new company, and discuss the matter with him (or her). If there isn't one, consider it strike two against ever taking a job with them. If there is, discussing the matter indicates a willingness to work to solve problems from within. In some cases, the ombudsman may have enough authority to solve the problem on the spot; if not, they can almost always make those involved (the HR rep, your hiring manager, and the headhunter) all line up and get their stories consistent, and probably in writing.
I'd make the headhunter the next focus. Make it clear that you understood such-and-such to be the offer, and he now not only needs to resolve the apparent discrepancy, but explain to you how and where the "confusion" arose so you can determine not only whether to back out, but whether the company, the headhunter personally, or both should be avoided in the future. The phrase "litigation is not a preferred option" may make a nice mantra. Try to avoid burning bridges, but be prepared to hold a lifetime grudge with clean conscience.
And, speaking of the future, add to your permanent list of dealbreakers: personal copies of all company policies that will apply to you at the start of employment must be provided to you in printed form for your review (with legal counsel) prior to final acceptance of employment, with a cover letter listing the policies by name and assuring completeness of the list. Make sure all aspects of the offer are in writing. In important non-dealbreakers, you now may want to put identifying the ombudsman on your pre-acceptance checklist as well, and consider paying a lawyer to review employment offers for booby traps.
Most important, take this as a learning experience: possibly painful, but non-fatal.
To wit, PC vs. Mac vs. Linux. Mac users are also asked about how long they've been using them.
Next is setting up their accounts; this involves warning them of the minimum acceptable complexity allowed for passwords, showing them how to change their passwords to something marginally more memorable than the automatic preassigned random gibberish, and reminding them of the minimum requirements after the first password change attempt is rejected. I then tell them that neither I nor anyone else will ever ask for their password — if I or anyone in IT need access, we will change it, and tell them the new password afterward (so the user may change it back); anyone who asks for their password should be reported to me and to the central IT security number immediately as an attempt to breach security.
After that, I point out the selection of web browsers available on their workstation (IE/Firefox/Opera, additional options for the Mac), advocate Firefox for regular use, and direct them to the central IT website's security training -- which is mostly dick-and-jane "don't share passwords, human!" common sense stuff; there's a quiz as part of it. I tell them to complete the security training, while I do something vaguely productive nearby (borrowing a mobile laptop if need be) and wait for questions. At the end, I point out the main IT policies page, note that most of it is common sense, but they should glance through the policies as soon as possible, because they may end up "nailed to the wall with rusty railroad spikes as a warning to others" if they fail to follow them. If they express doubt, I invite them to stop by my desk to see my rusty railroad spikes. (Bottom desk drawer; four of 'em, plus a 6kg sledge with a 40 cm handle. Just in case.)
Once that's done, I then introduce them to the most regularly used software applications: email, Office, calendaring app, the local quick-and-dirty non-Acrobat PDF maker, and so on. The VPN software usually requires a digression into a bad analogy to explain why it's important. ("If you use the dumb-as-a-senator idea that the internet is a series of tubes, the problem is that most of the tubes are transparent, and might let any evil passerby see what's inside. Unless you're willing to give me all of your credit cards now to go shopping with, this is a bad thing. A VPN uses cryptography to run an opaque garden hose over to one of our secure machines, so people can't spy on you until after your traffic leaves our network again.") An overview of the strengths and limitations of whatever POS machine they're stuck working at follows.
I then give them my mixed guru/BOFH lecture:
I have pity on ignorance and will treat it with patience and education
I feel paranoia is preferable to carelessness, and will grant much leeway accordingly
I was educated by Catholic nuns, own a ruler, and believe pain is a wonderful way to focus the mind
I have no mercy for outright stupidity, and no-one has ever found a body I've hidden
I have potential access to any data on any of our systems, but have better things to do than read their email "usually"
I will be happy to help them install any needed software once I am convinced it is licensed and not a security threat
When I respond to a request with "you have my divided attention", they should accept this as the best they'll get, since my undivided attention requires a loaded weapon to obtain and is unhealthy to have
I have no life, so they may feel free to call me at home outside normal work hours, but should understand that I answer the phone in Klingon to discourage telemarketing computers, that they may need to leave a message on my answering machine, and that they must accept that after hours *I* get to decide how important the problem is.
