Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types.
Or their ability to find BS stuff to do in order to validate their existence.
I won't even tell you about the lawyers I've had to battle (in 2 different corporations) because they wanted a complete list of all of the Open Source libraries and associated copyrights, BEFORE we even started the project.
They'd heard all about this "Open Source" thing and how evil it could be, after all, and wanted to protect the company.
They wouldn't green light the project until we provided that list, and yet we didn't even really know what we were building for them, never mind what we were using.
The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.
We had 4 developers spend an entire week doing that. At the client's expense.
The end result was that the lawyer eventually backed down on their request, but not until after we outlined all of the expenses incurred as a result of their initial request.
The owner of that company canned the lawyer shortly after that.
But that was still a solid week of wasted time that I'll never get back.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
Except that he's specifically talking about an IT Manager, not a programming team's project manager, etc.
If you take a look at the specific roles and responsibilities of most IT Managers, it involves making decisions about technology, as well as managing those people that work directly with it.
In my opinion, you have to have someone that came up through the trenches to do a proper job in that role.
Will some non-technical IT Managers do well? Sure... nothing is absolute.
Wow... you must know of some special grades, as mine have never hacked anything, never mind actually DONE something... but alas, we won't know what those hacking grades did because you totally forgot to tell us what they did the next day with, apparently, NORAD.
Too bad we can't have a "learn-basic-grammar" modifier to rep points.
We support 9 different large-scale, global environments for various development and testing activities (never mind production), and they all run the same installation/update process.
Every night, the ENTIRE system is built, tested, deployed, stress/load/performance tested, etc... all automagically.
If you don't do that, then yes, you are very likely to be prone to such errors.
Maybe he's just an ass, and they want to get rid of him, and are looking for any "legal" way to do so other than just firing him for being an ass? Might not be an age thing at all...
Sure, the authentication might be secure, but what about the content? It's still plain text, and easily snarfable. If someone's doing any kind of admin via telnet, then that admin info is somewhat easily available.
But hey, "right tool for the right job" and all that... if they find that their use cases and pertinent security threat assessments can allow for cleartext communications, then more power to them.
I also don't really consider "kerberos-enabled telnet" to be "telnet"... it's more like telnet on steroids.
For me, and the environments I work in (banks, governments, etc), ssh is the no-brainer choice, and telnet is disabled.
I didn't say that they couldn't... but that maybe they haven't developed it yet...
Just because they can, doesn't mean that it was worth the ROI for them to do so. Or that they have other priorities right now, like making things work with Vista.
It could very well be a business decision to not support it.
It could also be that there's no money to be made by doing so.
Maybe it's just that they don't have the technical infrastructure to support non-DRM'd sales?
It's not like it's stopping Nettwerk from selling their stuff on iTunes... a quick search for obscure stuff like Download and popular stuff like Sarah McLachlan shows that they're available.
I'm much more inclined to believe and would want to be informed about the initial takedown results from a 6 month surveillance operation than be exposed to the constant knee-jerk "it's a bomb!" media blitz and overreaction about the lite-brites.
Now that I think about it, I think the thing that REALLY pisses me off is just how seriously all of the media outlets are reporting the "suspicious devices" story, instead of treating it like the funny/silly/stupid overreaction that it is.
If they reported it as "you're not going to believe what just happened in Boston..." with a bit of a rolling of the eyes and a chuckle, I'd have no problem with it.
To jump on it and blow it all up and out of proportion as they have, as if they might have actually just uncovered the ultimate terror attack, well, that's pushing my tolerance. Especially since that kind of reaction just adds fuel to the fire, as it were.
EVERY time you see something that you "think" is a suspiscious package/bomb, then call them in.
Show them just how stupid the whole situation is becoming. The media has everyone so scared that it's pretty well incapacitated the nation, and everyone's increasingly paranoid.
Man... they aren't kidding when they say "the terrorists have already won".
And I love how the uber-lite-brites are getting all the press while A REAL TERRORIST PLOT was uncovered today in the UK.
The point I was trying to make is that a turbo-prop is more effective than a turbo-jet when it comes to fuel efficiency, etc.
You get more distance per lbs of fuel with a turbo-prop than a turbo-jet, you are just limited to how fast it can go.
