But in case you're serious, it's the same reason junkies who've collapsed all their easily accessible veins resort to shooting up behind their eyeballs. I need my fix.
Whoever owns the systems, and their designated agents, have a right to have access. If they ask you for access, give it to them. It's that simple. You don't have to give them your password, you do have to give them a password that gives them access. In the cases of routers, this is often a shared password like an enable password.
Who owns those systems? Not his boss -- the City does. And the City did not give his boss authority to get the passwords directly from him. The City established a set of rules for transferring the passwords, and his boss tried to circumvent those rules.
This guy's boss was not acting within the rules established for him to act as a proxy for the City (if we're going to follow your ownership logic). So who's acting responsibly... the guy who chose to follow the rules despite the risk of adverse personal impact? Or the guy who wanted to ride roughshod over the rules in the interest of expediency?
He refused to hand over passwords when ordered to do so by his superior and his superior's superiors.
He was, at best, a total jerkwad about the thing. He let his admin position go to his head. Even if his boss was a total buttwipe, he (or she) was still his boss. He simply should have completely documented his protest and handed over the passwords.
It's not as clear cut as that. From what I understand, we was operating under a specific protocol for release of the passwords, that excluded the possibility of him handing them over to his bosses at their request.
So what's more important -- following the established rules, or doing as your boss says? In a perfect world (not that we operate in one), the rules are more important than the individual. If the boss wanted the passwords directly handed over, then the boss should have gotten the rules changed to allow that.
Just because someone is your boss doesn't make you their slave. And if you believe your boss is doing something wrong, it is morally incorrect to do as you are told, even if you document your protests.
Although, it does seem likely the guy was being a jerkwad... that doesn't mean he was an incorrect jerkwad, or a jerkwad acting illegally.
Troll would be for some purposely offensive post designed to provoke a flame war, not a straight-forward opinion like this.
No, that would be "flamebait".
Flamebait is a subset of troll. Trolls, according to the original interpretation (by my reckoning) are people who make disingenuously ignorant or incorrect posts in order to elicit corrective responses. Really, trolling is just making posts to get responses out of other people.
Good trolls make posts that seem like sincere opinions or sincere misunderstandings, but the entire point of the post is to get people to take you seriously. Hence it's sometimes very hard to determine if someone is trolling or not. This works best when the person doing the trolling is a known expert, so that people who are "in the know" can catch the joke.
People who post flamebait are trying to incite a flamewar, which is slightly different, and usually more obvious.
Regardless of where it *should* be, the fact is that in that company, responsibility lies with HR -- and he was given that information. If he is looking out for the company's security, then he should be feeding his helpful information to the responsible party, not calling someone else out for it.
Decisions on who *should* be handling it are a different matter... although it's already been made clear to him that IT doesn't want it. If HR wants to pass it onto IT, let them work it out. Pragmatically, what is important is that the copier data is secured.
Also shouldn't the manufacture's be responsible for this somewhat? It's obvious when you save a document to a computer that the drive needs to be wiped, not so obvious when it's a copy machine. Shouldn't there be big warning labels and a "wipe all" button on the back somewhere? Sharp apparently offers a product to wipe copy machine hard drives.... for $500:
I worked for a company a few years ago where one of the things I did was to oversee all leases and support contracts, including copier leases. Our support contracts had language specifying the requirement for drive wipes on location at the termination of the support contract (which, of course, coincided with the termination of the lease).
Why didn't you email the local head of HR? The guy told you who is responsible...
Instead now you have a situation where you're calling someone out on something that is not their responsibility... that's not the nicest (or most effective!) way of handling it.
Slashdot with the Apple section switched off. Bliss!
Bliss would be Slashdot with the following sections turned off:
Idle Main Apple AskSlashdot Book Reviews Developers Games Hardware Idle (yes, this one should be turned off again) IT Index Interviews Linux Mobile Politics Science Technology YRO Idle (just in case we missed it the first two times)
THAT would be bliss... pure, unadulterated zen bliss.
No, it's anecdotal based on a dairy owning friend who likes to complain about the activists who want the cows to be free range, and the number of complaints about milk quality he gets when he does.
What's the forage like on his farm?
A lot of plants that affect milk taste grow in pastures that are not maintained properly for free-range dairy cattle. An easily identifiable one is wild garlic (which basically means your milk is only good for feeding to hogs).
I think it's mistaken to assume the problem is stress from exercise, and not some other factors. The only time exercise itself is going to negatively affect milk composition is if the cattle are undernourished for the amount of exercise they get.
