The guy is using Hotmail, and everything is being transmitted in plain text. Just pass a new law that installs as many sniffers as the Brits have security cams, and everyone will have access to the information!
Actually, I do believe basic troubleshooting can be documented. When I first picked up a contract service gig, through a service clearning house called TechForce (started by a bunch of techies from Paradyne, if memory serves correctly), they actually had a number of basic troubleshooting sheets and flowcharts that were quite good. I was past the need for them, but found them invaluable when I hired my "remote screwdrivers"--some of whom had no troubleshooting experience.
They all walked the reader through a basic process-of elimination process. For example, to troubleshoot a system that would not power-on, they had users start by disconnecting the input devices, then attempt to power on. If it powered on, you reconnected the devices one at a time until you found the one that inhibited the unit from powering on. It went on like that until the remote screwdriver would get down to the bare mainboard. Yes, any experienced tech could have narrowed down the problem faster than such a documented process, but it allowed it to be done by users with little or no experience. I've seen similar guides used in retail and manufacturing--guides that help the end-users complete basic troubleshooting tasks before they call in for help.
The point of the matter is this: I agree that the troubleshooting mindset is an analytical mindset, but I do believe that it is a process that can be taught.
I'm sure many people have had bad experiences where a remote tech is only able to stick to their documented script or troubleshooting guide. That's where such systems fail, but also where people who "get it" can excel. It took me a couple of months with my service clearing house to develop a reputation for being able to correctly diagnose issues (mostly because, in the early days, they trumped my recommendations and sent out the wrong part time and again--they eventually remembered that I was right more often than not). That allowed me to depart from their scripts. I got to the point where I could identify mis-diagnoses over the phone, saving the company money by not having to pay me twice for service calls for the same issue (and saving myself the hassle of running someplace twice). I will admit that it was probably much easier for me than it was for some of my techs (and even some of my students--I teach technology PT on top of my day job), but I've seen, time and again, non-technical people learn troubleshooting skills.
I think that detailed, step-by-step instructions are overkill for an experienced tech, but they are also a safeguard--if something goes wrong and you followed the documented procedure, your butt is covered. If not, and you claim the "years of experience" or "I've done this a million times" defense, you'll just end up as an easy target during the next round of layoffs. As for me, I don't mind if my day-to-day support duties can be passed off to some "drone"--just so long as it frees me up to pursue projects that are more rewarding. No one wants to document themselves out of a job, but that is really an irrational fear.
More than knowledge, what employers really want is sound judgment. I can always provide training to someone regarding technical things, but it's a lot harder to teach people how to make good decisions. I'll hire someone with a reputation for making sound judgments ahead of someone with boatlaods of experience and a reputation for not making the best decisions any day of the week.
In case anyone is wondering about the apparent contradiction in my post: I left facebook when Slashdot posted news about the new TOS. I read Facebook's statement about the reversal when a family member saw it this morning when she visited Facebook.
The explanation they posted to users makes sense: that the type of content they wanted to consider perpetually theirs for use was information you (the Facebook user) posted to another Facebook user's wall, or to a group discussion, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable expectation for any user of an online service.
My main gripe was that, if taken as written, the 2/4/09 TOS left users totally stowed--there was no clarification as to the types of information they intended to keep. While IANAL, I do know enough about contract law to know this: you are held to the letter of the contract, not the intent. The new TOS said (per my simple paraphrase): "if you post it, we can use it for any reason, forever, even if you choose to leave Facebook." I didn't want them making claim to my photos, or even selling them to some third party.
I ditched my FB account on the day the news about the new TOS was posted here (I had received NO notice of the change from Facebook). Even with this backpeddling, I'm not sure I'm going back. They have, after all, only promised to revert to the old TOS while they assess the user complaints and try to develop a new TOS document that will more clearly define their rights vs. user rights. I won't decide until after that new TOS is available for review.
