As to Blu-Ray, only total idiots pay the high prices and allow somebody else to kill your movies. The fact that you might upgrade your player and it PURPOSELY kills your encoding MAKES ZERO SENSE WHY ANYBODY WOULD BUY IT. And if you check the license, it is not only legal, but you have ZERO RECOURSE. IOW, you do not own the movie. They own you.
You make an assumption here: that the vast majority of the consuming public knows or cares about these things. If they stick it in the player and it plays, they're happy. If it doesn't play, they will blame the faulty disk or faulty hardware. To them, they have the physical copy, they own it -- and if it fails, it's similar to a VCR that eats tapes.
If you read that little tirade to them - even if you phrased it nicely - they'd look at you with eyes glazing over, unable to comprehend how this connects to their reality.
I was questioning the $5 million bail - but upon reading that he was caught in actions that appeared to be preparations to flee the state, it's understandable. Here's a person who has continued access to a critical infrastructure -- for all you know he can connect at any time and shut the whole thing down. Combine that with the fact that he seemed to be preparing to run... letting him free would have presented a risk of harm.
How many of us can say we've never been in a similar situation, or one that could be brute forced through court even if we were "right". Honestly, this could be any admin. Someone famous once said something about throwing stones.
Holy carp, really? As a sometime-admin myself, and as someone who works with admins regularly -- I can't think of any one of them who would have pulled this. It would cost the job at minimum -- and if it actually impacted the business significantly, you can bet civil and/or criminal prosecution would follow depending on the type and extent of the damages.
It disturbs me to realize that not only are there folks who think the behavior was justifiable, but also that it's somehow commonplace in IT. Even more disturbing to think that if there's one of you, there are more...
No. He was found guilty. He can appeal and that appeal may reverse that finding.
True. But until that time, he meets the legal definition of a criminal, to the best of my (non-lawyerly) knowledge. That is: convicted of a crime means you're a criminal -- unless and until it's overturned.
In which case, your statements would be wrong.
If I say "my dog is lost" because my dog is lost today; and my dog becomes found tomorrow -- this does not mean I am retroactively incorrect. I would only be incorrect if tomorrow I continued to say "my dog is lost" in spite of evidence to the contrary. If we followed the logic you're applying, we could never make statements at all without lengthy disclaimers that each statement is subject to data presently available, and may be proven incorrect at any time in the future.
I don't care if it is "unusual" or not. The fact is that the FACTS were not available PRIOR to the trial. So there is no basis for your statement about how any of us "stained our profession".
I disagree here, too. A bit of research (as OP and a couple of others did) showed there to be an extreme likelihood of misconduct by Childs -- if not a certainty, than close enough that the difference is negligible. It is this misconduct that is a stain on our profession, as it reinforces a stereotype that we've been trying to get away from for years. The conviction is secondary, and only services to strengthen that stain.
If, upon appeal, this case is reversed, does that then mean that you have then "stained our profession"?
No? Then do not claim that others have.
Again, we have the same leap in logic, but we'll sidestep that as it's missing the point. It is not the conviction which made his actions a stain -- it was the actions themselves.
You're a criminal too. You just haven't been charged yet.
People like to quote that article as if it's a proven fact, but...
Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.
The article itself doesn't really provide any examples with which to substantiate the claim.
Aside from that, we're talking about apples and oranges. For sake of argument, let's assume you're correct. Still, Childs knowingly and deliberately took the actions he did -- at the very least he knew he was in serious breach of policy, even if not the law.
I would just make it very clear to him that he did not have sole authority over the network and make sure that others always had access.
Don't you think that's just a symptom though? Here is a person that honestly felt -for a period of months - that it was within *his rights as an employee* to act the way he did. This in spite of numerous explanations and discussions with management telling him that - essentially - he was wrong.
I think after a certain point, rational thought processes no longer apply. I wouldn't want such a time-bomb working for me under any situation.
Car analogy failure.