Unfortunately, increasing exercise will reduce the tastiness of both milk and meat. The meat gets leaner (the fat is the part that gives is great taste, and is why kobe is legally required to have a minimum fat content). The milk tends to have more stress byproducts, but that impact is less important.
Do you have any citation for the difference in milk between exercised and non-exercised cows?
I'm curious, as I'm not sure what "stress byproducts" are... but it's known that among humans, exercise during lactation does not change the makeup of breast milk, except when exercise is extremely vigorous (unlike these treadmills), and even then the impact is temporary (lasting less than 1 hour). Furthermore, there is no different in fat content, protein content, etc.
I'm not saying that cows are biologically the same as humans... I just question that exercise would affect milk production differently among different mammals when I couldn't find any evidence to support that conclusion.
IBM had a traditional business model that involved giving the OS away for free to leverage hardware sales, and did quite well with it. IBM supports Linux because it can still be used to leverage hardware sales, but the support costs are much less -- all they really need to do is support the drivers specific to their own hardware. Sun and Apple also used software to leverage hardware sales.
Woah, dude... it's 2010. That business model has been on the outs for more than a decade.
IBM's revenue is now dominated by services, not hardware. IBM was tanking until they moved away from that model... now both hardware and software play into services and consulting as the drivers of revenue.
Oracle, as a traditional software-only vendor, does not understand this. However, I believe the best strategy for Oracle going forward is to sell databases pre-installed on hardware they control. This both allows them to charge a lot more (see Network General Sniffer) and lowers their software support costs.
Oracle is looking to supply the whole stack to its customers. Hardware, software, support -- tailored products for specific industries. Look at today's announced acquisition of Phase Forward.
And FWIW, services is also where Oracle forecasts the most growth.
I was reading an article some time ago that suggested that the economics play out in favor of having more smokers on public healthcare. Lifetime, we pay less if they smoke and die early than if they don't smoke and die of something else.
It implies that the wife owns the bedroom, and the husband only sleeps there because she allows him to.
See my response to previous post re: exaggeration for humor.
But in reality, if there is tension between us, I'd rather sleep in a different room... I have enough trouble falling asleep without having the complication of tension with the person next to me.
And FWIW, she can own the bedroom... as long as I get to own the kitchen, garage, and basement:)
FWIW, I actually am happily married... while my wife did complain about not getting a big refund check, and I did ask her why she didn't complain about the extra cashflow & investment during the year... I didn't have to sleep on the couch. We're pretty good at being polite to each other & not going to bed disappointed/upset/angry with each other.
There may have been some exaggeration of the relationship details for humor purposes... but the facts of the cash etc are the same.
The truth is, I don't have a wife. The only person I sleep with in my bed is an inflatable doll I call Sally, and she doesn't complain much about money.
I slept on the couch last night because I couldn't be bothered getting the Cheetos crumbs out of my sheets, and the night before last they scratched me up something fierce.
I am the only one that is surprised people actually pay for a screensavers these days when there are so many wonderful free ones?
I know, right?
It's trivial to get free screen savers from just about any website, I see the flashing ads all the time.
Once you've downloaded it, you just need to click the box to give it permission to run. It's just a screensaver, and the website the ad took me to looks really good, like they hired a professional to make it. They sell screensavers too, so they're a legitimate site... they're just giving away free ones as a sample.
Not to change the subject, but slashdot is a good place to ask... does anyone know why every time a buy a new modem, it takes only a few days before the thing is flashing day and night, even when I'm not using the big blue E to get to Myspace?
I used to do the same thing... but found an easy way to make sure I didn't have easy access to the money, but could still earn interest on it during the year.
Set up automatic withdrawals from your regular bank account(s), to be deposited into an investment account. It's very cheap to do, and if you seed it with a few thousand when you set it up, you won't get hit with monthly fees for maintaining a low balance. Different banks have different products for this kind of service, so talk to your banker.
You could also set up rolling CDs to do about the same thing, but I prefer having the separate investment account, since I can tap it in case of emergency without penalty.
By those numbers the average refund is $2143.88. WTF.
Not surprising to me. My wife was bitching at me last night because we paid in less than $50 instead of getting a multi-thousand-dollar refund like her friends at work. They're all blowing the cash on down payments for new cars, vacations to the Caribbean, etc. Meanwhile, I continue to budget for the big-ticket items and save for them on a monthly basis.