Your "hit by a bus" scenario hits the nail on the head. I've been working for the past nine months to establish an IT department that, previously, did everying as an IT ad-hocracy. Passwords, which were once kept in an MS Word document on the LAN, are now tucked away safely in my grey matter and archived in an encrypted password storage application. That application has a password that is 45 characters long. The safeguard, in case I am ever "hit by a bus" or otherwise relieved of my duties is this: the two senior officers have copies of the password in an appropriately sealed and labeled set of envelopes that are kept in two separate, locked locations. If I'm ever gone and they need the passwords, they can unlock the safe, open the envelope, and get into the password storage and retreival system.
If the person on the blog in question shares only your first and last name, you could migrate to using your full legal name (including your middle name), to help your hits stand out from the other's.
Aside from that, others have already suggested you change your name. It's probably not the ideal solution, but it could help. Of course, many job applications and formal intake processes ask you to disclose former identities...
You could contact the blogger, and ask him or her to add a one-line tag near the top of the blog entry (so as to appear in the text visible when searching) that provides a link to a site of your choosing. Consider text like "The individual below is not the same person as Joe Blow of Vancouver, BC". Of course, the danger there is that the bad guy will then decide to find out more about you and will begin to use your current address and other information.
Others have already suggested building your own bang-up website and having numerous pointing pages created. There are professional services that can do this.
If your one bit of short-time experience in the same city as the bad guy is relatively minor, consider excluding it altogether. Otherwise, consult with that former employer to see if there is an alternate location you may list as the job location. Explain the reasoning why you'd want to do so. If you left on good terms, and if the company does have another location, they may be willing to help you out. If they do agree to do so, be sure to ask for a note to be added to your file, to prevent a low-ranking HR pawn from say "no, he actually worked in our other location." Receiving a letter from the company that reviews your mutual agreement would be a good back-up plan.
Consider adding a sworn affidavit to your submitted resume and reference pack. The subject of the affidavit is that you are not the listed abuser. It might pique their interest enough to make them look things up, but it could also backfire--knowing you have the same name as an infamous person might make them want to avoid you. Could you envision any company wanting to hire a sales person named Adolf Hitler or a similar varient?
I just deleted ("deactivated") my Facebook account based on the change in the Terms of Service. I noted, in my parting comments, that Facebook neither notified me of this change nor required my affirmation of it, so I opted to terminate my account under terms of service that were in place prior to 2/4/09. I specifically noted that I did not accept their claim to perpetual use of my content, and told them that I would gladly pursue legal action, if necessary, to protect my rights as defined in the earlier terms of service.
How do they respond to the ADA and various regulations that mandate things like designing websites so that they can be read by screen readers? How's this any different from that? Just think--millions and millions of parents are now copyright infringers for reading "Goodnight Moon" or "The Cat in the Hat" to their kids!
I don't know if you are trying to read the article as literally pertaining only to the O/S, but it seems pretty clear to me that they are trying to reduce the amount of bloat that is installed with a typical O/S install. Therefore, while removing MySQL is not actually trimming the O/S, it is reducing the footprint of the install.
No, the user accounts on the client machines don't need to be Admins for access to the domain. Many times, other corporate mandated software (especially antivirus--for the update process) required admin access on the local machine. If company policy stated that no machine could be on the network without the corporate anti-virus package, then it would be a logical conclusion that someone might frame it in the sense of admin rights being required for domain access.
Would it be that hard to operate in an environment where you need to put in a high-access password to execute specific types of code (e.g., EXE, MSI, some ActiveX controls) if it means that your PC would be much less vulnerable to exploits, and that your machine would not be as likely to propogate crap to others' PCs?
Admins and power users can add users and machines to a domain. In most businesses though (large enough to have at least one IT person), the accounts are added to the domain by someone in IT, and not by the users.
Actually, having just purchased a new machine at retail recently, there were boxes on the shelf with Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, and Vista Ultimate (?).
Why can't Microsoft get a clue and just release one version of the O/S. Sure, they may need a stripped-down version for the developing world, but give us one O/S, and then include all the extra bells and whistles on the installation media and let the consumer choose between a default install and a custom install.
It's also important to note that real U.S. passports actually have shielding (effectively, a Farraday cage) built into the covers so that the RFID chip is only able to be powered and transmit when the passport is opened.