It is illegal to drive a car without a spare tire, so the removal would actually affect every single person and not just a "small part of the userbase".
The problem with car analogies is that inevitably, someone tries to take it far beyond its intended conclusion -- either in an attempt to show how apt it is, or an attempt to show how inappropriate it is.
Nope. Didn't say anything about legally, this is strictly my opinion. I could accept this *maybe* at the town level - since in theory town representatives are actually in touch with the real people they represent -- but even that's pushing it.
...this is a great idea. I had to institute a rule in my house that no toys were allowed with food. I found that when I forbid the kids from having the toys, when I gave them a choice of restaurants for dinner, they were much more likely to chose one with better food. It seems that the toys were a large part of the draw...take that away, and they were much more likely to eat something healthy.
As a parent, that's your right. But it doesn't seem that as a government, that right belongs with the county. This is no different from laws banning any "immoral" behavior -- it's the government meddling where it has no business doing so.
maybe he was a jerk about it, but that doesn't make you right about him.
Actually, it does. No matter what the policy is, if your management says "hand over the passwords" -- you hand over the passwords. Maybe you get a lot of documentation around it, maybe you make sure HR signs off on this breach of policy, but you DO hand them over. If an auditor says it, you follow the same process -- talk to management, leave a paper trail, get sign-off from anyone necessary in the bureaucracy. OR obtain confirmation that you don't have to comply (not the case here).
You don't flounce off like a child having a tantrum because someone else might screw up your precious network. That network isn't yours -- it's your employer's.
Just switched from Comcast to Vz FIOS. A quick summary:
Comcast - the good
Stable, fast speeds - 3mbps up/16mbps down was nothing to sneeze at.
In eight years of service, my IP address changes 4 times.
Received line upgrades automatically as they became available, at no extra cost. Internet service price hasn't changed - even though I started at 6/1 service years ago.
Received new channels as they were available
Comcast -the bad
$220/month for phone, all movie channels, 16/3, a DVR and an HD converter. A lot of service, but also a lot of money.
"Blast" download speeds are rather deceptive
Holy crap are those HD channels compressed.
Bandwidth monitoring - I always came in under, but it was close a couple of months; and I've done nothing of questionable legality - Netflix instant watch via PS3 doubled my data usage by itself...
Verizon the good:
Price: $150-160 gets me: phone, a few hundred channels, 35/35, DVR. More channels than cable overall, but not the same range of movie channels: for $15/mo additional (total 165-180) I could fix that.
Features: Being able to watch recorded content in other rooms is nice. Widgets are kind of useless - would be nicer if "favorites" could be configured to popup as an overlay (without resizing the screen) instantly on button push. Guide functionality and various small features hands down beats cable. And my favorite: They don't do that stupid "you didn't really want to stop where you pressed stop" "feature" that comcast DVR has started doing.
Picture quality: this varies based on the source (for example, local channels often broadcast in HD, but 'on the scene' cameras and whatnot provide low quality), but overall any given HD is much better than the comcast equivalent.
Speed: nice. very nice. Having an issue though, where I'm supposed to get 35/35 and am "only" getting 25/25 - given that it's so exact a cutoff at 25, I am thinking I need to call and see if it was properly provisioned. If so, then this may move to the "bad" line items...
Verizonthe bad:
The prices are deceptive, since you're paying $5-20 per additional HD box on an HD converter. ($5 for an SD converter; $10 for HD that can receive DVR from other locations; $15 for DVR; $20 for DVR that can broadcast to other TVs). My $150/mo should have been $120/month, and it wasn't until I was "checking out" that I realized it wasn't. This deception is rampant throughout the web site and the TV commercials.
TV speed: a lot of the features in the TV interface seem slow. Displaying widgets consistently takes 3-5 seconds; other times the device seems to get overwhelmed with a backlog of requests and simply dumps all of them. After about 1-2 minutes it starts listening again.
