I think it's more like you're the commanding officer of a silo who gets replaced, locks everything down and refuses to let your successor into the silo. Your successor would like to come in, perform maintenance, and prevent the thing from degrading and exploding, and you refuse to let them in.
As for competence... well, Childs gave different passwords to these same managers the week before when he wasn't getting fired, so he clearly didn't have THAT many reservations about handing them over. The juror actually referred to that quite specifically if you read the article, saying that was what convinced him that Childs was not really worried about password security but about causing problems (my words there, not the jurors.)
And honestly... if I worked for you, and locked you out of your own network, locked down all the machines and walked out saying you weren't competent enough to have the passwords... would you really defend me and be pleased no one could access your network hardware? If you hired a replacement for me that you liked, and I refused to give HIM the passwords saying he wasn't competent either, how happy would you be that I was protecting you by preventing you from accessing your own hardware? And when I started withdrawing money and getting ready to flee to Mexico... you'd still be defending me?
I dunno. Remember that shoe bomber, Richard Reid? His bomb didn't go off. So... who, if anyone, was harmed by HIS actions? It's not really a useful question to ask I think.
I think I'd have felt worse for Childs except that he just so clearly brought this on himself... two seconds of him not being a dick would have resolved everything nicely.
To use your analogy, though, this is a soldier on guard that made up his own password and won't let anyone know what it is. Which is not particularly helpful when you have legitimate traffic that would like to pass through but can't because no one knows the password.
But frankly I don't think it's a particularly valid analogy.;-)
The thing that is odd to me is that if someone locked any of us out of our own boxes and refused to give us access, we'd all be spitting tacks.
Childs locks an entire city out of their own boxes and I'm reading "Hey, the boxes didn't crash, so no harm done!" Do you guys really believe that? Would you defend someone who locked you out of your own system, even if they said it was for your own good? Would you say "Hey, the box is still up, so it's fine that I'm locked out!"? I really don't think you would.
I just can't defend the guy. He was an ass, he caused his own problems when he could EASILY have avoided them just by not being an ass, he admits that he caused his own problems and that it wasn't worth it (in the last Childs slashdot article linked) and frankly if he did this crap to ANY of the guys defending him here, they'd be the first ones demanding his head.
Yes, his managers could have handled this better and probably were asses as well. The boss being an ass-hat doesn't cancel out Child's ass-hattery.
Oh well. It's easier to grandstand and defend him when you aren't the one affected I suppose.
Personally I pity his coworkers who now have his huge undocumented mess to deal with. As far as I am concerned, you could take his entire admin style and write it up as a counter-example of what to never, ever do or allow to happen to your systems.
Um... did you actually read the article or just look at the pretty pictures? He specifically says that some of the locations, such as the Naval Observatory, are pixelated and links to it. He's just saying that not ALL the stuff people says are blurred out are really blurred out.
I was trying to get through to the article but my internet connection went down.
Something about how we can blindly trust the websites to be up? Well...maybe when my connection is back up I'll go read about how I'll always be able to access them. For right now, I can't access them.:-)
I asked a friend of mine who is a public defender that question. He says the only way to "know" a client is guilty is if that client tells him he's guilty. If my friend thinks he's guilty but the guy claims he is innocent, then that guy still deserves a good defense - again, the case should have to be proved, as folks that we think are guilty are sometimes innocent.
If the guys SAYS he's guilty, then my Public Defender friend says that he will then enter a guilty plea and try to get the best sentence possible. If the guy says he's guilty but wants to plead innocent, my friend won't do it. He doesn't want to sit there and watch his client lie under oath. If the guy insists on doing that, then my friend says he'd have to recuse himself, but has never had to do that.
IANAL, I just asked my lawyer buddy about this a while ago. Other lawyers may feel differently about all this.
But didn't Kong profit by over 200 million dollars? Box Office Mojo says it cost $207 million and earned $543 million so far. I'm not sure why Locas and this thread is referring to this as a disaster. We should ALL have such disasters.