I have happy users; I am beloved, respected, and feared. Aside from an expresso machine for my office, what more could a geek want?
First off, there should be a privacy policy covering the website. As an random example, Best Buy refers applicants to a third party with a decent policy. If there isn't one, it's grossly inadequate, or the policy should preclude asking for such information, then look around some more. Most companies have some manner of contact information available; politely asking for someone with the legal department usually gets you somewhere quickly. Politely inquire about the privacy policy and whatever deficiencies thereto which you perceive. You might also reasonably ask if they how frequently the security systems for HR are audited.
If you don't like the answers, ask for the snailmail contact for the head of HR. Make up a form letter which says something on the lines that you are a highly qualified IT professional with 16 plus years of experience; that it is your professional belief that their privacy protections for applicants' personal information are inadequate ("grossly," "unprofessionally", "dangerously" as you feel needed); that you are concerned such policies might leave the corporation and employees open to unnecessary liability; that you feel use of their website would involve undue personal risk; and that because of this, you cannot in good conscience seek potential employment with them via their application website.
Some places will no doubt ignore you as a fruitcake; some will suggest alternate (probably dead-tree) means, or indicate the personal information may be omitted without prejudice; and it's unlikely but not impossible that one might ask you to interview for a security/audit position.
In short, habeas corpus predates the Constitution, so if you want to see who gets its protections, you have to look at statutory precedent, not the text of the Constitution.
You either overlooked my second paragraph, or forgot that Amendments are part of the consitiution. Or, alternately, you must argue (a) that the 14th Amendment does not constrain the Federal government, (b) that the common law right of Habeas Corpus, recognized by the constitution, is somehow not part of Due Process, or (c) that the subject being denied the right to Habeas proceedings is not a person (as in Dred Scott).
You're dead right about the impeachment being an option for "the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States" (Article II, section 4). Mea culpa, there.
Except that, he's right. Habeas corpus isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.
More from the transcript:
Arlen Specter: "Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"
AG: "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion."
From the Constitution:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
That doesn't sound out of context to me. Technically, he's correct that it's not guaranteed by the Constitution — although there's a major school of thought that such rights are not guaranteed by any document, but by The Creator (TM). That aside, however, the existence of the right is recognized; and nmoreover, this existence is assured under English common law, and by a couple hundred years of jurisprudence.
Of course, the question of exactly to whom such a right is granted by the creator is a valid legal question. And, unfortunately, in that sense the Dred Scott decision may still stand, assuming one is willing to accept that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" does not apply to the Federal government.
I'd still like to see a complete transcript, but it looks to me like he should lose his job over this. Unfortunately, if he doesn't quit, and the president doesn't fire him, there's no way to remove the AG from office. AFAIK, the law doesn't allow for his impeachment. The only way would be to impeach the President — perhaps repeatedly — until someone fires him. A greater blow to the executive branch I can scarce imagine.
I swear, the current administration isn't trying to turn the clock back to the 1910's, or even the 1840's; it seems like they're trying to push things all the way back to a —ing Revolution.
Possible Anti-Mugging prevention
on
iPhone Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It might be amusing to add a GPS system. Then, write an app that, on receiving a certain type of SMS from Apple, proceeds to start phoning the police asking for help, and posting its position and a picture of its surroundings to a website. Screaming for help might be another nice touch... or perhaps just making the sound of police sirens as an unsubtle hint.
Yeah, it's a problem; however, there are enough easy solutions that I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't stuff one (or more) in by deployment time.
How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA?
FISA is the law; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is the primary court chartered thereby (with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review as primary appelate, and the SCOTUS as final court of appeal).
That said, at least the Bush administration may have to put together a request that a handful of the most conservative pro-federal judges on the federal bench won't riot over. This is at least a small step away from a utterly absolute imperial executive. On the other hand, a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber">t he Star Chamber was a court, too.
The analysis over at The Volokh Conspiracy seemed to make sense. In particular "...instead of just informally requesting information in a context that would make clear the request is voluntary, the DoD and CIA seem to be issuing their requests using letters that look a lot like "real" National Security Letters. If that's right, the government would know that the letters have no legal effect, but they would be written so as to try to trick the recipients into thinking that they do."