Weird controls on on-demand content, specifically from network TV. While I could rewind/FF on-demand movies, I could not rewind or fast-forward on-demand content from NBC.
for internet service, they block port 80 incoming (NOTE: for me, they're not... but I don't know if this is a fluke or a change in policy.)
Overall, in my experience Comcast doesn't deserve the award. Though they are currently outclassed, my own experience with them has been great for years. It's only the price/performance that made me switch; before FIOS was an option, I was happy where I was.
This is "costing jobs" in the same way a tax cut "costs money", if anything at all. That is, they're claiming it will prevent them from expanding - thus prevent those jobs from being created.
Alternatively, they just don't put personal/private information on Facebook in the first place. That sounds a lot more reasonable than avoiding something entirely because it might be misused if you happen to give too much data.
Here's how I use Facebook: I provide my name (not private anyway) and schooling info (also not private, specifically given to let people find you). I periodically make comments only visible to friends, but they're nothing I wouldn't want to be showing publicly anyway..Now let's assume the worst-case: FB decides to give away all my data. What, exactly, am I risking?
Yep, got it in one. Nothing that's private except my email address. And judging by the amount of spam I get (hundreds a day), that wasn't all that private to begin with. Good thing I have another email address I use for significant communications with friends and family, that I don't use to register on any web site.
Ning recently announced it's focusing on its premium accounts and leaving the free accounts out in the cold.
Good. For a business to succeed, it needs to make money. Ideally it will make money by selling something other than the attention and information of its users.
Holy crap. ANd they're actually coming up with a business plan that doesn't depend on advertising... what a refreshing change:
We recently made the decision to focus 100 percent of the company on enhancing the features and services we offer to paying Network Creators. As part of this change, we'll be phasing out our free service. We will announce further details about Ning's product roadmap and different pricing options on May 4, 2010.
Except Ubisoft doesn't know whether you illegally download their game or not, so pirating it and not playing it at all have the same effect, that is: Ubisoft will assume piracy.
I'm sure that there's no monitoring or tracking of cracked version distribution. After all, it's not like the folks at Ubisoft can get to the same things everyone else on the Internet can. Good thing too, or else they might learn that their game was cracked.
The thing that makes "social media" useful is its userbase. You could never have found/kept in touch with your old friends if you weren't signed up for a service they were also signed up for. Trying to find a smaller service by definitions means it's not going to be as useful to you.
Especially given how many people find it necessary to constantly make eye contact with their passengers when talking. Ah, well. At least it would cull the herd. It's too bad it'll take out so many innocents in the process though; surely there's a more efficient way.
Alright, that aside... it looks like it won't be that sensitive after RTFA:
"The car stops at intersections and asks the driver for guidance on which road to take," the researchers say. A few seconds of attention with the driver looking in his desired direction get the car flowing again.
Heh. That'll be even better. Could you imagine stopping at every intersection... "Please indicate direction..."... roll forward a block... "please indicate direction..."... roll forward...
Slashdot Mirror
As to Blu-Ray, only total idiots pay the high prices and allow somebody else to kill your movies. The fact that you might upgrade your player and it PURPOSELY kills your encoding MAKES ZERO SENSE WHY ANYBODY WOULD BUY IT. And if you check the license, it is not only legal, but you have ZERO RECOURSE. IOW, you do not own the movie. They own you.
You make an assumption here: that the vast majority of the consuming public knows or cares about these things. If they stick it in the player and it plays, they're happy. If it doesn't play, they will blame the faulty disk or faulty hardware. To them, they have the physical copy, they own it -- and if it fails, it's similar to a VCR that eats tapes.
If you read that little tirade to them - even if you phrased it nicely - they'd look at you with eyes glazing over, unable to comprehend how this connects to their reality.
(although I did enjoy it strictly from an entertainment point of view)
.... okay, I'm a bit lost here. Isn't "for entertainment" the primary reason to watch a movie?
Does that still hold true a year after the city regained control of the network?