I think google should charge BellSouth for the content. Bellsouth is getting a lot of money from customers for connections. Without web sites and content to deliver over that connection, customers wouldn't buy it - why get a connection if there's no internet to connect with? So Bellsouth is just getting all that for free. They're selling the content that WE provide as web authors, but not paying us a penny for getting all that content!
How does cable TV work? Isn't that the same thing? We pay the cable provider, and they pay the stations. No one says the stations should have to pay the cable providers for using their cable bandwidth. I say the internet should be the same thing. So if you have a web site, send BellSouth a bill.
To me there was an excellent point to killing those characters. Whedon had said he was making this movie as if there were no more coming, which proved to be prophetic. Book had very little place in the movie, so killing him hurt nothing and served to prove both how serious the situation the characters were in had become, and also to spur them to serious action.
And in the end, well every sci-fi movie ends with everyone living happily so there's no real suspense. You KNOW they'll all live and be fine. When Wash got killed, suddenly I did not know that. I had no idea if anyone else was going to get killed or not. If he was going to kill Wash, then he was willing to kill off any other character too, and I truly didn't know what would happen.
And in hindsight, Wash was the best choice. He wasn't a fighter, and all the fighters were needed in the next scenes. So he wasn't really "needed" in the rest of that movie, so he was a logical choice. And since everyone loved him, it really brought home both that you didn't know who else would live or die, AND that this wasn't a risk-free mission where no one ever gets hurt, like most movies are.
I gotta agree...I love reusable components. Everytime I start a new project and get to reuse significant chunks of code rather than have to rewrite them, it makes me happy. And if you work on multiple platforms and don't write multi-platform code that works on all platforms...man, I'd absolutely refuse to even try to maintain that nightmare.
I am also shocked that most american movies are based in America. Similarly, it is amazingly poor taste that the Japanese movies I watch are set in Japan. It's horrible! Oh, and I saw a German movie that was set in Germany. Disgusting! Just terrible!
Except that if they are going to censor what they sell, they should actually TELL you they are censoring it. It should be quite clear, like a big sticker that says "Censored edition" on the box, and not be done in such a way that most folks have no idea that this is being done at all. That is what bothers me - not that they do it, but that they do it so quietly so that you don't realize you're buying it.
Well...if you had 200 messages stuck under your windshield wipers you might start to feel differently about it. I get about 200 spam a day. My email address was getting almost unusable (SpamAssassin helped a LOT.) If I got just a few spam messages a day I wouldn't care either, but... 200 a day starts to cause major problems.
The only problem with assuming that you can scan your spam folder to see what else it's caught is that you can hit a threshold of spam where that's not feasible any more either. I get around 200 spams a day - I've had the same email for about 8 years now and it just keeps getting worse. I have completely given up trying to scan my spam folder, it just wasn't worth the time (ever try to scan 200 spams to see if maybe a legit email was in the pile? And that's on the days I am keeping up with it - there's been over a thousand in my spam folder before.) I just decided I was OK with occasionally missing an email - there really wasn't another workable option.
So it's not 5 extra spam to 1 email for me, it's a thousand spam or more to that extra email. I'm totally OK with losing the valid one. Saving the download time alone is valuable.
The only problem with insisting that it is impossible is that if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that other teams have done it. Not for long, or for very high, but they got off the ground.
So I'm pretty sure that since it's been done, the energy is in fact there somewhere.
You're ignoring a lot of reality here. I can only have one car. I do a lot of hauling stuff around. I can't fit it in a normal car, even though I would have preferred to do that. So I ended up in a SUV. You can see me by myself going to work and get all uptight, but you don't see me on the weekends with the SUV stuffed full.
If I could afford a second car, I would...but frankly I did the math and it wouldn't save nearly the amount of gas people insist it would. (I have a relatively small SUV.)
Personally I'd rather just have the SUV with a fuel cell or something...
The problem isn't that he met with big industry people. The problem is that he met ONLY with big industry people and shut every other voice out. If you weren't big business, you had no say whatsoever in energy policy. So if you had concerns with pollution controls, etc, you were shut out.