So I told her that she wasn't bitching when she was spending the extra $200 she took home each month, and she wasn't bitching when she saw the amount I had put into savings from my pay last year.
Needless to say, I slept on the couch.
But the point is that among people who get a refund, a lot of them get a BIG refund. Even when I was a kid, I was getting refunds around $2k because I was a dependent of my parents even though I made less than $20k a year.
Some kind of reproductive advantage, I'd guess. Here's some speculation:
1. Because babies who do not reject those who look different are less likely to survive
2. Because it's a manifestation of a trait that is important for reproductive survival later 2.1 Adults who choose to mate with those most physically like them are more likely to pass on their own genes, especially in tribal societies where members share a large portion of their genes. 2.2 Adults who don't reject different-looking mates end up fucking orangutans, which is useless in propagating their genes.
I'm sure that there are plenty more reproductive-advantage theories that could be posed.
I don't see you quoting any specific mortality figures, funny that.
I got the mortality rates from the site you provided. Go ahead, search for "infant mortality" then apply the filters to get to the same year range as the chart you provided.
Let me spell it out for you, since you seem a little slow: there are almost two and half fewer children born to each woman in India today vs. four decades ago. There is less than one child more per woman in India due to any difference in mortality rates. This is a net decrease of more than 1.5 children per woman. This is echoed throughout the other examples. Even if you added in child mortality (depending on your definition of child) that wouldn't change things by much more than a few hundreths in most cases, tenths in a few. Nowhere does it touch the still huge decreases in fertility.
Oh, I agree that infant and child mortality does not wholly displace the impact of reduced fertility. Where did I say that it did?
But I'm still wondering if you've bothered to account for any of the rest of the data that feeds into Malthus, like food production capacity (which, aside from the Green Revolution in the 70s and 80s, has been growing at a lower rate than population, when you normalize for bumper years and drought years).
For that matter, given that grain yields in India are likely actually decreasing, is it not possible that food availability has not already begun to impact population growth? That lower fertility reflects the decreased availability of food to a good portion of people in India?
I'm still curious if you have an valid criticism of Malthus, or if you're just spouting figures without an idea of relevancy.
If the figures are right, it's not. It's also unlikely for most changes to be exponential FOREVAR.
Of course not. It's limited by things like food availability. That's Malthus's fucking point. Glad it sunk in.
That's because you're assuming the numbers prove you right, when I have shown that they prove you wrong. You will proceed to stick your figures in your ears, because the facts don't fit your preconceived notions formulated by your worldview.
I'll do no such thing. You have proven nothing. You have used an oversimplified two-variable model with unstated assumptions in order to "prove" something. Go back to high school.
Oh well. No use arguing with people who are content to be ignorant, or can't be bothered to actually make an informed point.
I'm still waiting for your first valid, informed point. Please, do share if you've got one. All I've seen from you so far is "wharrgarble I have some numbers here that mean something, so I'm going to assume they mean what I want them to mean."
It's a matter of there being no such law. While NJ is a "restrictive yellow" state (meaning you must stop on yellow if safely able to do so), there is no law making it illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red, if you entered on yellow or green.
False. Obstructing Traffic and Delaying Traffic are still on the books.
Though, technically they are not moving violations, so I was wrong. But 'Unsafe Operation' IS a moving violation, and it has been given to people in an intersection on a red light.
The truth is that you're not likely to be given a ticket for being in the intersection if you entered when the light was yellow or green. But depending on the circumstances (such as cross traffic not being able to come through), you *are* guilty of a violation. Whether or not it's enforced is a different matter.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the joke.
But in case you're serious, it's the same reason junkies who've collapsed all their easily accessible veins resort to shooting up behind their eyeballs. I need my fix.
Who owns those systems? Not his boss -- the City does. And the City did not give his boss authority to get the passwords directly from him. The City established a set of rules for transferring the passwords, and his boss tried to circumvent those rules.
This guy's boss was not acting within the rules established for him to act as a proxy for the City (if we're going to follow your ownership logic). So who's acting responsibly... the guy who chose to follow the rules despite the risk of adverse personal impact? Or the guy who wanted to ride roughshod over the rules in the interest of expediency?
It's not as clear cut as that. From what I understand, we was operating under a specific protocol for release of the passwords, that excluded the possibility of him handing them over to his bosses at their request.
So what's more important -- following the established rules, or doing as your boss says? In a perfect world (not that we operate in one), the rules are more important than the individual. If the boss wanted the passwords directly handed over, then the boss should have gotten the rules changed to allow that.