Potentially. Are they confident they've eliminated every point at which he could gain access? If not, then it would have to, wouldn't it?
Indeed, but my point was mostly that bring up "3 felonies a day" is a strawman (and not even necessarily an accurate one).
I was questioning the $5 million bail - but upon reading that he was caught in actions that appeared to be preparations to flee the state, it's understandable. Here's a person who has continued access to a critical infrastructure -- for all you know he can connect at any time and shut the whole thing down. Combine that with the fact that he seemed to be preparing to run... letting him free would have presented a risk of harm.
How many of us can say we've never been in a similar situation, or one that could be brute forced through court even if we were "right". Honestly, this could be any admin. Someone famous once said something about throwing stones.
Holy carp, really? As a sometime-admin myself, and as someone who works with admins regularly -- I can't think of any one of them who would have pulled this. It would cost the job at minimum -- and if it actually impacted the business significantly, you can bet civil and/or criminal prosecution would follow depending on the type and extent of the damages.
It disturbs me to realize that not only are there folks who think the behavior was justifiable, but also that it's somehow commonplace in IT. Even more disturbing to think that if there's one of you, there are more...
No. He was found guilty. He can appeal and that appeal may reverse that finding.
True. But until that time, he meets the legal definition of a criminal, to the best of my (non-lawyerly) knowledge. That is: convicted of a crime means you're a criminal -- unless and until it's overturned.
In which case, your statements would be wrong.
If I say "my dog is lost" because my dog is lost today; and my dog becomes found tomorrow -- this does not mean I am retroactively incorrect. I would only be incorrect if tomorrow I continued to say "my dog is lost" in spite of evidence to the contrary. If we followed the logic you're applying, we could never make statements at all without lengthy disclaimers that each statement is subject to data presently available, and may be proven incorrect at any time in the future.
I don't care if it is "unusual" or not. The fact is that the FACTS were not available PRIOR to the trial. So there is no basis for your statement about how any of us "stained our profession".
I disagree here, too. A bit of research (as OP and a couple of others did) showed there to be an extreme likelihood of misconduct by Childs -- if not a certainty, than close enough that the difference is negligible. It is this misconduct that is a stain on our profession, as it reinforces a stereotype that we've been trying to get away from for years. The conviction is secondary, and only services to strengthen that stain.
If, upon appeal, this case is reversed, does that then mean that you have then "stained our profession"? No? Then do not claim that others have.
Again, we have the same leap in logic, but we'll sidestep that as it's missing the point. It is not the conviction which made his actions a stain -- it was the actions themselves.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html
You're a criminal too. You just haven't been charged yet.
People like to quote that article as if it's a proven fact, but...
Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.
The article itself doesn't really provide any examples with which to substantiate the claim.
Aside from that, we're talking about apples and oranges. For sake of argument, let's assume you're correct. Still, Childs knowingly and deliberately took the actions he did -- at the very least he knew he was in serious breach of policy, even if not the law.
I would just make it very clear to him that he did not have sole authority over the network and make sure that others always had access.
Don't you think that's just a symptom though? Here is a person that honestly felt -for a period of months - that it was within *his rights as an employee* to act the way he did. This in spite of numerous explanations and discussions with management telling him that - essentially - he was wrong.
I think after a certain point, rational thought processes no longer apply. I wouldn't want such a time-bomb working for me under any situation.
Car analogy failure. It is illegal to drive a car without a spare tire, so the removal would actually affect every single person and not just a "small part of the userbase".
The problem with car analogies is that inevitably, someone tries to take it far beyond its intended conclusion -- either in an attempt to show how apt it is, or an attempt to show how inappropriate it is.
Nope. Didn't say anything about legally, this is strictly my opinion. I could accept this *maybe* at the town level - since in theory town representatives are actually in touch with the real people they represent -- but even that's pushing it.
I ponder why they didn't call it a Post Pre.
