Someone did explain the security procedures to John Prescott? If not, then it is a failure of the secret service for not ensuring that each person with security clearance X has been informed of the security measures needed for that level of security.
You do realize that people like this are placed into such positions of trust precisely because they are assumed to be of a higher calibre than your average Joe Schmoe on the street, yes?
Huh. I wonder why that's not working. Perhaps that should be looked into.
[Your.sig: You're complaining about a lack of of a RTE, yet still using Roman Numerals?!?:-O]
Callibre does not mean experience. I am sure I am qualified to learn the job of a plumber and be a quite decent plumber myself, but until someone tells me how I will not know a thing about plumbing. So, taking anyone without an intelligence background and expecting that he already knows the security procedures is, at best, wildly optimistic...
So, there is a failure rate of 1.4 per 1000 in 2002, and half of those were related to hardware issues. Only 30 people ended up dying. This article (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/18/2136.full) claims 3,000,000 people worldwide with pacemakers in 2002, with 600,000 implanted yearly. That means in 2002.001% of people with pacemakers died. Assuming hardware failure accounted for half of that, then the chances of being killed by a software defect in a pacemaker is extremely small. So, I'd say it's safe to assume that the hardware "works as advertised".
I remember a joke in a WWII film, a soldier was forced to paradrop. As he was not quite willing to leave the plane, he was assured by his officer than "only one in 20.000 parachutes fail to open", to which he asked "and mine which number is?".
The question is, if the software fails and kills someone, you cannot say than the software* works as advertised. How many deaths would be necessary for the software to be considered "unfit"?
Also, you are confusing worldwide data with data from an study whose scope is unknown (USA? An USA state? One city?) Apples and oranges.
The real point to the question would be deaths by a pacemaker not being enough perfect vs deaths by not having such a pacemaker available (and having to deal with older models or not pacemakers at all).
*I understand that in your last line you meant software, for your text to make sense.
One of the points mentioned in the news coverage over here was that John Prescott had high security clearance in his position as deputy prime minister, so the "hackers" could have gained access to significant secrets. Am I the only one that finds this worrying? Why was The Right Honourable Bumbling Hypocrite of Hull given any access to supposedly secure information when he wasn't even capable of setting a pin on his voicemail?! Why would anyone else leave such information in voicemail anyway? I'm hoping this is just Prescott's camp trying to big up him and the charges against Murdoch rather than a sign of how shite our intelligence services are...
Someone did explain the security procedures to John Prescott? If not, then it is a failure of the secret service for not ensuring that each person with security clearance X has been informed of the security measures needed for that level of security.
Maybe the distinction between having copyrighted contend and publicly offering (and asking for) copyrighted content over the internet is too subtle for some minds here in/.
Media companies do not like individual users broadcasting copyrighted entertainment because individual user don't pay to such media companies. Cable and satellite do pay.
Of course, the hidden agenda paranoids always get a public...
Nonsense. It is like saying that if the police catch me selling several bags of drug, they should leave me free (and let me keep the drug) until the trial finishes.
They need judicial oversight (it is closed not because the government asked for it, but because a judge saw enough evidence to give the go ahead), which is not the same that a trial (which may take some time to end).
I think another measure stated in TFA will be more efficient: now the contractors will be responsible if they introduce counterfeit parts (even unknowingly) and will not be able to charge the DoD for replacing them. That will ensure that they control quality better (by whatever technical means they chose), probably forcing the same clause on their providers.
Another reason to have a closed network. Not so much a security issue, but avoids snooping authorities. Sure they could wardrive, but at least one has a possible affermative defense.
As it stands, this type of thing is clearly indicates immature people who crave attention, much like people who put huge subwoofers in their car, or loud exhausts on their bikes, or over the top and distracting decorations on their lawns. I support the police giving them the attention they desire.
Who says that it was the government snooping? TFA says it was a passer by who caught it in her phone. Please do not invent thinks out of thin air.
As if it is worth investigating, well... The test should be "If someone would write the same thing on his own property, would we punish him?" If it is yes, then it should investigating because he is painting it every time his WiFi broadcast. If it is not, then what would you when you find him? Tell him to please change the SSID?
So, mostly it should be a question of it falls under free speech or not, and act in consequence. The fact that the data is not transmitted with visible light but with higher frequencies is irrelevant.
