I don't think I've missed the point. In this day of cheap hardware and free Virtual Machine packages, there really is no excuse for not having some sort of simple test enviroment (even it is a VM "world" on your personal desktop). I give RHN no free ride for (possibly) issuing a bad patch, but the original poster didn't say "I made a mistake and put a RHN patch in my production environment without testing it", no he heaped responsibilty on RHN for the bad patch.
Your "Had the user done the same thing in his test environment" comment is interesting - the real answer isn't to post bug reports on slashdot, post it with RHN - that is the correct response.
The difference between what he did and the right way to do it is not the amount of ridicule he will face, it would have left his production environemnt functional while he awaited RHNs corrected patch. That is a big, big difference.
As far as being pedantic, how many System Admin "wannabes" read Slashdot? Far to many "home schooled" future system admins think this is a proper way to run a production environment, it is not, and it should be pointed out.
While I don't simply accept the position that RHN released a flawed patch, his poor admin skills (patching a production environment) put his assertion in doubt.
I must say that I am very suprised that this patch acted one way in the posters test environment and another when it was installed on their production machine... That's very odd.
What, he didn't test it before placing it in production? Never mind, move along - nothing to see here.
If the poster made an error (as suggested by a previous post), or if he installed a patch without testing it, bad on the original poster - but if the patch truely was bad (a possibility), then bad on RHN for letting something bad out of QA and into production. But RHN's possible mistake doesn't absolve the system admin for not testing the patch before using it.
The only way this isn't the original poster's error is if the patch worked different in production than in test, but no one is claiming that AFAIK.
No matter what you pay for support to RHN, you are ultimately responsible for your systems, not RHN or any other vendor...
I agree, the U.N. never tried to take over Iraq... Interestingly, I just read a news story about how the U.S. is obliged to stay in Iraq because of an agreement with the U.N. through December:
In a statement, Maliki's office said the prime minister made the comments about the security pact -- which will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31 -- to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.
What was secured promptly and securely as a top priority? The oil fields in southern Iraq.
Have you ever seen what burning oil fields look like? Ever wonder about the carbon footprint of burning geysers of crude oil - is that too inconvienient?
Ever wonder how Iraq was going to pay to rebuild all the infrastructure that was blown-up in the war to oust Saddam - the oil fields pump liquid gold to cover all damages and more...
Do you know who owns the oil fields in Iraq? The Iraqi government/people, not the U.S., not the coalition, not George Bush, Haliburton, etc... Protecting their single greatest asset is the best thing we could do for the Iraqi people.
It's fun to imply something evil, quite another to prove it.
Before you question why we went into Iraq, I suggest you review all the failed U.N. efforts to reign in Iraq, and also take a look at Saddam's actual statements about what he said he had/was planning to do... It's not so clear-cut, IMHO...
Their reaction makes sense to me - not that I agree with it.
Sounds like you walked in and said (in effect) "you guys lied to me, your signage was wrong and you tricked me!" They took the position of defending their signage.
Later when your wife attempted the return, there may have been one or more reasons she faired better:
She simply asked for a refund (didn't accuse them of fraud, put themon defensive)
Others had returned similar units for the same reason, so they stopped questioning it
Your wife simply got a more reasonable sales clerk
There is only so much money alloted to pay for the converter box "coupons", and when it runs out, there will be no more coupons offered. That is the real, hard, limit. I could understand the expire date issue to motivate requestors to actually move on the offer, so that they can assess what coupons are "abandoned" and can be, in effect, re-issued to a new requestor.
I seriously doubt that the government only sends coupons when there is a sufficient inventory to satisfy demand - that assumes a level of Gov't involvement I can't see (managing/tracking shipments and sales of "low-cost" converter boxes).
Anyone else notice that the head of the institute's name is one letter off from being "Pokemon"? Coincidence?
Also, the numbers, according to the article are guesses/ranges estimated by airport workers - as someone else said that means they made up the numbers and extrapolated. According to this article, nearly a half-million laptops (436800 by my math) *disapear*? Really?
I call bullshit on this number.
436800 laptops at an average cost of $1,100 per (these are Corp. laptops) takes you to nearly a half-billion dollars worth of hardware "lost" each year. No one noticed that? Insurance companies aren't mentioning that when they pay out on the claims?