Then they kept all records of this meeting secret, so no one else can even see what they talked about, even though court after court has said that the documents MUST be public under the Freedom of Information act (it's going before the Supreme Court...if you've missed the articles about Cheney taking a supreme court justice out for a nice long weekend trip right before his court case comes before that justice, you should really read something besides the conservative media.)
He says that indian companies are buying computers and that this is a net gain of sales.
However, if the call center was in the US, the US company handling it would still have to buy computers, software, drinks, etc. I don't see how an Indian company buying these instead of an American company really makes any difference to the bottom line of the selling companies. He is claiming that these sales would not have been made, but the call center would HAVE to buy what it needs to run no matter if it's American or Indian. So his entire basic premise seems to be wrong.
So you are saying that any movie that doesn't tone itself down to be fit for young children should be watched? Yuck. I don't want my movies to be that homogenized. I'm really happy that the Matrix didn't tone itself down like that, it would have ruined the film I think. Most movies deliberately tone themselves down to get the wider market (which is why most profitable movies don't have an R rating, they do it on purpose) but the suggestion that any movie that isn't child-friendly isn't fit for anyone (as you say) is just amazingly... silly.
The glowing sofa just seems like another take on the standard checkpoint...and I have to admit that after MDK2 I'm really gunshy of checkpoints. Here's the MDK2 view of checkpoints:
Get to point A. Die. (repeat 10 times) Get past point A. No checkpoint yet. Get to point B. Die. Get past point A again. Get to point B. Die. (repeat 10 times) Get past point B. No checkpoint yet. Get past A and B to C. Die. Repeat 10 times. Get past point C. Find a checkpoint.
Repeat the entire process.
Meanwhile A and B aren't fast to get past, and after you figure it out they are very tedious...but you have to do them over and over and over because there are no checkpoints.
Give me a game save that I can get to by the start button and I'm happy...after that any game with checkpoints leaves me VERY leery.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's more like you're the commanding officer of a silo who gets replaced, locks everything down and refuses to let your successor into the silo. Your successor would like to come in, perform maintenance, and prevent the thing from degrading and exploding, and you refuse to let them in.
As for competence ... well, Childs gave different passwords to these same managers the week before when he wasn't getting fired, so he clearly didn't have THAT many reservations about handing them over. The juror actually referred to that quite specifically if you read the article, saying that was what convinced him that Childs was not really worried about password security but about causing problems (my words there, not the jurors.)
And honestly ... if I worked for you, and locked you out of your own network, locked down all the machines and walked out saying you weren't competent enough to have the passwords ... would you really defend me and be pleased no one could access your network hardware? If you hired a replacement for me that you liked, and I refused to give HIM the passwords saying he wasn't competent either, how happy would you be that I was protecting you by preventing you from accessing your own hardware? And when I started withdrawing money and getting ready to flee to Mexico ... you'd still be defending me?
I dunno. Remember that shoe bomber, Richard Reid? His bomb didn't go off. So ... who, if anyone, was harmed by HIS actions? It's not really a useful question to ask I think.
I think I'd have felt worse for Childs except that he just so clearly brought this on himself ... two seconds of him not being a dick would have resolved everything nicely.
To use your analogy, though, this is a soldier on guard that made up his own password and won't let anyone know what it is. Which is not particularly helpful when you have legitimate traffic that would like to pass through but can't because no one knows the password.
But frankly I don't think it's a particularly valid analogy. ;-)
The thing that is odd to me is that if someone locked any of us out of our own boxes and refused to give us access, we'd all be spitting tacks.
Childs locks an entire city out of their own boxes and I'm reading "Hey, the boxes didn't crash, so no harm done!" Do you guys really believe that? Would you defend someone who locked you out of your own system, even if they said it was for your own good? Would you say "Hey, the box is still up, so it's fine that I'm locked out!"? I really don't think you would.
I just can't defend the guy. He was an ass, he caused his own problems when he could EASILY have avoided them just by not being an ass, he admits that he caused his own problems and that it wasn't worth it (in the last Childs slashdot article linked) and frankly if he did this crap to ANY of the guys defending him here, they'd be the first ones demanding his head.