This looks like more bending of the current administration's penchant for the rules to the breaking point (or past), using the excuse of a drastic threat to society. While I'm slightly sympathetic to such for dire threats, there is no evidence of this being for the unimaginably rare (dinosaur killer asteroid heading for earth) or for even the horrifically unthinkable (better than 50-50 chance of a million plus deaths). Instead, it's an attempt to covertly and permanently expand domestic intelligence powers when the legislature has refused to endorse such expansion.
Everyone should remember: "defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic" can include defending against yourself and your own darker impulses, and against any of lesser honor who may come to serve after you.
Interesting. I would've called 'subversive' the superset because it implies an understanding of the world's ambiguous nature -- that being a consequence of how small our total knowledge of the universe is.
I'd disagree; a subversive often merely percieves that the promulgated worldview is incorrect in some aspect, but does not necessarily percieve how the main worldview has some validity, or how their own worldview is imperfect.
I say this because males tend to receive a much stronger "trust your mind, take action towards your goals, steamroll anyone who gets in the way" education. Whereas females tend more to receive training to be cooperators.
As a general rule, yes; however, you haven't met my sister or my nieces. My mother and I were trying to convince the older that she should try to get the student drama group to put on the Lysistrata. =)
Ever read much about Kiersey and his temperament sorter (aka Meyers-Brigg)?
A lot. The Meyers-Briggs sorts on four axes: Introvert/Extrovert, iNtuitve/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling, and Percieving/Judging. I'd consider it a good instance of where the ambiguous mindset is important; it's a useful "engineering approximation" for studying personalities, but there are too many fuzzy-classified people to assign too much importance to it.
The only problem that needs solving is the last mile. It's the only place where a natural monopoly can exist.
Quibble: the last mile, and connecting it to both user and internet.
I also suspect that certain backbones and associated right-of-way may be sufficiently high entry cost to allow for a further potential natural monopoly. This may not be true in all areas; in the US, the railroad industry has enough right-of way to lay fiber and insure at worst a duopoly (possibly triopoly, if telcos and cablecos remain separate). Trans-oceanic lines, however, may be a different story.
Far more important, I think, is its identification of the "subversive" worldview. [...]Diamond Age won a coveted spot in my "Thou shalt read and discuss" box of books for my sons.
I agree with the assessment, but disagree with the reason. More important still than the identification of the "subversive" worldview is the identification of that as a tool of the ambiguous worldview. EG:
The difference between stupid and intelligent people — and this is true whether or not they are well-educated — is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations — in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.
I've given a copy of The Young Lady's Illustrated Primer to the elder of my nieces, with the absolute certainty that the younger will find it and read it. Alas, I wasn't able to find a copy of the faux-leather bound "monstrous chunk of rod logic" edition.
Besides, "intellectual property" is a weasel expression, use "copyright" or "patents" to make it clear what this refers to, there's no law about "intellectual property" as far as I know but there is about copyright and patents (although there shouldn't be any software patents in my opinion).
IAmNotALawyer. However, "intellectual property law" is a commonly recognized category inclusive of those. Incidentally, you forgot "trade secrets" and "trademarks"; and see also 15 USC 1128et alia.
The comment was sarcastic, and in response to an IT department sending out a warning not to open unexpected attachments... as a Microsoft Word attachment. If I ever encountered idiocy like that coming from the IT team I work for, I swear I wouldn't rest until I had seen the responsible party nailed to the wall with the biggest rusty railroad spikes I could find.
No, I'm not in charge. I know who is, and how to teach them fear; that's all I've needed so far.
Let's assume that you work for a large company. And word gets out that IT will support your non-standard configuration. Then others will demand that IT supports their non-standard configuration. Then they are spending so much time figuring out what is going on with others that they don't have time to support you, let alone the work that everybody needs to be done.
I believe the two parties in this discussion are using "support" in two different ways. The semi-centralized enterprise-IT I work in has what I consider a less black-and-white and more varied many-colors approach.