I suspect the real culprit is that the Gov't pays their bills, and the hours they spend traveling to/from their clients are billable. I'm sure privacy plays a part, but first class air travel, as billable time (allowing them to double bill for the work they do on the plane) AND collect frequent flyer miles as well has to be tempting for these lawyers...
Unfortunately, voting is a local exercise, despite the federal implications, and as such each jurisdiction has the freedom to implement voting in the manor they see fit. Of course, when we had that little mis-adventure in FL a few years ago, paper was deemed "unacceptable", so the federal government decided to throw lots of money around to help everyone buy *whatever* electronic voting machine they wanted, then when the local politicians made bad decisions (based on ignorance, greed, corrupt vendors or a combination of all three) the politicans are now stepping back in and saying that the electronic voting process is no good, and we need to go back to paper...
A fundamental change is needed, one that will either have the states ceding power tot he federal government to develop "the one true" voting machine used in all districts *or* we get off this technology merry-go-round and use paper ballots - as a bonus it will give the losing politicans more time to round-up lawyers to challenge their loss...
Child Labor - I think Child Volunteer is more like it. If he were paid, there would be something to that claim.
Dumped responsibility on librarian - small schools, by necessity, have everyone multi-task and pitch in to help the school along, this is not typical in most public schools, where nearly all employees are members of a union.
Not posting for a replacement - Why advertise if they are happy with the current arrangement. The person that comes offf looking really bad is the departed IT person - what did s/he actually do?
Learning from a seasoned pro - Uhm, if they had a seasoned pro, then the 11 year-old wouldn't have been given the chance to help out.
I suspect you've never gone to pa private school, you shouldn't assume how things are done there... It's a bit unsettling when you realize everyone is there pushing in the same direction - doing what is best for the kids, now if only public schools could be like that...
Small schools like this one typically offer free tuition to children of faculty... Nothing is cheaper than free.
I know it's confusing because the Federal Gov't offers tax breaks and refunds to folks that don't pay any taxes...
You are making some big assumptions about the school - for example, he may get free lunches in the cafeteria along with every other student (why charge, they may just include it in the tuition). The last fellow could have been a volunteer/parent who's kid didn't return to the school this year... The school may be getting more benefit out of the deal, but he is getting exp. in decision making and problem solving that is invaluable.
I'd suggestsimply investing in a large number of Kensington locks, many, many devices have Kensington lock "ports". http://us.kensington.com/html/1434.html>
his prison term was commuted by the president, which left standing the other penalties imposd by the judge - fine, public service, and supervised probation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby>
And the $2 Trillion+ cost of the war you cite is more like a half Trillion dollars: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html>
Not for nothing, but fire departments have different requirements than police departments - the police need city-wide coverage from theie walkie-talkies, the fire department only needs coverage that encompasses the local area ( a few blocks). That means different freq. bands are better for each department, and requiring both to buy multi-band radios is very expensive - not impossible or really prohibitive, but unpopular in many locations for whatever reason.
I agree with the earlier poster - there is no connection between the bandwidth auction results and 9/11 *except* that there is a requirement to support expanded first-responder communication in the same band. How is money made by not commercializing (monetizing) the band? A failed auction benefits no one...
The local university does a DOD wipe of all hard drives in systems before they sell them as surplus, ensuring no data leaks out in a $30 P3 system.
The local public school district (K-12) can not (by policy) allow a hard drive to get into thehands of anyone outside the shcool district. When we decommision/recycle a computer we DOD wipe the hard drives, remove them from the system, and then, if we don't need to use the drives as spare parts for other machines, they are sent out to be destroyed.
WTF is the big deal - "unsupported" means MS won't support it, didn't test it, and makes no claims toward suitability to task. Here's an example - Firefox is not supported for use on Windows by Microsoft - millions of people run it, but MS has no obligation to make sure Firefox runs properly on Windows (2K, XP, Vista, Server 2000, 2003 or 2008).
Why does MSFT have to "support" every distribution of Linux to demonstrate they "get" virtualization? Isn't providing a standard PC architecture with "legacy" network adapters enough? Any user sophisticated to install and run Server 2008 in a production environment would (IMHO) simply boot the.iso in Hyper-V and see what happens, maybe google-ing a bit first to see if it works or not (not if MSFT "supports" his particular "flavor" of Linux)...