Also, is it too much asking to The Fine Editor to put less emotional summary. If he has already decided that it is a waste of time, no sense in us being allowed to comment. Just put the text and disable the commenting, if that is what he/she wants. This site quality is going down fast.
Because I am not worried about the possibility of uniformed agents from Haliburton, Coca-Cola or Nestle seizing me up and sending me to some country to torture me?
Can someone tell me what is the part two of this? It is a supposed better technology/implementation that gives better speed/efficiency/whatever? Or it is just the name of the plan for the new developments (as in "Phase two of HS railway building"?)
At first, the wording of TFS caused me a negative reaction: I think that (with the exception of emergencies) a PM should not be worried with real time data, but more with historical tendencies (because every decission from such PM would take some time to cause effects, and cause effects through a long time).
But, after thinking about it, it can be useful if it is provided also to MPs. Nowadays, if during a debate someone says somehing like "the unemployment in my district has never been higher", the only way to discuss the information is wait for the session to end, ask an underling to verify that data in the archives, and answer in the following session.
Having all the data available at hand could speed-up the law-making process, which is a good thing.
And of course, the app could have been done in either platform (it is just a front-end, anyway), so it really does not matter if it is Apple or Android.
Yes, but that does not make either of them (the whole "end-of-the-world-due-to-calendar" or the "end-of-the-world-due-to-mayan-calendar") less ridiculous.
The issue is not 2012 or 2220. The issue is that a Hollywood studio produces a mediocre, mediocre film basen on thin air; and marketing creates millions of "believers" (or even "scepticals") who keep babbling about it, long after the movie rests in its deserved grave.
It explains why Hollywood is more interested in spending $ in marketing that in producing actual good movies; as someone said "a dollar spent in brainwashing the people is more effective than a dollar spent in improving your product".
So, there will be people talking about what will happen in 2012, and people that will listen to them and won't politely ask for the former to SHUT UP AND STOP SPREADING BULLSHIT. And some will ever believe that a long-extinct bunch of farmers who did not even get a proper solar calendar somehow knew that "something will happen" in the 2012 or the 2220 or whenever. Dunno. Maybe it will be like Y2K, when the soviet nuclear missiles all launched automatically and all the banks broke, remember? Probably the Mayan missiles will launch from their hidden bunkers, don't you think?
And yes, if you (whoever is reading this post) believe that in 2012 will happen anything caused by the mayans, or even if you have any kind of doubt, let me say it clearly so you understand it: YOU ARE A FUCKING STUPID. Try to find someone to trust (better if he/she is a relative) and let that someone decide for you for important things, because your brain is deffective.
Of course, the last part does not apply if you came here to make fun of the fucking stupids.
Why would those "buyers" join the "group of buyers" if they can just opt out and make someone else pay? The sensible opinion is not buying and let others spend their money.
Of course, you would say, "But I know of Mr.X and Mr. Y and Mr. Z who would do it that way". Two points here:
They say that they would do. Really? And for how long? Would they continue doing it for long if they see that the rest of the world does not follow them?
Even if they pay, they would not be paying for the software itself (since they can obtain it for "free"). They would be paying for "principles", "ethics", "boasting in/.", whatever. Since there is no ROI, there will be a limit in the cost they are willing to support. We would get lots of "angry birds", but forget about Oracle 12, Windows 2048 or even "Skyrim 2".
Anyway, I find funny how many people are ready to tell software developers how they should run their bussiness.
Have YOU tried to give away your work product for free and hope that someone pays you up? Have YOU done anything in order to implement your economic plans?
It's often argued (correctly in my opinion) that *****lism inevitably leads to a totalitarian state. Read [A book (of millions that are out there) written by someone with my same ideas (and who nobody knows about) as a proof of what I think] for further info.
There, fixed that for you. Now you have a generic argument for whatever your opinions are.
Just my two cents: To me, it looks like that after working 60 hours a week for months you have been "broken" and serve for nothing else that work.
I mean, I do not know you so if you say that you are fine I will not argue with you, but from personal experience one of the difficult things with stress is knowing that you have it. Maybe it is worth thinking about it (then again, if you think and find out that you are not under stress then the better for you).
A diamond is a very ordered configuration which will become progressively more disordered. Its configuration may mean that the reactions that alter it (with the oxygen of the air, by example, or even a dislocation of carbon atoms inside the structure) work very slowly, but in the end when these happen there is no turning back.