If you want to go fast, turbo-jets are the way to go. You get there faster, but it costs more fuel.
Shorter hops (domestic/regional flights) that use turbo-prop won't really care if you're only going 70% (number pulled out of my ass, BTW) as fast as a turbo-jet, as it's only a 5-10 minute difference. But stretch that out over a few thousand miles (cross-country, transatlantic, etc), and that 30% can represent hours of "extra" time added onto a flight, which would piss off the passengers.
I shouldn't have said the decision has "nothing" to do with maintenance, as it's a part of the big picture.
But forgetting maintenance, it's much more efficient and cost effective to run turbines at altitude. Throwing maintenance factors into the equations and it's still a better ROI to run turbines than pistons.
Especially when you're talking about ETA for the customer.
For short hops (commuters, etc) turbo-props are more cost effective, for long-haul (cross country, intercontinental, etc), turbojet is the way to go.
A number of executive "jets" are now going to turbo prop (Piaggio P180 for instance) due to their cost effectiveness. Not as fast getting you there, but way cheaper. Not having to deal with domestic air carriers is enough of a reward to justify the slightly longer ETA.
Slashdot Mirror
Never underestimate the ignorance of many lawyer types.
Or their ability to find BS stuff to do in order to validate their existence.
I won't even tell you about the lawyers I've had to battle (in 2 different corporations) because they wanted a complete list of all of the Open Source libraries and associated copyrights, BEFORE we even started the project.
They'd heard all about this "Open Source" thing and how evil it could be, after all, and wanted to protect the company.
They wouldn't green light the project until we provided that list, and yet we didn't even really know what we were building for them, never mind what we were using.
The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.
We had 4 developers spend an entire week doing that. At the client's expense.
The end result was that the lawyer eventually backed down on their request, but not until after we outlined all of the expenses incurred as a result of their initial request.
The owner of that company canned the lawyer shortly after that.
But that was still a solid week of wasted time that I'll never get back.
I guess it depends on the web services.
A lot of LinkedIn stuff is in Ruby... over a billion page views a month and growing.
Their Bumper Sticker app alone has huge numbers.
Interesting read here: http://blog.linkedin.com/2008/06/23/web-scalability-practices-bumper-sticker-on-rails/
Fuck Greenpeace.
Except that he's specifically talking about an IT Manager, not a programming team's project manager, etc.
If you take a look at the specific roles and responsibilities of most IT Managers, it involves making decisions about technology, as well as managing those people that work directly with it.
In my opinion, you have to have someone that came up through the trenches to do a proper job in that role.
Will some non-technical IT Managers do well? Sure... nothing is absolute.
But I tend to agree with him on this one.
I'd buy one of those... that'd actually be a pretty funny thing to hang up in the office.
Wow... you must know of some special grades, as mine have never hacked anything, never mind actually DONE something... but alas, we won't know what those hacking grades did because you totally forgot to tell us what they did the next day with, apparently, NORAD.
Too bad we can't have a "learn-basic-grammar" modifier to rep points.
Because you have an automated installation/deployment tool that does a bare-metal install of everything on a box.
(something like Sun's SPS http://www.sun.com/software/products/sunmanagementcenter/index.xml)
At least, if you're a pro you do.
We support 9 different large-scale, global environments for various development and testing activities (never mind production), and they all run the same installation/update process.
Every night, the ENTIRE system is built, tested, deployed, stress/load/performance tested, etc... all automagically.
If you don't do that, then yes, you are very likely to be prone to such errors.
Maybe for small projects, but in my experience, if you follow that doctrine on any large projects and you'd be screwed.
FWIW, I've developed some incredibly large world-wide distributed databases for 3 of the top 5 online video game companies.
Except that "they" ARE "us"... they just choose to use their powers for evil.
Yeah, because after all, it's not like cel calls can be sniffed anyways or anything.
Besides, it's a well established fact that the shortest possible network route is via a pipeline in Malaysia.
I agree... it works that way here in BC (Vancouver).
Yeah... they should have just sent out an email to all the BlackBerries saying email would be disrupted for a while....
Maybe he's just an ass, and they want to get rid of him, and are looking for any "legal" way to do so other than just firing him for being an ass? Might not be an age thing at all...