...this is a great idea. I had to institute a rule in my house that no toys were allowed with food. I found that when I forbid the kids from having the toys, when I gave them a choice of restaurants for dinner, they were much more likely to chose one with better food. It seems that the toys were a large part of the draw...take that away, and they were much more likely to eat something healthy.
As a parent, that's your right. But it doesn't seem that as a government, that right belongs with the county. This is no different from laws banning any "immoral" behavior -- it's the government meddling where it has no business doing so.
For needlessly and willfully invoking Godwin's Law, you are hereby sentenced to -1 Offtopic
Sentence commuted to +5 funny for amusing behavior.
maybe he was a jerk about it, but that doesn't make you right about him.
Actually, it does. No matter what the policy is, if your management says "hand over the passwords" -- you hand over the passwords. Maybe you get a lot of documentation around it, maybe you make sure HR signs off on this breach of policy, but you DO hand them over. If an auditor says it, you follow the same process -- talk to management, leave a paper trail, get sign-off from anyone necessary in the bureaucracy. OR obtain confirmation that you don't have to comply (not the case here).
You don't flounce off like a child having a tantrum because someone else might screw up your precious network. That network isn't yours -- it's your employer's.
Comcast - the good
Comcast -the bad
Verizon the good:
Verizonthe bad:
Overall, in my experience Comcast doesn't deserve the award. Though they are currently outclassed, my own experience with them has been great for years. It's only the price/performance that made me switch; before FIOS was an option, I was happy where I was.
This is "costing jobs" in the same way a tax cut "costs money", if anything at all. That is, they're claiming it will prevent them from expanding - thus prevent those jobs from being created.
Here's how I use Facebook: I provide my name (not private anyway) and schooling info (also not private, specifically given to let people find you). I periodically make comments only visible to friends, but they're nothing I wouldn't want to be showing publicly anyway. .Now let's assume the worst-case: FB decides to give away all my data. What, exactly, am I risking?
Yep, got it in one. Nothing that's private except my email address. And judging by the amount of spam I get (hundreds a day), that wasn't all that private to begin with. Good thing I have another email address I use for significant communications with friends and family, that I don't use to register on any web site.
Ning recently announced it's focusing on its premium accounts and leaving the free accounts out in the cold.
Good. For a business to succeed, it needs to make money. Ideally it will make money by selling something other than the attention and information of its users.
We recently made the decision to focus 100 percent of the company on enhancing the features and services we offer to paying Network Creators. As part of this change, we'll be phasing out our free service. We will announce further details about Ning's product roadmap and different pricing options on May 4, 2010.
Except Ubisoft doesn't know whether you illegally download their game or not, so pirating it and not playing it at all have the same effect, that is: Ubisoft will assume piracy.
I'm sure that there's no monitoring or tracking of cracked version distribution. After all, it's not like the folks at Ubisoft can get to the same things everyone else on the Internet can. Good thing too, or else they might learn that their game was cracked.
The thing that makes "social media" useful is its userbase. You could never have found/kept in touch with your old friends if you weren't signed up for a service they were also signed up for. Trying to find a smaller service by definitions means it's not going to be as useful to you.
I will never kill myself willingly, and I am shamed for that fact.
The fact that you feel shame for this says interesting and rather uncomplimentary things about the society that trained you.
Porn usage actually stimulates the economy.
Is that what you kids are calling it these days?
Especially given how many people find it necessary to constantly make eye contact with their passengers when talking. Ah, well. At least it would cull the herd. It's too bad it'll take out so many innocents in the process though; surely there's a more efficient way.
Alright, that aside... it looks like it won't be that sensitive after RTFA:
"The car stops at intersections and asks the driver for guidance on which road to take," the researchers say. A few seconds of attention with the driver looking in his desired direction get the car flowing again.
Heh. That'll be even better. Could you imagine stopping at every intersection... "Please indicate direction..." ... roll forward a block ... "please indicate direction..." ... roll forward...