Just because someone is your boss doesn't make you their slave. And if you believe your boss is doing something wrong, it is morally incorrect to do as you are told, even if you document your protests.
Although, it does seem likely the guy was being a jerkwad... that doesn't mean he was an incorrect jerkwad, or a jerkwad acting illegally.
No, that would be "flamebait".
Flamebait is a subset of troll. Trolls, according to the original interpretation (by my reckoning) are people who make disingenuously ignorant or incorrect posts in order to elicit corrective responses. Really, trolling is just making posts to get responses out of other people.
Good trolls make posts that seem like sincere opinions or sincere misunderstandings, but the entire point of the post is to get people to take you seriously. Hence it's sometimes very hard to determine if someone is trolling or not. This works best when the person doing the trolling is a known expert, so that people who are "in the know" can catch the joke.
People who post flamebait are trying to incite a flamewar, which is slightly different, and usually more obvious.
That's between HR and IT.
Regardless of where it *should* be, the fact is that in that company, responsibility lies with HR -- and he was given that information. If he is looking out for the company's security, then he should be feeding his helpful information to the responsible party, not calling someone else out for it.
Decisions on who *should* be handling it are a different matter... although it's already been made clear to him that IT doesn't want it. If HR wants to pass it onto IT, let them work it out. Pragmatically, what is important is that the copier data is secured.
I worked for a company a few years ago where one of the things I did was to oversee all leases and support contracts, including copier leases. Our support contracts had language specifying the requirement for drive wipes on location at the termination of the support contract (which, of course, coincided with the termination of the lease).
So glue the DSP and the webcam to the robot.
Presto! Problem solved - a robot that plays Tetris.
Serious question, does an integrated system such as this qualify to be a robot even if the components are physically separate?
Be my guest, try to find a section they could post Idle or Apple stories to that isn't on my list.
Get it now?
Why didn't you email the local head of HR? The guy told you who is responsible...
Instead now you have a situation where you're calling someone out on something that is not their responsibility... that's not the nicest (or most effective!) way of handling it.
Bliss would be Slashdot with the following sections turned off:
Idle
Main
Apple
AskSlashdot
Book Reviews
Developers
Games
Hardware
Idle (yes, this one should be turned off again)
IT
Index
Interviews
Linux
Mobile
Politics
Science
Technology
YRO
Idle (just in case we missed it the first two times)
THAT would be bliss... pure, unadulterated zen bliss.
What's the forage like on his farm?
A lot of plants that affect milk taste grow in pastures that are not maintained properly for free-range dairy cattle. An easily identifiable one is wild garlic (which basically means your milk is only good for feeding to hogs).
I think it's mistaken to assume the problem is stress from exercise, and not some other factors. The only time exercise itself is going to negatively affect milk composition is if the cattle are undernourished for the amount of exercise they get.
Do you have any citation for the difference in milk between exercised and non-exercised cows?
I'm curious, as I'm not sure what "stress byproducts" are... but it's known that among humans, exercise during lactation does not change the makeup of breast milk, except when exercise is extremely vigorous (unlike these treadmills), and even then the impact is temporary (lasting less than 1 hour). Furthermore, there is no different in fat content, protein content, etc.
I'm not saying that cows are biologically the same as humans... I just question that exercise would affect milk production differently among different mammals when I couldn't find any evidence to support that conclusion.
Woah, dude... it's 2010. That business model has been on the outs for more than a decade.
IBM's revenue is now dominated by services, not hardware. IBM was tanking until they moved away from that model... now both hardware and software play into services and consulting as the drivers of revenue.
Oracle is looking to supply the whole stack to its customers. Hardware, software, support -- tailored products for specific industries. Look at today's announced acquisition of Phase Forward.
And FWIW, services is also where Oracle forecasts the most growth.
I was reading an article some time ago that suggested that the economics play out in favor of having more smokers on public healthcare. Lifetime, we pay less if they smoke and die early than if they don't smoke and die of something else.
Some [enviro|religion|health] evangelists are like that. Not all of them. You paint too broad a stroke in your knee-jerk reactionism.
See my response to previous post re: exaggeration for humor.
:)
But in reality, if there is tension between us, I'd rather sleep in a different room... I have enough trouble falling asleep without having the complication of tension with the person next to me.
And FWIW, she can own the bedroom... as long as I get to own the kitchen, garage, and basement
FWIW, I actually am happily married... while my wife did complain about not getting a big refund check, and I did ask her why she didn't complain about the extra cashflow & investment during the year... I didn't have to sleep on the couch. We're pretty good at being polite to each other & not going to bed disappointed/upset/angry with each other.