Exactly - I can walk down the street and identify children as a distinct group from adults, and tailor my interactions (or lack thereof) with them based on that assessment. Google thinks they have come up with a way to infer that same information and tailor their responses accordingly. How Evil.
Translating this concept to the 21st century would be something like introducing email for things: you could order something on the Internet and pick it up through a trapdoor in your cellar the next morning."
Which would mean, in my house, I'd have to walk past the front door (where UPS/FedEx/DHL/USPS/etc) have been dropping off my internet purchases for years, to go down an additional flight of stairs to my basement "Internet Underground Delivery Station" (or IUD) is located pick up my package, carry it back up a flight of stairs to my kitchen for the traditional box-opening ceremony, where I don my favorite (bath) robe and marvel at the dispersion pattern of the packing peanuts across my kitchen floor...
WTF is the point of this link? Are we going to bury tunnels under major cities to get delivery trucks off the roads, what a pointless expense! Do you have any idea what is under most modern cities? And most of the plumbing, wiring, etc are documented about as well as most major software projects - barely.
Ken
Wal-Mart has set the bar and said that they require RFID tags by some day in the future to do business with Wal-Mart - suppliers that do not meet that requirement will not be able to sell their goods to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is offering an accomodation to suppliers that want to sell at Wal-Mart but either can not or will not be able to include RFID tags on their pallets to this one distribution center (and yes, it will creep into their entire supply chain).
To build an analogy for your cell phone purchase, you would have to communicate to the Cell Phone stores in your area that you were interested in getting a cell phone and offer them the chance to bid on your business. You would also have to explain to them before they reply to your RFP that your purchase is contingent on have the phone unwrapped and ready for use immediately upon delivery. Then, when none of the local stores respond to your RFP, you can tell them that if the "ready to use" requirement was too onerous, you would be willing to take a packaged, not ready for use cell phone, but you would charge them some few dollars to accommodate your effort. Then, when they agree to offer you a phone you can act accordingly. That is what Wal-Mart is doing.
No, Wal-Mart is charging for a required service the Mfg./Supplier isn't complying with. Two dollars per Pallet is a fair price (IMHO) as they have to tag, inventory, and verify each non-RFID pallet that enters this one facility. That is an important point, BTW - this only impacts one Sam's Club distribution center. This is a reasonable business decision, much more reasonable than their previous position that untagged pallets wouldn't be allowed in their facility after a certain date (with no accommodation like the one reported being made).
IMHO, this will cause many smaller suppliers to simply abandon their RFID efforts and pay the $2/pallet fee - it will be much cheaper than an in-house effort.
And finally, let me be the first to link to proof, I say PROOF, that RFID is evil and will bring about the end of western civilization: Spy Chips, the book - seen to be a major motion picture from Tin Foil Hat Productions! Check out their other titles and press reports here.
Yes - I know that Sun, IBM, DEC, HP and others havr offered this "service" (or option) on some of their larger machines, they essentially stuff the box with maximal number of CPUs, memory, what have you, then sell you the box at a reduced price reflecting the "activated" hardware you ordered, and you are expected to "upgrade" the box at a later date and "activate" the idle CPUs, RAM, whatever for an additional fee. The trick is, you don't own the excess CPUs, RAM, etc. - you are storing it until you buy it from the vendor.
The goal was to enable shops to upgrade instantly when their workload required the extra capacity without having to wait on parts/technicians to perform the upgrade - essentially, there would be no down time (outside of possibly power-cycling the machine). There was also some interest in providing "warm" spares in case a CPU/RAM/etc. failed, they could be replaced "over the wire" without sending a tech and without significant downtime.
The key components of this arrangement are that once activated, you own the new resources for ever (you don't turn it on and off for your month-end processing), and until you pull the trigger on the upgrade you don't own the additional CPUs/RAM/etc.
The TV show Get Smart was created on the mid-60's, and sprung from the minds and talents of Buck Henery and Mel Brooks (among others). THe fact that you watched Get Smart in the '80s and '90s doesn't change the fact that this was a '60s television show! Next time you watch Get Smart, tivo the show and study the credits, especially the copyright date - though remember, it may be in tricky roman numerals and represented by letters not digits.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I've missed the point. In this day of cheap hardware and free Virtual Machine packages, there really is no excuse for not having some sort of simple test enviroment (even it is a VM "world" on your personal desktop). I give RHN no free ride for (possibly) issuing a bad patch, but the original poster didn't say "I made a mistake and put a RHN patch in my production environment without testing it", no he heaped responsibilty on RHN for the bad patch.