Corporate IT rolls may be getting smaller, but there are many small-to-midsized busiensses that are still handing IT in an ad-hoc manner and are in need of bringing on IT help. Some come to the realization on their own and post for positions, some buy into the outsourcing economy (near-shore, or shared call centers and network administration), and some are still struggling day by day with knowledgable people in a variety of positions doing IT tasks in addition to (or in place of) their primary responsibilities. The companies in that final category may be open to the right person pitching the benefits of having a full-time IT person on staff. Now, these won't necessarily be high-paying or glamor jobs, and they are more likely to be support-oriented(rather than developer-oriented), but they can provide a paycheck, and sometimes might provide other less tangible benefits compared to corporate life (e.g., rural or semi-rural location, greater variety of tasks {vs. specialization}, more responsibility, increased professional freedom).
As another IT manager, I know it's my can in a sling if the license status of the software is questioned and found to be illegal or unauthorized under my watch. It's not only my reputation on the line, but my company's reputation. When I took a stand on a recent plan proposed by one of our consultants, I knew that I was putting my neck out, but I was not going to let my name be listed as a supporter and implementor of a solution that would clearly violate our contract with a service provider. [The consultant wanted us to purchase a limited number of licenses for an online SaaS solution and then share the logon information with everyone in the company when the contract states in plain English that user accounts are intened for individual users and may not be shared.]
I know many of you may shudder at the thought that a company continues to use M$ products, but that decision was already made in this case. Being an American company, comliance with licensing terms is something to which the company may well be held accountable. I think the best advice I've seen here is for this manager to document his concerns, communicate them up and down the tree, and then decide if he is comfortable working in the environment if management continues to overlook the issue.
In my situation, I expressed my concerns about the company's reputation and legal liability issues to my upline, and I offered to walk (while making it clear that staying was my preference) if my stance was incompatible with the company's views on licensing and contract law. Two weeks later, we purchased the additional licenses, and I still have a job.
Sorry to violate the premises of your fantasy world, but I have no connection to India. I'm just a conservative who lives in a fly-over state who is willing to fairly assess the quality of goods and services.
You've not been following the Indian manufacturing industry. They are making leaps and bounds in quality, and it should not be assumed that Indian goods are junk.
Would views of Microsoft change if they only offered one version of each operating system (equivalent to the Professional or Ultimate edition) and they charged only $50 per license?
A lot of Microsoft supporters might think such a scenario is impossible. Is it? Really? How much time and money is committed to code, configure, and market the different versions? How much support time is lost to customers who call in and ask "Why can't I do this...?" when the answer is "You need to upgrade to a different version of the current operating system. Hasn't Microsoft figured out that an increasing number of home users are starting to have complex networking needs at home, and that the idea of a "simple" operating system for home use is as antiquated as a manual typewriter?
I hope that someone from Microsoft reads this and has an epiphany. The company's bottom line could be even better if they standardized on a single operating system platform,
And to all you who will argue that even $50 is too much to spend for a proprietary operating system, is it, really? My guess is that most consumers, myself included, would be far more likely to buy a Microsoft operating system if the price was reasonable. Hey, if I can drop $50 for a Wii game, why not $50 for my PC? There will always be reasons to consider Linux or other operating system alternatives, but if Microsoft's prices were to drop, the Linux community would need to concentrate more on giving consumers a better user experience, rather than one that just mimics the functionality of Windows (okay Apple people, don't get your dander up--I'm just making a point here).
And now, the same bill that would supposedly protect people from being photographed unwittingly will now also mean no one will ever be able to hide under a bed or in a closet and snap a picture of the man who killed mommy or daddy! What will the writers of all of our crime shows do now? As soon as that camera clicks, the baddy will go from having perpetrated a double murder to a triple.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy is using Hotmail, and everything is being transmitted in plain text. Just pass a new law that installs as many sniffers as the Brits have security cams, and everyone will have access to the information!
Sorry, but you can't speak for all people with kids.
