No matter how self explanatory you THINK it is, the poster is right, documenting is important. I have had to come into several environments as a consultant where admins thought the way you do, and they were inevitably wrong. Hell some of the time despite claiming they knew it like the back of their hand they had to ask another guy to answer my questions.
Conversely when the one hiring consultants I fire and only pay half to any who do not provide full documentation, as the job was only half done, and make it clear in their deliverables I expect this, and the level of it. It took me a lot of years and a lot of frustration with my own and other people's lack of it to develop this attitude, and I think you will find it with anyone who has been in the poster's position.
For any network that services more than a small office environment there are going to be quirks and complexities no matter how "right" you do it. Maybe you separated things onto VLANS for reasons that are not inherently obvious, but if you undo it you weaken security, or break an app etc.
"The network started horrible, here is how I cleaned it up" is a GOOD reference. I have killer references from two jobs I automated myself out of this way. Each time I got a more interesting more challenging better paying job by doing so.
Comparing police trying to locate a man having a medical emergency is FAR from people hiding Jews in Germany.
Without a warrant even IF the police break down your door and haul you out they cannot put you in jail, no matter what they found. With the exception of you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand (I think, but even that might be protected)
Loss of privacy and loss of liberty (ie being thrown in jail) are different. They should both be protected yes, but at different levels.
Just make the fines a percentage of profit, then small and large businesses are treated equally and one does not ignore a fine wile the other goes out of business.
I find it very hard to believe that in 11 hours this employee did not ask another employee, talk to their manager or in some way attempt to resolve the situation in a way that would have made them aware of this policy and department.
If they didn't, and they truly talked to no one else in 11 hours, then they need to be held criminally accountable. If they did then the company is at fault for not properly training it's staff.
Don't invest what you can't loose, and diversify those investments enough that one company going under doesn't hurt you. Simple.
Protecting companies because people have money invested in them is STUPID. Companies screw up, nail them just like you would a person. End result? People stop investing in amoral companies and it becomes profitable to be moral. WOW, market works!
A company is NOT a valuable societal asset as they would have you believe, PEOPLE are.
In many states this is already the case, if a cop tells you to move back out of a scene for example, you are legally compelled to obey.
There are ALSO however laws restricting them in what they can use this power for, i.e. ordering you to let them into your home, compelling evidence etc. These restrictions are waived if there is imminent danger, as in this case.
Again if Verizon had said they would not cooperate for privacy reasons they may have had a case, but all they wanted was money, which kills any sympathy they may have garnered.
This has been rated funny but it actually makes a good point.
Will we allow warrentless wiretapping but then let companies get away with this? These companies need to act in the public interest or be broken up, period. Public interest != fed interests either.
you can't punish an employee for obeying the will of the company.
Why not? In this case the will of the company clearly ran contrary to public interest. I would argue that the employee had a clear responsibility to ignore corporate policy and if he got in trouble for it he should be protected and the company levied a rather hefty fine. I think one persons life is worth say... 2% of profit for five years.
Assign one or two of these fines and companies will shape up fast.
It's also possible by ignoring the officers request the employee committed a crime. Obstruction of justice comes to mind, depraved indifference perhaps, though I am sure there are others.
I whole heartedly agree. As much as Google is the scapegoat of the year, and even I have my own axe to grind with them, this is clearly not their fault.
If the data was never publicly available, Google cannot cache it. Whoever set up the sites security is at fault for making it possible to reveal this information.
pnorth, how much you get from Microsoft for spinning this?
I am amazed such an educated crowd such as this would mod you informative simply because they agree with you. You are however incorrect. You also quote only part of the first amendment.
The entire thing is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is important if you look at the following cases: Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza etc etc
Read the following summary:
The 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, discussed below, said the U.S. Constitution does not give individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression. Since that decision, most states that have encountered this issue have followed the Court's view.
But why? They want to teach them that they are inherently criminals and will be treated as such for the rest of their lives early. If you get them used to it as children they won't know any better as adults.
You do actually realize the 1st Amendment is NOT a license to "say anything you want about anyone at any time".
For instance.... this is a private forum, if the editors of/. thought your comment was uneducated for example, they could delete it, you have no right to say anything here they do not let you.