There are black and white cases locally. Yes, there are about a dozen (total; three per model year, mandatory upgrade at the end of four years) "one true" hardware and software configurations, centrally managed. If you use those, anything that goes wrong is the fault of the central IT department. At the other extreme are also three people using geniune BeOS machines; central IT provides an internal-only Be-users mailing list for them to help each other, hands each user their own complete security audit paperwork to fill out and defend (triennially, around a hundred pages or so), monitors (like all machines) for signs of highly abnormal network traffic, and turns off the nearest managed network port (and will admit to doing so in response to a phone query) if they appear to have been hacked.
Mostly, cases fall in between. Some software is available via a central license pool, and they'll look into why the installer doesn't work. In most areas Central IT have expert groups knowlegable about the OS/hardware/software to try to help; they will at least listen to trouble reports on anything (except those aforementioned three BeBox weirdos) and make general suggestions. However, Central IT do draw the line; "You need to use a different Machine/Peripheral/OS/SoftwarePackage" (pick one or more) can be a perfectly acceptable solution from their point of view.
Just because a user admits he has a BarFoo network card instead of the "standard configuration" FooBar brand card should not be an excuse for IT to immediately blame the problem on the card. Several kinds of problem may be independent of the card ("Is the cable plugged in to both the wall and the computer? Does the network card have any LEDs? Are they lit? Is it shown in the Hardware Manager Snapin/Apple System Profile?"), and can often be solved trivially... provided the IT department helpdesk isn't mostly staffed by flowchart-script-reading humanoids. When policy dictates it, sure the IT people ought to be able to require a change to the One True Configuration... but only if they can demonstrate why no lesser change is adequate.
Expecting every weird configuration of software and hardware to be completely supported is ludicrous, but expecting a cookie-cutter configuration to be sufficient to every user's requirements is oft equally so.
In my experience, IT departments are often viewed by the business as pure red-ink.
Suggestion: compare IT to Legal, and (if there is any) to insurance against fire, flood, et cetera. Those also cost money... but not a lot compared to what you might have to spend without them.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked NPR maintained a marginally higher standard of journalistic professionalism than Oprah. Not all that much higher, perhaps, but enough that Walter Cronkite is still willing to talk to them on-air.
IAmNotALawyer; the next paragraph is general advice I recall being given by a lawyer specializing in NonDisclosure/NonCompete agreements to a class of engineering students. For specific legal advice, either hire your own lawyer or be a fool and an ass.
For every job, you should keep an employment file. This should include a dead-tree copy of every legal agreement you've signed off on in the course of the job, and all employee policies you have agreed to. That way, in the event that they threaten to sue, you can dump everything relevant onto your new lawyer. You should also look through it yourself at least once a year; much of legalese is semi-readable to the intelligent layman and can prevent some problems, but you will need a lawyer if you need to find out what local law has to say about "right to hire", "unconscionable terms", and so forth. If your salary affords such, getting a lawyer to review policies and contracts to point out the landmines before you sign onto a job can be a very, very, very good investment.
As for my advice for the present situation... do call in to HR so you may independently verify that you have been fired. If you haven't, inquire of human resources how you should handle the matter; if you're a vindictive SOB, you might ask a lawyer what your chances are in a personal case against the VP in question, but I doubt they're good. If you have been fired, be sure to file for unemployment for the period until your new job starts.
If there is an ombudsman at your old company, you might make a call and let him know about you being unhappy; it may help some other schmuck who has a beef with the VP later.
If you have any good feeling for any of your coworkers, you might call them at their homes to let them know what happened, offer to give brief advice if they run into unexpected trouble in the next week, and let them know that if they ever have to sue the company or VP-idiot, you'd be happy to testify about the incident to help establish a pattern of behavior.
As for yourself, I'd also consider this behavior a sign that the you-shaped hole in their personnel chart will be a bigger problem than they initially realized. This in turn means you were probably substantially underpaid (or that the company is already on such financially shaky ground that they can't afford the modest raise an emergency hire oft necessitates). It would be tacky to bring up but useful to remember the next time you are discussing raises or salaries.
Now, now. They had a chance when they first went in that IBM would just buy them up to shut them up. Of course, once they started, the best way to get money was to run the company into the ground, selling stock to fools who'd buy it, and keep talking big to keep the stock price up while they dump.