Actually, I do believe basic troubleshooting can be documented. When I first picked up a contract service gig, through a service clearning house called TechForce (started by a bunch of techies from Paradyne, if memory serves correctly), they actually had a number of basic troubleshooting sheets and flowcharts that were quite good. I was past the need for them, but found them invaluable when I hired my "remote screwdrivers"--some of whom had no troubleshooting experience.
They all walked the reader through a basic process-of elimination process. For example, to troubleshoot a system that would not power-on, they had users start by disconnecting the input devices, then attempt to power on. If it powered on, you reconnected the devices one at a time until you found the one that inhibited the unit from powering on. It went on like that until the remote screwdriver would get down to the bare mainboard. Yes, any experienced tech could have narrowed down the problem faster than such a documented process, but it allowed it to be done by users with little or no experience. I've seen similar guides used in retail and manufacturing--guides that help the end-users complete basic troubleshooting tasks before they call in for help.
The point of the matter is this: I agree that the troubleshooting mindset is an analytical mindset, but I do believe that it is a process that can be taught.
I'm sure many people have had bad experiences where a remote tech is only able to stick to their documented script or troubleshooting guide. That's where such systems fail, but also where people who "get it" can excel. It took me a couple of months with my service clearing house to develop a reputation for being able to correctly diagnose issues (mostly because, in the early days, they trumped my recommendations and sent out the wrong part time and again--they eventually remembered that I was right more often than not). That allowed me to depart from their scripts. I got to the point where I could identify mis-diagnoses over the phone, saving the company money by not having to pay me twice for service calls for the same issue (and saving myself the hassle of running someplace twice). I will admit that it was probably much easier for me than it was for some of my techs (and even some of my students--I teach technology PT on top of my day job), but I've seen, time and again, non-technical people learn troubleshooting skills.
I think that detailed, step-by-step instructions are overkill for an experienced tech, but they are also a safeguard--if something goes wrong and you followed the documented procedure, your butt is covered. If not, and you claim the "years of experience" or "I've done this a million times" defense, you'll just end up as an easy target during the next round of layoffs. As for me, I don't mind if my day-to-day support duties can be passed off to some "drone"--just so long as it frees me up to pursue projects that are more rewarding. No one wants to document themselves out of a job, but that is really an irrational fear.
More than knowledge, what employers really want is sound judgment. I can always provide training to someone regarding technical things, but it's a lot harder to teach people how to make good decisions. I'll hire someone with a reputation for making sound judgments ahead of someone with boatlaods of experience and a reputation for not making the best decisions any day of the week.
Arguing that the cat did it will be about as valid a defense as saying, "My Bic ballpoint pen clicked the button."
The courts won't care what device actually depressed the key, especially since this device was designed specifically to let the cat take the bum rap.
In case anyone is wondering about the apparent contradiction in my post: I left facebook when Slashdot posted news about the new TOS. I read Facebook's statement about the reversal when a family member saw it this morning when she visited Facebook.
The explanation they posted to users makes sense: that the type of content they wanted to consider perpetually theirs for use was information you (the Facebook user) posted to another Facebook user's wall, or to a group discussion, or something along those lines. That would be a reasonable expectation for any user of an online service.
My main gripe was that, if taken as written, the 2/4/09 TOS left users totally stowed--there was no clarification as to the types of information they intended to keep. While IANAL, I do know enough about contract law to know this: you are held to the letter of the contract, not the intent. The new TOS said (per my simple paraphrase): "if you post it, we can use it for any reason, forever, even if you choose to leave Facebook." I didn't want them making claim to my photos, or even selling them to some third party.
I ditched my FB account on the day the news about the new TOS was posted here (I had received NO notice of the change from Facebook). Even with this backpeddling, I'm not sure I'm going back. They have, after all, only promised to revert to the old TOS while they assess the user complaints and try to develop a new TOS document that will more clearly define their rights vs. user rights. I won't decide until after that new TOS is available for review.