The first amendment protects the free expression of ideas and opinions in a peaceable manner on PUBLIC property only.
Everyone seems to forget Apple is removing DRM fast as the studios will let them. The studios are just holding the noose hoping to create a viable competitor so they will get their way instead of Apple who stands up to them.
I think you proved his point... to an inexperienced user what you just posted is gibberish where "show tables" is plain english and something you might type as a guess.
To someone very familiar with reading option syntax sure that makes sense... but that is a much smaller group. Just figuring out that \d{t|i|s|v|S} means/dt or/di or/ds etc assumes a certain level of knowledge.
100% Agree... if you are going to look at Google/Mozilla who aren't even related or run by the same people why not look at Gates foundation which is funded by Microsoft?
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to point out how many politicians attend Gates dinners vs Mozilla.
Much as I like Obama you are wrong here... socialist policy is rampant in the US today and mostly put forth by democrats.
Bailout is socialist, in any form. Capitalism demands you let businesses fail and markets correct themselves when they get out of control.
Government spying on it's citizens is also wrong, yet Obama voted for it, and immunity for those telecom companies who broke the law.
He is by far better than McCain + Palin (if you didn't think she was a nut job, religious or otherwise, you didn't watch her debates) but he is not what most of his supporters had hoped he would be.
P.S. I worked for a company whos first public release was a 3.0... but it really was a 3.0 release... we had scrapped the previous two as they weren't well done enough to release and we wanted to take a different direction.
But not because of the version numbers themselves, but because any marketing "genius" with enough clout to push this through probably also did the usability studies thus it will be a royal pain in the arse.
A 1.0 product would mean it was made by engineers, not marketing people, thus might be useful so I would at least try it if they had a full featured demo (and I mean a real one not one of those stupid flash things)
Heavily bias opinion as an IT Engineer? Yeah... but you asked:)
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how self explanatory you THINK it is, the poster is right, documenting is important. I have had to come into several environments as a consultant where admins thought the way you do, and they were inevitably wrong. Hell some of the time despite claiming they knew it like the back of their hand they had to ask another guy to answer my questions.
Conversely when the one hiring consultants I fire and only pay half to any who do not provide full documentation, as the job was only half done, and make it clear in their deliverables I expect this, and the level of it. It took me a lot of years and a lot of frustration with my own and other people's lack of it to develop this attitude, and I think you will find it with anyone who has been in the poster's position.
For any network that services more than a small office environment there are going to be quirks and complexities no matter how "right" you do it. Maybe you separated things onto VLANS for reasons that are not inherently obvious, but if you undo it you weaken security, or break an app etc.
"The network started horrible, here is how I cleaned it up" is a GOOD reference. I have killer references from two jobs I automated myself out of this way. Each time I got a more interesting more challenging better paying job by doing so.
English only please... I don't understand this word "vacation" you have mixed in with the others.
Comparing police trying to locate a man having a medical emergency is FAR from people hiding Jews in Germany.
Without a warrant even IF the police break down your door and haul you out they cannot put you in jail, no matter what they found. With the exception of you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand (I think, but even that might be protected)
Loss of privacy and loss of liberty (ie being thrown in jail) are different. They should both be protected yes, but at different levels.
Just make the fines a percentage of profit, then small and large businesses are treated equally and one does not ignore a fine wile the other goes out of business.
I find it very hard to believe that in 11 hours this employee did not ask another employee, talk to their manager or in some way attempt to resolve the situation in a way that would have made them aware of this policy and department.
If they didn't, and they truly talked to no one else in 11 hours, then they need to be held criminally accountable. If they did then the company is at fault for not properly training it's staff.
Don't invest what you can't loose, and diversify those investments enough that one company going under doesn't hurt you. Simple.
Protecting companies because people have money invested in them is STUPID. Companies screw up, nail them just like you would a person. End result? People stop investing in amoral companies and it becomes profitable to be moral. WOW, market works!
A company is NOT a valuable societal asset as they would have you believe, PEOPLE are.
In many states this is already the case, if a cop tells you to move back out of a scene for example, you are legally compelled to obey.
There are ALSO however laws restricting them in what they can use this power for, i.e. ordering you to let them into your home, compelling evidence etc. These restrictions are waived if there is imminent danger, as in this case.