So, little by little the diamond is decaying into carbon, CO2, etc.
Can't you cast a blank vote? In Spain there is the option to cast a vote without marking any candidate/party. These votes are effectively counted when it comes to the distribution of seats(*), and give a clear meaning of "I want to vote but I find nothing worth voting" (instead of "I don't think voting is important enough to go to the poll station").
(*) The distribution of seats is done taking into account the number of votes cast, so blank votes affect results (abstention does not). There is even a political movement arguing that blank votes should be treated as a full list (with all seats gained by it becoming unassigned).
After that, if the management prefers to go to concerts than to work for the company, you can't do a thing. But you should have warned as soon as the risk indications had arisen.
No, I'm pointing out your incorrect use of analogies.
Your CHOICE in eating RESPONSIBLY, is on you. It isn't illegal for you to eat burgers, it isn't even illegal for you to eat fries. But in this case you are saying that it should be illegal for anyone to eat fries or burgers.
You missed my point. The difference is that my weight does not affect your health. You driving distracted may affect my health. Is that hard to understand that you having an accident (lots of time) does not affect only you?
It's a matter of personal responsibility. You can choose to eat healthy, and you can choose to drive safe.
Now I agree that when there is a significant risk to society that laws should be enacted to mitigate them. And ideally, such laws should be introduced as a variety of state laws first so we can measure their impact on behavior. And that is my current rub:
1) The fatal accident rate has been declining as cell phone use has been increasing. This is very likely due to other technological improvements, but it does point out that the risk to society is not significant enough to offset our gains. Additionally, I am still looking for a good source of non-fatal accident data. I've only found one trendline so far (with no available data) and it was trending downward. Which implies that this is less of a impact than it is being made out to be.
2) The states that have enacted anti-cellphone laws are not seeing any significant change in accident rates. This to me says that the current crop of laws are ineffective at changing behavior. So none of them should be used as a template for further state laws or federal law.
3) If these laws have no effect on behavior, provide no additional security for society, and turn legitimate citizens into criminals, with the only benefit being a new form of revenue for the municipality, I see no reason for them to exist. Either find a way to effect behavior, or stick to existing laws that can be applied.
-Rick
First, you take a tendency affected from lots of variables and attribute it to just one of them. The same that I explained to your previous posts. How do you know that cell phone banning would not improve the security?
So far, when tests are done in a controlled fashion, they show that talking on a phone while driving increases risks. Given the number of injuries and deaths in accidents (and seeing that the only cost of these measures is just having to return the call instead of answering it directly), I find that these measures should be implemented.
I would like to know a little more about how the project developed before forming an opinion.
My experience with public organizations is that higher-ups in the administration are all for it ready to take merit, until they realize how much work it does take. They organize a functional group including only the bosses, who happen to(*):
Don't have too much time for meetings/extra work.
Don't really know how things really work at lower levels.
Think that their asses are covered.
Want everything at everytime completely organized, even if it means losing flexibility and increasing workload without ROI.
Most probably, whatever system based in the specifications that such guys give won't survive the first time it is tested "on the field". These same guys will later claim that the failure was of the contractor, and will show their anger in an attempt to hide their responsability.
In most of the projects I have been, it happens that the bosses discover how the organization really works through it, and what it really needs. The earlier they discover it, the better the project results.
The issue about being told that another project at another university is moot, that is not part of the contract (unless the other university wanted the same functionality and had been given other estimates, that could show a double standard).
My take? So far we only have a one sided story, I would like to know more about the project management to assign blame. Anyway, the fact that the University is going bold and suing for "Extortion" (instead of the standard "Breach of contract") makes me think that they are, at the very minimum, not totally innocent.
(*)Of course, I do not mean that every boss is like that but I see that a little too much...
Slashdot Mirror
Someone did explain the security procedures to John Prescott? If not, then it is a failure of the secret service for not ensuring that each person with security clearance X has been informed of the security measures needed for that level of security.
You do realize that people like this are placed into such positions of trust precisely because they are assumed to be of a higher calibre than your average Joe Schmoe on the street, yes?
Huh. I wonder why that's not working. Perhaps that should be looked into.