Your "hit by a bus" scenario hits the nail on the head. I've been working for the past nine months to establish an IT department that, previously, did everying as an IT ad-hocracy. Passwords, which were once kept in an MS Word document on the LAN, are now tucked away safely in my grey matter and archived in an encrypted password storage application. That application has a password that is 45 characters long. The safeguard, in case I am ever "hit by a bus" or otherwise relieved of my duties is this: the two senior officers have copies of the password in an appropriately sealed and labeled set of envelopes that are kept in two separate, locked locations. If I'm ever gone and they need the passwords, they can unlock the safe, open the envelope, and get into the password storage and retreival system.
If the person on the blog in question shares only your first and last name, you could migrate to using your full legal name (including your middle name), to help your hits stand out from the other's.
Aside from that, others have already suggested you change your name. It's probably not the ideal solution, but it could help. Of course, many job applications and formal intake processes ask you to disclose former identities...
You could contact the blogger, and ask him or her to add a one-line tag near the top of the blog entry (so as to appear in the text visible when searching) that provides a link to a site of your choosing. Consider text like "The individual below is not the same person as Joe Blow of Vancouver, BC". Of course, the danger there is that the bad guy will then decide to find out more about you and will begin to use your current address and other information.
Others have already suggested building your own bang-up website and having numerous pointing pages created. There are professional services that can do this.
If your one bit of short-time experience in the same city as the bad guy is relatively minor, consider excluding it altogether. Otherwise, consult with that former employer to see if there is an alternate location you may list as the job location. Explain the reasoning why you'd want to do so. If you left on good terms, and if the company does have another location, they may be willing to help you out. If they do agree to do so, be sure to ask for a note to be added to your file, to prevent a low-ranking HR pawn from say "no, he actually worked in our other location." Receiving a letter from the company that reviews your mutual agreement would be a good back-up plan.
Consider adding a sworn affidavit to your submitted resume and reference pack. The subject of the affidavit is that you are not the listed abuser. It might pique their interest enough to make them look things up, but it could also backfire--knowing you have the same name as an infamous person might make them want to avoid you. Could you envision any company wanting to hire a sales person named Adolf Hitler or a similar varient?
Best of luck to you.
I'll be glad to be the test case.
I just deleted ("deactivated") my Facebook account based on the change in the Terms of Service. I noted, in my parting comments, that Facebook neither notified me of this change nor required my affirmation of it, so I opted to terminate my account under terms of service that were in place prior to 2/4/09. I specifically noted that I did not accept their claim to perpetual use of my content, and told them that I would gladly pursue legal action, if necessary, to protect my rights as defined in the earlier terms of service.
How do they respond to the ADA and various regulations that mandate things like designing websites so that they can be read by screen readers? How's this any different from that? Just think--millions and millions of parents are now copyright infringers for reading "Goodnight Moon" or "The Cat in the Hat" to their kids!
My most sincere condolences...
Now you never have weekends or time off.
I don't know if you are trying to read the article as literally pertaining only to the O/S, but it seems pretty clear to me that they are trying to reduce the amount of bloat that is installed with a typical O/S install. Therefore, while removing MySQL is not actually trimming the O/S, it is reducing the footprint of the install.
No, the user accounts on the client machines don't need to be Admins for access to the domain. Many times, other corporate mandated software (especially antivirus--for the update process) required admin access on the local machine. If company policy stated that no machine could be on the network without the corporate anti-virus package, then it would be a logical conclusion that someone might frame it in the sense of admin rights being required for domain access.
Regarding your sig--if you eat jalepenos every day, the but burning goes away.
Would it be that hard to operate in an environment where you need to put in a high-access password to execute specific types of code (e.g., EXE, MSI, some ActiveX controls) if it means that your PC would be much less vulnerable to exploits, and that your machine would not be as likely to propogate crap to others' PCs?
Admins and power users can add users and machines to a domain. In most businesses though (large enough to have at least one IT person), the accounts are added to the domain by someone in IT, and not by the users.
Actually, having just purchased a new machine at retail recently, there were boxes on the shelf with Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, and Vista Ultimate (?).
Why can't Microsoft get a clue and just release one version of the O/S. Sure, they may need a stripped-down version for the developing world, but give us one O/S, and then include all the extra bells and whistles on the installation media and let the consumer choose between a default install and a custom install.