Again if Verizon had said they would not cooperate for privacy reasons they may have had a case, but all they wanted was money, which kills any sympathy they may have garnered.
Pay the $20 and then arrest the employee for extorting an officer in the process of an investigation ;)
This has been rated funny but it actually makes a good point.
Will we allow warrentless wiretapping but then let companies get away with this? These companies need to act in the public interest or be broken up, period. Public interest != fed interests either.
But manslaughter.
you can't punish an employee for obeying the will of the company.
Why not? In this case the will of the company clearly ran contrary to public interest. I would argue that the employee had a clear responsibility to ignore corporate policy and if he got in trouble for it he should be protected and the company levied a rather hefty fine. I think one persons life is worth say... 2% of profit for five years.
Assign one or two of these fines and companies will shape up fast.
It's also possible by ignoring the officers request the employee committed a crime. Obstruction of justice comes to mind, depraved indifference perhaps, though I am sure there are others.
What he said :) (yeah I know it's a dumb response but it fit)
I have been hoping for this for a while. If I could get an iMac without the monitor, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
I whole heartedly agree. As much as Google is the scapegoat of the year, and even I have my own axe to grind with them, this is clearly not their fault.
If the data was never publicly available, Google cannot cache it. Whoever set up the sites security is at fault for making it possible to reveal this information.
pnorth, how much you get from Microsoft for spinning this?
I am amazed such an educated crowd such as this would mod you informative simply because they agree with you. You are however incorrect. You also quote only part of the first amendment.
The entire thing is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is important if you look at the following cases:
Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins
Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza
etc etc
Read the following summary:
The 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, discussed below, said the U.S. Constitution does not give individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression. Since that decision, most states that have encountered this issue have followed the Court's view.
Notice anything important?
Interesting and poignant analogy
But why? They want to teach them that they are inherently criminals and will be treated as such for the rest of their lives early. If you get them used to it as children they won't know any better as adults.
You do actually realize the 1st Amendment is NOT a license to "say anything you want about anyone at any time".
For instance.... this is a private forum, if the editors of /. thought your comment was uneducated for example, they could delete it, you have no right to say anything here they do not let you.
The first amendment protects the free expression of ideas and opinions in a peaceable manner on PUBLIC property only.
Or off iTunes Plus, which is also DRM free.
Everyone seems to forget Apple is removing DRM fast as the studios will let them. The studios are just holding the noose hoping to create a viable competitor so they will get their way instead of Apple who stands up to them.
I think you proved his point... to an inexperienced user what you just posted is gibberish where "show tables" is plain english and something you might type as a guess.
To someone very familiar with reading option syntax sure that makes sense... but that is a much smaller group. Just figuring out that \d{t|i|s|v|S} means /dt or /di or /ds etc assumes a certain level of knowledge.
100% Agree... if you are going to look at Google/Mozilla who aren't even related or run by the same people why not look at Gates foundation which is funded by Microsoft?
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to point out how many politicians attend Gates dinners vs Mozilla.
Much as I like Obama you are wrong here... socialist policy is rampant in the US today and mostly put forth by democrats.
Bailout is socialist, in any form. Capitalism demands you let businesses fail and markets correct themselves when they get out of control.
Government spying on it's citizens is also wrong, yet Obama voted for it, and immunity for those telecom companies who broke the law.
He is by far better than McCain + Palin (if you didn't think she was a nut job, religious or otherwise, you didn't watch her debates) but he is not what most of his supporters had hoped he would be.
Very good argument, I wish politicians thought like that... unfortunately if they admit to what they paid someone could find the trail of kickbacks.
Don't think Microsoft buys politicians? I was in the room during a campaign when they tried.
P.S. I worked for a company whos first public release was a 3.0... but it really was a 3.0 release... we had scrapped the previous two as they weren't well done enough to release and we wanted to take a different direction.
But not because of the version numbers themselves, but because any marketing "genius" with enough clout to push this through probably also did the usability studies thus it will be a royal pain in the arse.
A 1.0 product would mean it was made by engineers, not marketing people, thus might be useful so I would at least try it if they had a full featured demo (and I mean a real one not one of those stupid flash things)
Heavily bias opinion as an IT Engineer? Yeah... but you asked :)