[Your .sig: You're complaining about a lack of of a RTE, yet still using Roman Numerals?!? :-O]
Callibre does not mean experience. I am sure I am qualified to learn the job of a plumber and be a quite decent plumber myself, but until someone tells me how I will not know a thing about plumbing. So, taking anyone without an intelligence background and expecting that he already knows the security procedures is, at best, wildly optimistic...
If I was her, I would follow my doctor advice (with second opinons of course) than a comment of /.
Just saying...
So, there is a failure rate of 1.4 per 1000 in 2002, and half of those were related to hardware issues. Only 30 people ended up dying. This article (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/18/2136.full) claims 3,000,000 people worldwide with pacemakers in 2002, with 600,000 implanted yearly. That means in 2002 .001% of people with pacemakers died. Assuming hardware failure accounted for half of that, then the chances of being killed by a software defect in a pacemaker is extremely small. So, I'd say it's safe to assume that the hardware "works as advertised".
I remember a joke in a WWII film, a soldier was forced to paradrop. As he was not quite willing to leave the plane, he was assured by his officer than "only one in 20.000 parachutes fail to open", to which he asked "and mine which number is?".
The question is, if the software fails and kills someone, you cannot say than the software* works as advertised. How many deaths would be necessary for the software to be considered "unfit"?
Also, you are confusing worldwide data with data from an study whose scope is unknown (USA? An USA state? One city?) Apples and oranges.
The real point to the question would be deaths by a pacemaker not being enough perfect vs deaths by not having such a pacemaker available (and having to deal with older models or not pacemakers at all).
*I understand that in your last line you meant software, for your text to make sense.
One of the points mentioned in the news coverage over here was that John Prescott had high security clearance in his position as deputy prime minister, so the "hackers" could have gained access to significant secrets. Am I the only one that finds this worrying? Why was The Right Honourable Bumbling Hypocrite of Hull given any access to supposedly secure information when he wasn't even capable of setting a pin on his voicemail?! Why would anyone else leave such information in voicemail anyway? I'm hoping this is just Prescott's camp trying to big up him and the charges against Murdoch rather than a sign of how shite our intelligence services are...
Someone did explain the security procedures to John Prescott? If not, then it is a failure of the secret service for not ensuring that each person with security clearance X has been informed of the security measures needed for that level of security.
Ooooh...
Maybe the distinction between having copyrighted contend and publicly offering (and asking for) copyrighted content over the internet is too subtle for some minds here in /.
No.
Media companies do not like individual users broadcasting copyrighted entertainment because individual user don't pay to such media companies. Cable and satellite do pay.
Of course, the hidden agenda paranoids always get a public...
Nonsense. It is like saying that if the police catch me selling several bags of drug, they should leave me free (and let me keep the drug) until the trial finishes.
They need judicial oversight (it is closed not because the government asked for it, but because a judge saw enough evidence to give the go ahead), which is not the same that a trial (which may take some time to end).
I think another measure stated in TFA will be more efficient: now the contractors will be responsible if they introduce counterfeit parts (even unknowingly) and will not be able to charge the DoD for replacing them. That will ensure that they control quality better (by whatever technical means they chose), probably forcing the same clause on their providers.
Another reason to have a closed network. Not so much a security issue, but avoids snooping authorities. Sure they could wardrive, but at least one has a possible affermative defense.
As it stands, this type of thing is clearly indicates immature people who crave attention, much like people who put huge subwoofers in their car, or loud exhausts on their bikes, or over the top and distracting decorations on their lawns. I support the police giving them the attention they desire.
Who says that it was the government snooping? TFA says it was a passer by who caught it in her phone. Please do not invent thinks out of thin air.
As if it is worth investigating, well... The test should be "If someone would write the same thing on his own property, would we punish him?" If it is yes, then it should investigating because he is painting it every time his WiFi broadcast. If it is not, then what would you when you find him? Tell him to please change the SSID?
So, mostly it should be a question of it falls under free speech or not, and act in consequence. The fact that the data is not transmitted with visible light but with higher frequencies is irrelevant.
Also, is it too much asking to The Fine Editor to put less emotional summary. If he has already decided that it is a waste of time, no sense in us being allowed to comment. Just put the text and disable the commenting, if that is what he/she wants. This site quality is going down fast.