Yes, his managers could have handled this better and probably were asses as well. The boss being an ass-hat doesn't cancel out Child's ass-hattery.
Oh well. It's easier to grandstand and defend him when you aren't the one affected I suppose.
Personally I pity his coworkers who now have his huge undocumented mess to deal with. As far as I am concerned, you could take his entire admin style and write it up as a counter-example of what to never, ever do or allow to happen to your systems.
Um ... did you actually read the article or just look at the pretty pictures? He specifically says that some of the locations, such as the Naval Observatory, are pixelated and links to it. He's just saying that not ALL the stuff people says are blurred out are really blurred out.
Um ... so you essentially paid money to Microsoft for the OS knowing you were going to erase it? :-)
Bill Gates thanks you.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Murder a few people, go to jail, come out, you're fine. You've done your time.
Why are sex offenses so much worse than murder? What about assault? Why is it just sex that's so horrifying?
I was trying to get through to the article but my internet connection went down.
:-)
Something about how we can blindly trust the websites to be up? Well...maybe when my connection is back up I'll go read about how I'll always be able to access them. For right now, I can't access them.
I asked a friend of mine who is a public defender that question. He says the only way to "know" a client is guilty is if that client tells him he's guilty. If my friend thinks he's guilty but the guy claims he is innocent, then that guy still deserves a good defense - again, the case should have to be proved, as folks that we think are guilty are sometimes innocent.
If the guys SAYS he's guilty, then my Public Defender friend says that he will then enter a guilty plea and try to get the best sentence possible. If the guy says he's guilty but wants to plead innocent, my friend won't do it. He doesn't want to sit there and watch his client lie under oath. If the guy insists on doing that, then my friend says he'd have to recuse himself, but has never had to do that.
IANAL, I just asked my lawyer buddy about this a while ago. Other lawyers may feel differently about all this.
But didn't Kong profit by over 200 million dollars? Box Office Mojo says it cost $207 million and earned $543 million so far. I'm not sure why Locas and this thread is referring to this as a disaster. We should ALL have such disasters.
5 .htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kingkong0
I think google should charge BellSouth for the content. Bellsouth is getting a lot of money from customers for connections. Without web sites and content to deliver over that connection, customers wouldn't buy it - why get a connection if there's no internet to connect with? So Bellsouth is just getting all that for free. They're selling the content that WE provide as web authors, but not paying us a penny for getting all that content!
How does cable TV work? Isn't that the same thing? We pay the cable provider, and they pay the stations. No one says the stations should have to pay the cable providers for using their cable bandwidth. I say the internet should be the same thing. So if you have a web site, send BellSouth a bill.
To me there was an excellent point to killing those characters. Whedon had said he was making this movie as if there were no more coming, which proved to be prophetic. Book had very little place in the movie, so killing him hurt nothing and served to prove both how serious the situation the characters were in had become, and also to spur them to serious action.
And in the end, well every sci-fi movie ends with everyone living happily so there's no real suspense. You KNOW they'll all live and be fine. When Wash got killed, suddenly I did not know that. I had no idea if anyone else was going to get killed or not. If he was going to kill Wash, then he was willing to kill off any other character too, and I truly didn't know what would happen.
And in hindsight, Wash was the best choice. He wasn't a fighter, and all the fighters were needed in the next scenes. So he wasn't really "needed" in the rest of that movie, so he was a logical choice. And since everyone loved him, it really brought home both that you didn't know who else would live or die, AND that this wasn't a risk-free mission where no one ever gets hurt, like most movies are.
I gotta agree...I love reusable components. Everytime I start a new project and get to reuse significant chunks of code rather than have to rewrite them, it makes me happy. And if you work on multiple platforms and don't write multi-platform code that works on all platforms...man, I'd absolutely refuse to even try to maintain that nightmare.
I am also shocked that most american movies are based in America. Similarly, it is amazingly poor taste that the Japanese movies I watch are set in Japan. It's horrible! Oh, and I saw a German movie that was set in Germany. Disgusting! Just terrible!