It's also important to note that real U.S. passports actually have shielding (effectively, a Farraday cage) built into the covers so that the RFID chip is only able to be powered and transmit when the passport is opened.
Corporate IT rolls may be getting smaller, but there are many small-to-midsized busiensses that are still handing IT in an ad-hoc manner and are in need of bringing on IT help. Some come to the realization on their own and post for positions, some buy into the outsourcing economy (near-shore, or shared call centers and network administration), and some are still struggling day by day with knowledgable people in a variety of positions doing IT tasks in addition to (or in place of) their primary responsibilities. The companies in that final category may be open to the right person pitching the benefits of having a full-time IT person on staff.
Now, these won't necessarily be high-paying or glamor jobs, and they are more likely to be support-oriented(rather than developer-oriented), but they can provide a paycheck, and sometimes might provide other less tangible benefits compared to corporate life (e.g., rural or semi-rural location, greater variety of tasks {vs. specialization}, more responsibility, increased professional freedom).
As another IT manager, I know it's my can in a sling if the license status of the software is questioned and found to be illegal or unauthorized under my watch. It's not only my reputation on the line, but my company's reputation. When I took a stand on a recent plan proposed by one of our consultants, I knew that I was putting my neck out, but I was not going to let my name be listed as a supporter and implementor of a solution that would clearly violate our contract with a service provider. [The consultant wanted us to purchase a limited number of licenses for an online SaaS solution and then share the logon information with everyone in the company when the contract states in plain English that user accounts are intened for individual users and may not be shared.]
I know many of you may shudder at the thought that a company continues to use M$ products, but that decision was already made in this case. Being an American company, comliance with licensing terms is something to which the company may well be held accountable. I think the best advice I've seen here is for this manager to document his concerns, communicate them up and down the tree, and then decide if he is comfortable working in the environment if management continues to overlook the issue.
In my situation, I expressed my concerns about the company's reputation and legal liability issues to my upline, and I offered to walk (while making it clear that staying was my preference) if my stance was incompatible with the company's views on licensing and contract law. Two weeks later, we purchased the additional licenses, and I still have a job.
Sorry to violate the premises of your fantasy world, but I have no connection to India. I'm just a conservative who lives in a fly-over state who is willing to fairly assess the quality of goods and services.
You've not been following the Indian manufacturing industry. They are making leaps and bounds in quality, and it should not be assumed that Indian goods are junk.
How true...you had me laughing so loud people here were wondering if I was watching sitcoms at my desk again.
Would views of Microsoft change if they only offered one version of each operating system (equivalent to the Professional or Ultimate edition) and they charged only $50 per license?
A lot of Microsoft supporters might think such a scenario is impossible. Is it? Really? How much time and money is committed to code, configure, and market the different versions? How much support time is lost to customers who call in and ask "Why can't I do this...?" when the answer is "You need to upgrade to a different version of the current operating system. Hasn't Microsoft figured out that an increasing number of home users are starting to have complex networking needs at home, and that the idea of a "simple" operating system for home use is as antiquated as a manual typewriter?
I hope that someone from Microsoft reads this and has an epiphany. The company's bottom line could be even better if they standardized on a single operating system platform,
And to all you who will argue that even $50 is too much to spend for a proprietary operating system, is it, really? My guess is that most consumers, myself included, would be far more likely to buy a Microsoft operating system if the price was reasonable. Hey, if I can drop $50 for a Wii game, why not $50 for my PC? There will always be reasons to consider Linux or other operating system alternatives, but if Microsoft's prices were to drop, the Linux community would need to concentrate more on giving consumers a better user experience, rather than one that just mimics the functionality of Windows (okay Apple people, don't get your dander up--I'm just making a point here).
And now, the same bill that would supposedly protect people from being photographed unwittingly will now also mean no one will ever be able to hide under a bed or in a closet and snap a picture of the man who killed mommy or daddy! What will the writers of all of our crime shows do now? As soon as that camera clicks, the baddy will go from having perpetrated a double murder to a triple.