Of course... but that's not at all the same thing as running a telnet daemon and using that to establish a command line on the server.
Sure, the authentication might be secure, but what about the content? It's still plain text, and easily snarfable. If someone's doing any kind of admin via telnet, then that admin info is somewhat easily available.
But hey, "right tool for the right job" and all that... if they find that their use cases and pertinent security threat assessments can allow for cleartext communications, then more power to them.
I also don't really consider "kerberos-enabled telnet" to be "telnet"... it's more like telnet on steroids.
For me, and the environments I work in (banks, governments, etc), ssh is the no-brainer choice, and telnet is disabled.
Who the hell even THINKS about enabling telnet on any box these days?
Huh?
I didn't say that they couldn't... but that maybe they haven't developed it yet...
Just because they can, doesn't mean that it was worth the ROI for them to do so. Or that they have other priorities right now, like making things work with Vista.
It could very well be a business decision to not support it.
It could also be that there's no money to be made by doing so.
Maybe it's just that they don't have the technical infrastructure to support non-DRM'd sales?
It's not like it's stopping Nettwerk from selling their stuff on iTunes... a quick search for obscure stuff like Download and popular stuff like Sarah McLachlan shows that they're available.
I'm much more inclined to believe and would want to be informed about the initial takedown results from a 6 month surveillance operation than be exposed to the constant knee-jerk "it's a bomb!" media blitz and overreaction about the lite-brites.
Now that I think about it, I think the thing that REALLY pisses me off is just how seriously all of the media outlets are reporting the "suspicious devices" story, instead of treating it like the funny/silly/stupid overreaction that it is.
If they reported it as "you're not going to believe what just happened in Boston..." with a bit of a rolling of the eyes and a chuckle, I'd have no problem with it.
To jump on it and blow it all up and out of proportion as they have, as if they might have actually just uncovered the ultimate terror attack, well, that's pushing my tolerance. Especially since that kind of reaction just adds fuel to the fire, as it were.
Hell, I say go nuts.
EVERY time you see something that you "think" is a suspiscious package/bomb, then call them in.
Show them just how stupid the whole situation is becoming. The media has everyone so scared that it's pretty well incapacitated the nation, and everyone's increasingly paranoid.
Man... they aren't kidding when they say "the terrorists have already won".
And I love how the uber-lite-brites are getting all the press while A REAL TERRORIST PLOT was uncovered today in the UK.
Yep... that says it all right there...
I say treat that as an on-line hit list, and have them whacked.
I would gladly pay a few bucks to fund such an operation.
Yes, but is that large mass benign, or malignant?
The point I was trying to make is that a turbo-prop is more effective than a turbo-jet when it comes to fuel efficiency, etc.
You get more distance per lbs of fuel with a turbo-prop than a turbo-jet, you are just limited to how fast it can go.
If you want to go fast, turbo-jets are the way to go. You get there faster, but it costs more fuel.
Shorter hops (domestic/regional flights) that use turbo-prop won't really care if you're only going 70% (number pulled out of my ass, BTW) as fast as a turbo-jet, as it's only a 5-10 minute difference. But stretch that out over a few thousand miles (cross-country, transatlantic, etc), and that 30% can represent hours of "extra" time added onto a flight, which would piss off the passengers.
Uhmmm... yes, that's right... wasn't trying to say otherwise.
As far as I know, ALL turbo-props are exactly that. It's still a turbine, but it uses props instead of jet thrust, and is much more efficient.
You just can't go as fast with a prop as you can with a jet.
Point taken.
I shouldn't have said the decision has "nothing" to do with maintenance, as it's a part of the big picture.
But forgetting maintenance, it's much more efficient and cost effective to run turbines at altitude. Throwing maintenance factors into the equations and it's still a better ROI to run turbines than pistons.
Especially when you're talking about ETA for the customer.
For short hops (commuters, etc) turbo-props are more cost effective, for long-haul (cross country, intercontinental, etc), turbojet is the way to go.
A number of executive "jets" are now going to turbo prop (Piaggio P180 for instance) due to their cost effectiveness. Not as fast getting you there, but way cheaper. Not having to deal with domestic air carriers is enough of a reward to justify the slightly longer ETA.