There may have been some exaggeration of the relationship details for humor purposes... but the facts of the cash etc are the same.
The truth is, I don't have a wife. The only person I sleep with in my bed is an inflatable doll I call Sally, and she doesn't complain much about money.
I slept on the couch last night because I couldn't be bothered getting the Cheetos crumbs out of my sheets, and the night before last they scratched me up something fierce.
I know, right?
It's trivial to get free screen savers from just about any website, I see the flashing ads all the time.
Once you've downloaded it, you just need to click the box to give it permission to run. It's just a screensaver, and the website the ad took me to looks really good, like they hired a professional to make it. They sell screensavers too, so they're a legitimate site... they're just giving away free ones as a sample.
Not to change the subject, but slashdot is a good place to ask... does anyone know why every time a buy a new modem, it takes only a few days before the thing is flashing day and night, even when I'm not using the big blue E to get to Myspace?
10 weeks at room temperature? Meh.
I flash-froze mine the day I got him, so he's as fresh as the day he was born.
Wait, was that my out-loud voice?
I used to do the same thing... but found an easy way to make sure I didn't have easy access to the money, but could still earn interest on it during the year.
Set up automatic withdrawals from your regular bank account(s), to be deposited into an investment account. It's very cheap to do, and if you seed it with a few thousand when you set it up, you won't get hit with monthly fees for maintaining a low balance. Different banks have different products for this kind of service, so talk to your banker.
You could also set up rolling CDs to do about the same thing, but I prefer having the separate investment account, since I can tap it in case of emergency without penalty.
Not surprising to me. My wife was bitching at me last night because we paid in less than $50 instead of getting a multi-thousand-dollar refund like her friends at work. They're all blowing the cash on down payments for new cars, vacations to the Caribbean, etc. Meanwhile, I continue to budget for the big-ticket items and save for them on a monthly basis.
So I told her that she wasn't bitching when she was spending the extra $200 she took home each month, and she wasn't bitching when she saw the amount I had put into savings from my pay last year.
Needless to say, I slept on the couch.
But the point is that among people who get a refund, a lot of them get a BIG refund. Even when I was a kid, I was getting refunds around $2k because I was a dependent of my parents even though I made less than $20k a year.
Some kind of reproductive advantage, I'd guess. Here's some speculation:
1. Because babies who do not reject those who look different are less likely to survive
2. Because it's a manifestation of a trait that is important for reproductive survival later
2.1 Adults who choose to mate with those most physically like them are more likely to pass on their own genes, especially in tribal societies where members share a large portion of their genes.
2.2 Adults who don't reject different-looking mates end up fucking orangutans, which is useless in propagating their genes.
I'm sure that there are plenty more reproductive-advantage theories that could be posed.
I got the mortality rates from the site you provided. Go ahead, search for "infant mortality" then apply the filters to get to the same year range as the chart you provided.
Oh, I agree that infant and child mortality does not wholly displace the impact of reduced fertility. Where did I say that it did?
But I'm still wondering if you've bothered to account for any of the rest of the data that feeds into Malthus, like food production capacity (which, aside from the Green Revolution in the 70s and 80s, has been growing at a lower rate than population, when you normalize for bumper years and drought years).
For that matter, given that grain yields in India are likely actually decreasing, is it not possible that food availability has not already begun to impact population growth? That lower fertility reflects the decreased availability of food to a good portion of people in India?
I'm still curious if you have an valid criticism of Malthus, or if you're just spouting figures without an idea of relevancy.
Of course not. It's limited by things like food availability. That's Malthus's fucking point. Glad it sunk in.
I'll do no such thing. You have proven nothing. You have used an oversimplified two-variable model with unstated assumptions in order to "prove" something. Go back to high school.
I'm still waiting for your first valid, informed point. Please, do share if you've got one. All I've seen from you so far is "wharrgarble I have some numbers here that mean something, so I'm going to assume they mean what I want them to mean."
False. Obstructing Traffic and Delaying Traffic are still on the books.
Though, technically they are not moving violations, so I was wrong. But 'Unsafe Operation' IS a moving violation, and it has been given to people in an intersection on a red light.
The truth is that you're not likely to be given a ticket for being in the intersection if you entered when the light was yellow or green. But depending on the circumstances (such as cross traffic not being able to come through), you *are* guilty of a violation. Whether or not it's enforced is a different matter.