Except that if they are going to censor what they sell, they should actually TELL you they are censoring it. It should be quite clear, like a big sticker that says "Censored edition" on the box, and not be done in such a way that most folks have no idea that this is being done at all. That is what bothers me - not that they do it, but that they do it so quietly so that you don't realize you're buying it.
Well...if you had 200 messages stuck under your windshield wipers you might start to feel differently about it. I get about 200 spam a day. My email address was getting almost unusable (SpamAssassin helped a LOT.) If I got just a few spam messages a day I wouldn't care either, but
The only problem with assuming that you can scan your spam folder to see what else it's caught is that you can hit a threshold of spam where that's not feasible any more either. I get around 200 spams a day - I've had the same email for about 8 years now and it just keeps getting worse. I have completely given up trying to scan my spam folder, it just wasn't worth the time (ever try to scan 200 spams to see if maybe a legit email was in the pile? And that's on the days I am keeping up with it - there's been over a thousand in my spam folder before.) I just decided I was OK with occasionally missing an email - there really wasn't another workable option.
So it's not 5 extra spam to 1 email for me, it's a thousand spam or more to that extra email. I'm totally OK with losing the valid one. Saving the download time alone is valuable.
The only problem with insisting that it is impossible is that if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that other teams have done it. Not for long, or for very high, but they got off the ground.
So I'm pretty sure that since it's been done, the energy is in fact there somewhere.
You're ignoring a lot of reality here. I can only have one car. I do a lot of hauling stuff around. I can't fit it in a normal car, even though I would have preferred to do that. So I ended up in a SUV. You can see me by myself going to work and get all uptight, but you don't see me on the weekends with the SUV stuffed full.
If I could afford a second car, I would...but frankly I did the math and it wouldn't save nearly the amount of gas people insist it would. (I have a relatively small SUV.)
Personally I'd rather just have the SUV with a fuel cell or something...
The problem isn't that he met with big industry people. The problem is that he met ONLY with big industry people and shut every other voice out. If you weren't big business, you had no say whatsoever in energy policy. So if you had concerns with pollution controls, etc, you were shut out.
Then they kept all records of this meeting secret, so no one else can even see what they talked about, even though court after court has said that the documents MUST be public under the Freedom of Information act (it's going before the Supreme Court...if you've missed the articles about Cheney taking a supreme court justice out for a nice long weekend trip right before his court case comes before that justice, you should really read something besides the conservative media.)
He says that indian companies are buying computers and that this is a net gain of sales.
However, if the call center was in the US, the US company handling it would still have to buy computers, software, drinks, etc. I don't see how an Indian company buying these instead of an American company really makes any difference to the bottom line of the selling companies. He is claiming that these sales would not have been made, but the call center would HAVE to buy what it needs to run no matter if it's American or Indian. So his entire basic premise seems to be wrong.
Check this interesting article out... Sex in Games
http://thematrixonline.warnerbros.com
So you are saying that any movie that doesn't tone itself down to be fit for young children should be watched? Yuck. I don't want my movies to be that homogenized. I'm really happy that the Matrix didn't tone itself down like that, it would have ruined the film I think. Most movies deliberately tone themselves down to get the wider market (which is why most profitable movies don't have an R rating, they do it on purpose) but the suggestion that any movie that isn't child-friendly isn't fit for anyone (as you say) is just amazingly ... silly.
The glowing sofa just seems like another take on the standard checkpoint...and I have to admit that after MDK2 I'm really gunshy of checkpoints. Here's the MDK2 view of checkpoints:
Get to point A. Die.
(repeat 10 times)
Get past point A.
No checkpoint yet. Get to point B. Die.
Get past point A again. Get to point B. Die.
(repeat 10 times)
Get past point B. No checkpoint yet.
Get past A and B to C. Die.
Repeat 10 times.
Get past point C. Find a checkpoint.
Repeat the entire process.
Meanwhile A and B aren't fast to get past, and after you figure it out they are very tedious...but you have to do them over and over and over because there are no checkpoints.
Give me a game save that I can get to by the start button and I'm happy...after that any game with checkpoints leaves me VERY leery.