Your "Had the user done the same thing in his test environment" comment is interesting - the real answer isn't to post bug reports on slashdot, post it with RHN - that is the correct response.
The difference between what he did and the right way to do it is not the amount of ridicule he will face, it would have left his production environemnt functional while he awaited RHNs corrected patch. That is a big, big difference.
As far as being pedantic, how many System Admin "wannabes" read Slashdot? Far to many "home schooled" future system admins think this is a proper way to run a production environment, it is not, and it should be pointed out.
While I don't simply accept the position that RHN released a flawed patch, his poor admin skills (patching a production environment) put his assertion in doubt.
I must say that I am very suprised that this patch acted one way in the posters test environment and another when it was installed on their production machine... That's very odd.
What, he didn't test it before placing it in production? Never mind, move along - nothing to see here.
If the poster made an error (as suggested by a previous post), or if he installed a patch without testing it, bad on the original poster - but if the patch truely was bad (a possibility), then bad on RHN for letting something bad out of QA and into production. But RHN's possible mistake doesn't absolve the system admin for not testing the patch before using it.
The only way this isn't the original poster's error is if the patch worked different in production than in test, but no one is claiming that AFAIK.
No matter what you pay for support to RHN, you are ultimately responsible for your systems, not RHN or any other vendor...
Opps - happy accident.
I agree, the U.N. never tried to take over Iraq... Interestingly, I just read a news story about how the U.S. is obliged to stay in Iraq because of an agreement with the U.N. through December:
Source (third paragraph from top).
Have you ever seen what burning oil fields look like? Ever wonder about the carbon footprint of burning geysers of crude oil - is that too inconvienient?
Ever wonder how Iraq was going to pay to rebuild all the infrastructure that was blown-up in the war to oust Saddam - the oil fields pump liquid gold to cover all damages and more...
Do you know who owns the oil fields in Iraq? The Iraqi government/people, not the U.S., not the coalition, not George Bush, Haliburton, etc... Protecting their single greatest asset is the best thing we could do for the Iraqi people.
It's fun to imply something evil, quite another to prove it.
Before you question why we went into Iraq, I suggest you review all the failed U.N. efforts to reign in Iraq, and also take a look at Saddam's actual statements about what he said he had/was planning to do... It's not so clear-cut, IMHO...
What, you can sue because something is merely possible? That is amazing - Minority Report here we come!
Ken
Their reaction makes sense to me - not that I agree with it.
Sounds like you walked in and said (in effect) "you guys lied to me, your signage was wrong and you tricked me!" They took the position of defending their signage.
Later when your wife attempted the return, there may have been one or more reasons she faired better:
Ken
There is only so much money alloted to pay for the converter box "coupons", and when it runs out, there will be no more coupons offered. That is the real, hard, limit. I could understand the expire date issue to motivate requestors to actually move on the offer, so that they can assess what coupons are "abandoned" and can be, in effect, re-issued to a new requestor.
I seriously doubt that the government only sends coupons when there is a sufficient inventory to satisfy demand - that assumes a level of Gov't involvement I can't see (managing/tracking shipments and sales of "low-cost" converter boxes).
I got my requested two coupons quite quickly...
Ken
Anyone else notice that the head of the institute's name is one letter off from being "Pokemon"? Coincidence?
Also, the numbers, according to the article are guesses/ranges estimated by airport workers - as someone else said that means they made up the numbers and extrapolated. According to this article, nearly a half-million laptops (436800 by my math) *disapear*? Really?
I call bullshit on this number.
436800 laptops at an average cost of $1,100 per (these are Corp. laptops) takes you to nearly a half-billion dollars worth of hardware "lost" each year. No one noticed that? Insurance companies aren't mentioning that when they pay out on the claims?
It simply makes no sense. Period.
Ken
I suspect the real culprit is that the Gov't pays their bills, and the hours they spend traveling to/from their clients are billable. I'm sure privacy plays a part, but first class air travel, as billable time (allowing them to double bill for the work they do on the plane) AND collect frequent flyer miles as well has to be tempting for these lawyers...