Just because "you can sue anyone anytime", that doesn't mean your lawsuit will last more than thirty seconds in the courtroom. If you're a big enough loon, a judge may even (in theory) make a sua sponte summary motion to dismiss with prejudce, grant it, and let you find an appelate judge to irritate. (In practice, they almost always just look favorably on any vaguely plausible motion to dismiss the defense makes... hoping opposing counsel is any more coherent.)
Additionally, you are not only a troll, but one too lazy to even find a vaguely logical YRO post to specifically link.
Last I heard was that MS didn't stop supporting an OS until a few years after it was last sold by MS.
True; however, I plan to use my laptop for more than "a few years". From past experience, and including repurposing and hand-me-downs, my family usually gets 7-10 years out of a computer, barring massive hardware failure. I'd like to be able to do a clean reinstall before it gets handed down, so my there's zero risk of my then-fourteen-year-old niece stumbling on my pr0n collection and being embarrassed.
Earlier reports indicated that Microsoft would no longer allow its major contract customer's (Dell and similar) to sell XP after Vista's official release. The machines you see listed may be already made and in the supply chain, and thus grandfathered; unless things changed (which they might have; I shop for new machines more in autumn), the XP "option" may go away shortly. This is one reason why I picked up a couple of new XP OEM install packs (with unused keys; yes, I tested one at random) and one retail-full a few weeks back... just in case Vista is as big a downgrade from XP as XP was from 2K3.
The interesting question will be, what happens when M$ stops (re)activating WinXP installs? I guess that laptop I've been contemplating will be a Mac; Apple is almost as evil, but less grossly incompetent than M$ these days.
I can't even ride my universities bus holding a wired up circuit board (for a class) without people looking at me like I'm about to blow them up.
The proper response for your fellow passengers should be to politely express interest and start asking you about your Novel Device — what it is and how it works. They might then learn what it is, eliminating the need for irrational fear, or determine that you seem to be lying about it, and be able to focus with a much more productive rational fear. But that's probably asking too much of the average American domestic yahoo. (Sigh.)
Dude, the little mermaid is like 12 years old...
The movie came out in 1989; ergo, the Little Mermaid will be 18 this November. All in all, I'd say that's close enough. Here's to "dabbling with watercolors"!
Pop quiz, are these the same rusty railroad spikes that are the first thing confiscated by security when an ex-employee latches on to all this as an inroad into "creating a threatening workpace"?
No; since one of the important folk hereabouts is an expert in railroad history, I actually have a plausible excuse for having those around; they're mine, but he uses them as props for talks occasionally. The sledge actually belonged to my predecessor; I have no idea why he had it. Additionally, few openly express doubt, and aside from the historian, no-one's ever taken up the offer to see them. The wrought-iron replica midaeval thumbscrews I picked up in my SCA days and now use as a desktop paperweight will be more likely to be the first security grab, and more of a challenge to explain.
Add in that hanging upside from the five meter high ceiling of my office I have an open-top box with "complaints" stenciled on the inside bottom, and it becomes clear I just have "the usual odd IT sense of humor".
Most companies large enough to claim that kind of intransigent policy also have an ombudsman. Find out who it is at the new company, and discuss the matter with him (or her). If there isn't one, consider it strike two against ever taking a job with them. If there is, discussing the matter indicates a willingness to work to solve problems from within. In some cases, the ombudsman may have enough authority to solve the problem on the spot; if not, they can almost always make those involved (the HR rep, your hiring manager, and the headhunter) all line up and get their stories consistent, and probably in writing.
I'd make the headhunter the next focus. Make it clear that you understood such-and-such to be the offer, and he now not only needs to resolve the apparent discrepancy, but explain to you how and where the "confusion" arose so you can determine not only whether to back out, but whether the company, the headhunter personally, or both should be avoided in the future. The phrase "litigation is not a preferred option" may make a nice mantra. Try to avoid burning bridges, but be prepared to hold a lifetime grudge with clean conscience.
And, speaking of the future, add to your permanent list of dealbreakers: personal copies of all company policies that will apply to you at the start of employment must be provided to you in printed form for your review (with legal counsel) prior to final acceptance of employment, with a cover letter listing the policies by name and assuring completeness of the list. Make sure all aspects of the offer are in writing. In important non-dealbreakers, you now may want to put identifying the ombudsman on your pre-acceptance checklist as well, and consider paying a lawyer to review employment offers for booby traps.