Why complain about the government?/quote>
Because I am not worried about the possibility of uniformed agents from Haliburton, Coca-Cola or Nestle seizing me up and sending me to some country to torture me?
Humans are cancer of the Earth!
Humans are the most interesting thing to have ever happened to Earth. So there's some ecological damage? That's a small price for what's going on.
Maybe it would interesting to know if the Earth shares your opinion...
And you may not like my comment, but :
My comment is the mos interesting comment to have ever been posted to /.. So you get annoyed? That's a small price for what's going on?
Can someone tell me what is the part two of this? It is a supposed better technology/implementation that gives better speed/efficiency/whatever? Or it is just the name of the plan for the new developments (as in "Phase two of HS railway building"?)
At first, the wording of TFS caused me a negative reaction: I think that (with the exception of emergencies) a PM should not be worried with real time data, but more with historical tendencies (because every decission from such PM would take some time to cause effects, and cause effects through a long time).
But, after thinking about it, it can be useful if it is provided also to MPs. Nowadays, if during a debate someone says somehing like "the unemployment in my district has never been higher", the only way to discuss the information is wait for the session to end, ask an underling to verify that data in the archives, and answer in the following session.
Having all the data available at hand could speed-up the law-making process, which is a good thing.
And of course, the app could have been done in either platform (it is just a front-end, anyway), so it really does not matter if it is Apple or Android.
Yes, but that does not make either of them (the whole "end-of-the-world-due-to-calendar" or the "end-of-the-world-due-to-mayan-calendar") less ridiculous.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/1517242/2012-a-miscalculation-actual-calendar-ends-2220
More pointless point I ever found...
The issue is not 2012 or 2220. The issue is that a Hollywood studio produces a mediocre, mediocre film basen on thin air; and marketing creates millions of "believers" (or even "scepticals") who keep babbling about it, long after the movie rests in its deserved grave.
It explains why Hollywood is more interested in spending $ in marketing that in producing actual good movies; as someone said "a dollar spent in brainwashing the people is more effective than a dollar spent in improving your product".
So, there will be people talking about what will happen in 2012, and people that will listen to them and won't politely ask for the former to SHUT UP AND STOP SPREADING BULLSHIT. And some will ever believe that a long-extinct bunch of farmers who did not even get a proper solar calendar somehow knew that "something will happen" in the 2012 or the 2220 or whenever. Dunno. Maybe it will be like Y2K, when the soviet nuclear missiles all launched automatically and all the banks broke, remember? Probably the Mayan missiles will launch from their hidden bunkers, don't you think?
And yes, if you (whoever is reading this post) believe that in 2012 will happen anything caused by the mayans, or even if you have any kind of doubt, let me say it clearly so you understand it: YOU ARE A FUCKING STUPID. Try to find someone to trust (better if he/she is a relative) and let that someone decide for you for important things, because your brain is deffective.
Of course, the last part does not apply if you came here to make fun of the fucking stupids.
Oh man, the prisonner dilemma again...
Why would those "buyers" join the "group of buyers" if they can just opt out and make someone else pay? The sensible opinion is not buying and let others spend their money.
Of course, you would say, "But I know of Mr.X and Mr. Y and Mr. Z who would do it that way". Two points here:
They say that they would do. Really? And for how long? Would they continue doing it for long if they see that the rest of the world does not follow them?
Even if they pay, they would not be paying for the software itself (since they can obtain it for "free"). They would be paying for "principles", "ethics", "boasting in /.", whatever. Since there is no ROI, there will be a limit in the cost they are willing to support. We would get lots of "angry birds", but forget about Oracle 12, Windows 2048 or even "Skyrim 2".
Anyway, I find funny how many people are ready to tell software developers how they should run their bussiness.
Have YOU tried to give away your work product for free and hope that someone pays you up? Have YOU done anything in order to implement your economic plans?
It's often argued (correctly in my opinion) that *****lism inevitably leads to a totalitarian state. Read [A book (of millions that are out there) written by someone with my same ideas (and who nobody knows about) as a proof of what I think] for further info.
There, fixed that for you. Now you have a generic argument for whatever your opinions are.
Just my two cents: To me, it looks like that after working 60 hours a week for months you have been "broken" and serve for nothing else that work.
I mean, I do not know you so if you say that you are fine I will not argue with you, but from personal experience one of the difficult things with stress is knowing that you have it. Maybe it is worth thinking about it (then again, if you think and find out that you are not under stress then the better for you).