Unfortunately, voting is a local exercise, despite the federal implications, and as such each jurisdiction has the freedom to implement voting in the manor they see fit. Of course, when we had that little mis-adventure in FL a few years ago, paper was deemed "unacceptable", so the federal government decided to throw lots of money around to help everyone buy *whatever* electronic voting machine they wanted, then when the local politicians made bad decisions (based on ignorance, greed, corrupt vendors or a combination of all three) the politicans are now stepping back in and saying that the electronic voting process is no good, and we need to go back to paper...
A fundamental change is needed, one that will either have the states ceding power tot he federal government to develop "the one true" voting machine used in all districts *or* we get off this technology merry-go-round and use paper ballots - as a bonus it will give the losing politicans more time to round-up lawyers to challenge their loss...
Child Labor - I think Child Volunteer is more like it. If he were paid, there would be something to that claim.
Dumped responsibility on librarian - small schools, by necessity, have everyone multi-task and pitch in to help the school along, this is not typical in most public schools, where nearly all employees are members of a union.
Not posting for a replacement - Why advertise if they are happy with the current arrangement. The person that comes offf looking really bad is the departed IT person - what did s/he actually do?
Learning from a seasoned pro - Uhm, if they had a seasoned pro, then the 11 year-old wouldn't have been given the chance to help out.
I suspect you've never gone to pa private school, you shouldn't assume how things are done there... It's a bit unsettling when you realize everyone is there pushing in the same direction - doing what is best for the kids, now if only public schools could be like that...
Small schools like this one typically offer free tuition to children of faculty... Nothing is cheaper than free.
I know it's confusing because the Federal Gov't offers tax breaks and refunds to folks that don't pay any taxes...
You are making some big assumptions about the school - for example, he may get free lunches in the cafeteria along with every other student (why charge, they may just include it in the tuition). The last fellow could have been a volunteer/parent who's kid didn't return to the school this year... The school may be getting more benefit out of the deal, but he is getting exp. in decision making and problem solving that is invaluable.
Anyone else notice the story is from Oct. 2004?
If you really feel you work in an environment that is not secure, and you insist on remaining with these people, here are a few suggestions:
To lock up a running laptop, you could use what is called a DVR box - it holds a PC in a secure box with adequate ventilation. http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&upc=61751755200&pid=_Froogle>
I'd suggestsimply investing in a large number of Kensington locks, many, many devices have Kensington lock "ports". http://us.kensington.com/html/1434.html>
his prison term was commuted by the president, which left standing the other penalties imposd by the judge - fine, public service, and supervised probation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby>
And the $2 Trillion+ cost of the war you cite is more like a half Trillion dollars: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html>
Bill Clinton also left a lot of evidence (including a wad of DNA) to support his impeachment: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm>
Not for nothing, but fire departments have different requirements than police departments - the police need city-wide coverage from theie walkie-talkies, the fire department only needs coverage that encompasses the local area ( a few blocks). That means different freq. bands are better for each department, and requiring both to buy multi-band radios is very expensive - not impossible or really prohibitive, but unpopular in many locations for whatever reason.
I agree with the earlier poster - there is no connection between the bandwidth auction results and 9/11 *except* that there is a requirement to support expanded first-responder communication in the same band. How is money made by not commercializing (monetizing) the band? A failed auction benefits no one...
The local university does a DOD wipe of all hard drives in systems before they sell them as surplus, ensuring no data leaks out in a $30 P3 system.
The local public school district (K-12) can not (by policy) allow a hard drive to get into thehands of anyone outside the shcool district. When we decommision/recycle a computer we DOD wipe the hard drives, remove them from the system, and then, if we don't need to use the drives as spare parts for other machines, they are sent out to be destroyed.
This is nothing unusual - at the previous poster indicated, this is a good IT practice and ensures that no data leaks out of the organization http://www.csoonline.com/read/030103/briefing_data.html.
WTF is the big deal - "unsupported" means MS won't support it, didn't test it, and makes no claims toward suitability to task. Here's an example - Firefox is not supported for use on Windows by Microsoft - millions of people run it, but MS has no obligation to make sure Firefox runs properly on Windows (2K, XP, Vista, Server 2000, 2003 or 2008).