Most important, take this as a learning experience: possibly painful, but non-fatal.
To wit, PC vs. Mac vs. Linux. Mac users are also asked about how long they've been using them.
Next is setting up their accounts; this involves warning them of the minimum acceptable complexity allowed for passwords, showing them how to change their passwords to something marginally more memorable than the automatic preassigned random gibberish, and reminding them of the minimum requirements after the first password change attempt is rejected. I then tell them that neither I nor anyone else will ever ask for their password — if I or anyone in IT need access, we will change it, and tell them the new password afterward (so the user may change it back); anyone who asks for their password should be reported to me and to the central IT security number immediately as an attempt to breach security.
After that, I point out the selection of web browsers available on their workstation (IE/Firefox/Opera, additional options for the Mac), advocate Firefox for regular use, and direct them to the central IT website's security training -- which is mostly dick-and-jane "don't share passwords, human!" common sense stuff; there's a quiz as part of it. I tell them to complete the security training, while I do something vaguely productive nearby (borrowing a mobile laptop if need be) and wait for questions. At the end, I point out the main IT policies page, note that most of it is common sense, but they should glance through the policies as soon as possible, because they may end up "nailed to the wall with rusty railroad spikes as a warning to others" if they fail to follow them. If they express doubt, I invite them to stop by my desk to see my rusty railroad spikes. (Bottom desk drawer; four of 'em, plus a 6kg sledge with a 40 cm handle. Just in case.)
Once that's done, I then introduce them to the most regularly used software applications: email, Office, calendaring app, the local quick-and-dirty non-Acrobat PDF maker, and so on. The VPN software usually requires a digression into a bad analogy to explain why it's important. ("If you use the dumb-as-a-senator idea that the internet is a series of tubes, the problem is that most of the tubes are transparent, and might let any evil passerby see what's inside. Unless you're willing to give me all of your credit cards now to go shopping with, this is a bad thing. A VPN uses cryptography to run an opaque garden hose over to one of our secure machines, so people can't spy on you until after your traffic leaves our network again.") An overview of the strengths and limitations of whatever POS machine they're stuck working at follows.
I then give them my mixed guru/BOFH lecture:
I have happy users; I am beloved, respected, and feared. Aside from an expresso machine for my office, what more could a geek want?
First off, there should be a privacy policy covering the website. As an random example, Best Buy refers applicants to a third party with a decent policy. If there isn't one, it's grossly inadequate, or the policy should preclude asking for such information, then look around some more. Most companies have some manner of contact information available; politely asking for someone with the legal department usually gets you somewhere quickly. Politely inquire about the privacy policy and whatever deficiencies thereto which you perceive. You might also reasonably ask if they how frequently the security systems for HR are audited.
If you don't like the answers, ask for the snailmail contact for the head of HR. Make up a form letter which says something on the lines that you are a highly qualified IT professional with 16 plus years of experience; that it is your professional belief that their privacy protections for applicants' personal information are inadequate ("grossly," "unprofessionally", "dangerously" as you feel needed); that you are concerned such policies might leave the corporation and employees open to unnecessary liability; that you feel use of their website would involve undue personal risk; and that because of this, you cannot in good conscience seek potential employment with them via their application website.
Some places will no doubt ignore you as a fruitcake; some will suggest alternate (probably dead-tree) means, or indicate the personal information may be omitted without prejudice; and it's unlikely but not impossible that one might ask you to interview for a security/audit position.
In short, habeas corpus predates the Constitution, so if you want to see who gets its protections, you have to look at statutory precedent, not the text of the Constitution.
You either overlooked my second paragraph, or forgot that Amendments are part of the consitiution. Or, alternately, you must argue (a) that the 14th Amendment does not constrain the Federal government, (b) that the common law right of Habeas Corpus, recognized by the constitution, is somehow not part of Due Process, or (c) that the subject being denied the right to Habeas proceedings is not a person (as in Dred Scott).
You're dead right about the impeachment being an option for "the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States" (Article II, section 4). Mea culpa, there.