... or the same Douglas Adams, when he finishes his fiscal holidays...
Entropy always increases.
A diamond is a very ordered configuration which will become progressively more disordered. Its configuration may mean that the reactions that alter it (with the oxygen of the air, by example, or even a dislocation of carbon atoms inside the structure) work very slowly, but in the end when these happen there is no turning back.
So, little by little the diamond is decaying into carbon, CO2, etc.
The issue of these policies is to rule out technical failures/incompetence.
If the employees lie their way around IT policies and get caught, then the company can protect themselves because the employee acted with bad faith.
You can't prevent data theft/loss 100% of times. But you can ensure that does not happen by mistake.
Can't you cast a blank vote? In Spain there is the option to cast a vote without marking any candidate/party. These votes are effectively counted when it comes to the distribution of seats(*), and give a clear meaning of "I want to vote but I find nothing worth voting" (instead of "I don't think voting is important enough to go to the poll station").
(*) The distribution of seats is done taking into account the number of votes cast, so blank votes affect results (abstention does not). There is even a political movement arguing that blank votes should be treated as a full list (with all seats gained by it becoming unassigned).
The mistake is allowing 4 to happen before 5.
After that, if the management prefers to go to concerts than to work for the company, you can't do a thing. But you should have warned as soon as the risk indications had arisen.
You are wrongly using my analogy
No, I'm pointing out your incorrect use of analogies.
Your CHOICE in eating RESPONSIBLY, is on you. It isn't illegal for you to eat burgers, it isn't even illegal for you to eat fries. But in this case you are saying that it should be illegal for anyone to eat fries or burgers.
You missed my point. The difference is that my weight does not affect your health. You driving distracted may affect my health. Is that hard to understand that you having an accident (lots of time) does not affect only you?
It's a matter of personal responsibility. You can choose to eat healthy, and you can choose to drive safe.
Now I agree that when there is a significant risk to society that laws should be enacted to mitigate them. And ideally, such laws should be introduced as a variety of state laws first so we can measure their impact on behavior. And that is my current rub:
1) The fatal accident rate has been declining as cell phone use has been increasing. This is very likely due to other technological improvements, but it does point out that the risk to society is not significant enough to offset our gains. Additionally, I am still looking for a good source of non-fatal accident data. I've only found one trendline so far (with no available data) and it was trending downward. Which implies that this is less of a impact than it is being made out to be.
2) The states that have enacted anti-cellphone laws are not seeing any significant change in accident rates. This to me says that the current crop of laws are ineffective at changing behavior. So none of them should be used as a template for further state laws or federal law.
3) If these laws have no effect on behavior, provide no additional security for society, and turn legitimate citizens into criminals, with the only benefit being a new form of revenue for the municipality, I see no reason for them to exist. Either find a way to effect behavior, or stick to existing laws that can be applied.
-Rick
First, you take a tendency affected from lots of variables and attribute it to just one of them. The same that I explained to your previous posts. How do you know that cell phone banning would not improve the security?
So far, when tests are done in a controlled fashion, they show that talking on a phone while driving increases risks. Given the number of injuries and deaths in accidents (and seeing that the only cost of these measures is just having to return the call instead of answering it directly), I find that these measures should be implemented.
I would like to know a little more about how the project developed before forming an opinion.
My experience with public organizations is that higher-ups in the administration are all for it ready to take merit, until they realize how much work it does take. They organize a functional group including only the bosses, who happen to(*):
Most probably, whatever system based in the specifications that such guys give won't survive the first time it is tested "on the field". These same guys will later claim that the failure was of the contractor, and will show their anger in an attempt to hide their responsability.
In most of the projects I have been, it happens that the bosses discover how the organization really works through it, and what it really needs. The earlier they discover it, the better the project results.
The issue about being told that another project at another university is moot, that is not part of the contract (unless the other university wanted the same functionality and had been given other estimates, that could show a double standard).
My take? So far we only have a one sided story, I would like to know more about the project management to assign blame. Anyway, the fact that the University is going bold and suing for "Extortion" (instead of the standard "Breach of contract") makes me think that they are, at the very minimum, not totally innocent.
(*)Of course, I do not mean that every boss is like that but I see that a little too much...