.iso in Hyper-V and see what happens, maybe google-ing a bit first to see if it works or not (not if MSFT "supports" his particular "flavor" of Linux)...
Why does MSFT have to "support" every distribution of Linux to demonstrate they "get" virtualization? Isn't providing a standard PC architecture with "legacy" network adapters enough? Any user sophisticated to install and run Server 2008 in a production environment would (IMHO) simply boot the
Exactly - I can walk down the street and identify children as a distinct group from adults, and tailor my interactions (or lack thereof) with them based on that assessment. Google thinks they have come up with a way to infer that same information and tailor their responses accordingly. How Evil .
Anything that cost $1,775 in 1917 was not considered cheap, affordable, or even attainable by most people.
The average income in 1917 in the US was $917 - this car cost nearly 2 years income for the average worker.
WTF is the point of this link? Are we going to bury tunnels under major cities to get delivery trucks off the roads, what a pointless expense! Do you have any idea what is under most modern cities? And most of the plumbing, wiring, etc are documented about as well as most major software projects - barely. Ken
Your analogy is asinine - let me explain...
Wal-Mart has set the bar and said that they require RFID tags by some day in the future to do business with Wal-Mart - suppliers that do not meet that requirement will not be able to sell their goods to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is offering an accomodation to suppliers that want to sell at Wal-Mart but either can not or will not be able to include RFID tags on their pallets to this one distribution center (and yes, it will creep into their entire supply chain).
To build an analogy for your cell phone purchase, you would have to communicate to the Cell Phone stores in your area that you were interested in getting a cell phone and offer them the chance to bid on your business. You would also have to explain to them before they reply to your RFP that your purchase is contingent on have the phone unwrapped and ready for use immediately upon delivery. Then, when none of the local stores respond to your RFP, you can tell them that if the "ready to use" requirement was too onerous, you would be willing to take a packaged, not ready for use cell phone, but you would charge them some few dollars to accommodate your effort. Then, when they agree to offer you a phone you can act accordingly. That is what Wal-Mart is doing.
No, Wal-Mart is charging for a required service the Mfg./Supplier isn't complying with. Two dollars per Pallet is a fair price (IMHO) as they have to tag, inventory, and verify each non-RFID pallet that enters this one facility. That is an important point, BTW - this only impacts one Sam's Club distribution center. This is a reasonable business decision, much more reasonable than their previous position that untagged pallets wouldn't be allowed in their facility after a certain date (with no accommodation like the one reported being made).
IMHO, this will cause many smaller suppliers to simply abandon their RFID efforts and pay the $2/pallet fee - it will be much cheaper than an in-house effort.
And finally, let me be the first to link to proof, I say PROOF, that RFID is evil and will bring about the end of western civilization: Spy Chips, the book - seen to be a major motion picture from Tin Foil Hat Productions! Check out their other titles and press reports here.
Yes - I know that Sun, IBM, DEC, HP and others havr offered this "service" (or option) on some of their larger machines, they essentially stuff the box with maximal number of CPUs, memory, what have you, then sell you the box at a reduced price reflecting the "activated" hardware you ordered, and you are expected to "upgrade" the box at a later date and "activate" the idle CPUs, RAM, whatever for an additional fee. The trick is, you don't own the excess CPUs, RAM, etc. - you are storing it until you buy it from the vendor.
The goal was to enable shops to upgrade instantly when their workload required the extra capacity without having to wait on parts/technicians to perform the upgrade - essentially, there would be no down time (outside of possibly power-cycling the machine). There was also some interest in providing "warm" spares in case a CPU/RAM/etc. failed, they could be replaced "over the wire" without sending a tech and without significant downtime.
The key components of this arrangement are that once activated, you own the new resources for ever (you don't turn it on and off for your month-end processing), and until you pull the trigger on the upgrade you don't own the additional CPUs/RAM/etc.
The TV show Get Smart was created on the mid-60's, and sprung from the minds and talents of Buck Henery and Mel Brooks (among others). THe fact that you watched Get Smart in the '80s and '90s doesn't change the fact that this was a '60s television show! Next time you watch Get Smart, tivo the show and study the credits, especially the copyright date - though remember, it may be in tricky roman numerals and represented by letters not digits.