Except that, he's right. Habeas corpus isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.
More from the transcript: From the Constitution:That doesn't sound out of context to me. Technically, he's correct that it's not guaranteed by the Constitution — although there's a major school of thought that such rights are not guaranteed by any document, but by The Creator (TM). That aside, however, the existence of the right is recognized; and nmoreover, this existence is assured under English common law, and by a couple hundred years of jurisprudence.
Of course, the question of exactly to whom such a right is granted by the creator is a valid legal question. And, unfortunately, in that sense the Dred Scott decision may still stand, assuming one is willing to accept that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" does not apply to the Federal government.
I'd still like to see a complete transcript, but it looks to me like he should lose his job over this. Unfortunately, if he doesn't quit, and the president doesn't fire him, there's no way to remove the AG from office. AFAIK, the law doesn't allow for his impeachment. The only way would be to impeach the President — perhaps repeatedly — until someone fires him. A greater blow to the executive branch I can scarce imagine.
I swear, the current administration isn't trying to turn the clock back to the 1910's, or even the 1840's; it seems like they're trying to push things all the way back to a —ing Revolution.
Old news.
It might be amusing to add a GPS system. Then, write an app that, on receiving a certain type of SMS from Apple, proceeds to start phoning the police asking for help, and posting its position and a picture of its surroundings to a website. Screaming for help might be another nice touch... or perhaps just making the sound of police sirens as an unsubtle hint.
Yeah, it's a problem; however, there are enough easy solutions that I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't stuff one (or more) in by deployment time.
How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA?
FISA is the law; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is the primary court chartered thereby (with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review as primary appelate, and the SCOTUS as final court of appeal).
That said, at least the Bush administration may have to put together a request that a handful of the most conservative pro-federal judges on the federal bench won't riot over. This is at least a small step away from a utterly absolute imperial executive. On the other hand, a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber">t he Star Chamber was a court, too.
The analysis over at The Volokh Conspiracy seemed to make sense. In particular "...instead of just informally requesting information in a context that would make clear the request is voluntary, the DoD and CIA seem to be issuing their requests using letters that look a lot like "real" National Security Letters. If that's right, the government would know that the letters have no legal effect, but they would be written so as to try to trick the recipients into thinking that they do."
This looks like more bending of the current administration's penchant for the rules to the breaking point (or past), using the excuse of a drastic threat to society. While I'm slightly sympathetic to such for dire threats, there is no evidence of this being for the unimaginably rare (dinosaur killer asteroid heading for earth) or for even the horrifically unthinkable (better than 50-50 chance of a million plus deaths). Instead, it's an attempt to covertly and permanently expand domestic intelligence powers when the legislature has refused to endorse such expansion.
Everyone should remember: "defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic" can include defending against yourself and your own darker impulses, and against any of lesser honor who may come to serve after you.
Interesting. I would've called 'subversive' the superset because it implies an understanding of the world's ambiguous nature -- that being a consequence of how small our total knowledge of the universe is.
I'd disagree; a subversive often merely percieves that the promulgated worldview is incorrect in some aspect, but does not necessarily percieve how the main worldview has some validity, or how their own worldview is imperfect.
I say this because males tend to receive a much stronger "trust your mind, take action towards your goals, steamroll anyone who gets in the way" education. Whereas females tend more to receive training to be cooperators.
As a general rule, yes; however, you haven't met my sister or my nieces. My mother and I were trying to convince the older that she should try to get the student drama group to put on the Lysistrata. =)
Ever read much about Kiersey and his temperament sorter (aka Meyers-Brigg)?
A lot. The Meyers-Briggs sorts on four axes: Introvert/Extrovert, iNtuitve/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling, and Percieving/Judging. I'd consider it a good instance of where the ambiguous mindset is important; it's a useful "engineering approximation" for studying personalities, but there are too many fuzzy-classified people to assign too much importance to it.
The only problem that needs solving is the last mile. It's the only place where a natural monopoly can exist.
Quibble: the last mile, and connecting it to both user and internet.
I also suspect that certain backbones and associated right-of-way may be sufficiently high entry cost to allow for a further potential natural monopoly. This may not be true in all areas; in the US, the railroad industry has enough right-of way to lay fiber and insure at worst a duopoly (possibly triopoly, if telcos and cablecos remain separate). Trans-oceanic lines, however, may be a different story.
Far more important, I think, is its identification of the "subversive" worldview. [...]Diamond Age won a coveted spot in my "Thou shalt read and discuss" box of books for my sons.
I agree with the assessment, but disagree with the reason. More important still than the identification of the "subversive" worldview is the identification of that as a tool of the ambiguous worldview. EG:
I've given a copy of The Young Lady's Illustrated Primer to the elder of my nieces, with the absolute certainty that the younger will find it and read it. Alas, I wasn't able to find a copy of the faux-leather bound "monstrous chunk of rod logic" edition.DRMs support an orderly market for facilitating efficient economic transactions between content producers and content consumers.
So, is it revealing or merely coincidental that he said "producers" and not "creators"?
Besides, "intellectual property" is a weasel expression, use "copyright" or "patents" to make it clear what this refers to, there's no law about "intellectual property" as far as I know but there is about copyright and patents (although there shouldn't be any software patents in my opinion).
IAmNotALawyer. However, "intellectual property law" is a commonly recognized category inclusive of those. Incidentally, you forgot "trade secrets" and "trademarks"; and see also 15 USC 1128 et alia.
And dude, your attempt at trolling was pitiful.
The comment was sarcastic, and in response to an IT department sending out a warning not to open unexpected attachments... as a Microsoft Word attachment. If I ever encountered idiocy like that coming from the IT team I work for, I swear I wouldn't rest until I had seen the responsible party nailed to the wall with the biggest rusty railroad spikes I could find.
No, I'm not in charge. I know who is, and how to teach them fear; that's all I've needed so far.
Let's assume that you work for a large company. And word gets out that IT will support your non-standard configuration. Then others will demand that IT supports their non-standard configuration. Then they are spending so much time figuring out what is going on with others that they don't have time to support you, let alone the work that everybody needs to be done.
I believe the two parties in this discussion are using "support" in two different ways. The semi-centralized enterprise-IT I work in has what I consider a less black-and-white and more varied many-colors approach.
There are black and white cases locally. Yes, there are about a dozen (total; three per model year, mandatory upgrade at the end of four years) "one true" hardware and software configurations, centrally managed. If you use those, anything that goes wrong is the fault of the central IT department. At the other extreme are also three people using geniune BeOS machines; central IT provides an internal-only Be-users mailing list for them to help each other, hands each user their own complete security audit paperwork to fill out and defend (triennially, around a hundred pages or so), monitors (like all machines) for signs of highly abnormal network traffic, and turns off the nearest managed network port (and will admit to doing so in response to a phone query) if they appear to have been hacked.
Mostly, cases fall in between. Some software is available via a central license pool, and they'll look into why the installer doesn't work. In most areas Central IT have expert groups knowlegable about the OS/hardware/software to try to help; they will at least listen to trouble reports on anything (except those aforementioned three BeBox weirdos) and make general suggestions. However, Central IT do draw the line; "You need to use a different Machine/Peripheral/OS/SoftwarePackage" (pick one or more) can be a perfectly acceptable solution from their point of view.
Just because a user admits he has a BarFoo network card instead of the "standard configuration" FooBar brand card should not be an excuse for IT to immediately blame the problem on the card. Several kinds of problem may be independent of the card ("Is the cable plugged in to both the wall and the computer? Does the network card have any LEDs? Are they lit? Is it shown in the Hardware Manager Snapin/Apple System Profile?"), and can often be solved trivially... provided the IT department helpdesk isn't mostly staffed by flowchart-script-reading humanoids. When policy dictates it, sure the IT people ought to be able to require a change to the One True Configuration... but only if they can demonstrate why no lesser change is adequate.
Expecting every weird configuration of software and hardware to be completely supported is ludicrous, but expecting a cookie-cutter configuration to be sufficient to every user's requirements is oft equally so.
In my experience, IT departments are often viewed by the business as pure red-ink.
Suggestion: compare IT to Legal, and (if there is any) to insurance against fire, flood, et cetera. Those also cost money... but not a lot compared to what you might have to spend without them.