| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Next » |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 11:05
•
by
SoonerMatt
(unregistered)
|
|
Hopefully she started looking after the first "No,no,no".
If not that's the real WTF. |
|
Wow. I don't know what to say here.
|
|
I assume the commas are there as some sort of phonetic pause.
If you thing back to the last job you [pause for a breath – dramatic music] regretted taking [pause] Or maybe someone just can’t write. I’m criticising someone typing ability – I wonder if Muphrys law will come into play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law |
|
Paranoid stupidity vs. real security means a win for paranoia while leaving plenty to be paranoid about. Sheesh.
|
I call BS. There are no girls in IT outside of tech support and testing. PS. Sorry to all the female developers in the world (both of you), I suspect you exist but I sure as hell have never met any of you! |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 11:29
•
by
Barf4Eva
(unregistered)
|
Poor fella... You should work at my company, then. ;-) SideNote: What really irks me about this article is how useless Shredder is initially made out to be, but when he gets called off to some other duty, Leigh's team gets swamped. I call BS on this particular aspect all by itself! |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 11:32
•
by
Barf4Eva
(unregistered)
|
*the company I work FOR (yikes, I best rephrase so as not to lead astray.. yeah I won't be able to help out in any meaningful capacity with the ladies, I'm afraid. I'm a cube-lovin' sql nerd, not the big head honcho) |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 11:37
•
by
GCU Arbitrary
|
I'm afraid so - assuming, of course, that you intended to criticise someoneS typing ability... ;¬) |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 11:38
•
by
Bob
(unregistered)
|
|
Hmmm, good wikipedia skills. You should try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_(punctuation)
|
|
For some reason, I kept reading "security purposes" as "security purpoises". Would someone please think of the tortoises!
|
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 11:55
•
by
Ryuzaki
(unregistered)
|
|
Hey, everyone knows people like Shredder are essential parts of the team. After all, someone needs to get the coffee every once in a while. It's a wonder they didn't fall apart after he was reassigned.
|
|
I'm left wonding what ever happened to the company in question. This whole thing sounds to me like someone is/was breaking a handfull of laws.
At least, that's my humble opto. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 11:56
•
by
Konamiman
(unregistered)
|
|
Me too, once worked on a company with no internet access except on one computer detached from the intranet, "for security purposes". It seems that before I was hired, one of the computers were infected with a virus that came from a suspicious downloaded software.
It wasn't a surprise when I learned that the computer that was infected was, guessed it, the owner's computer. |
|
No-No-No. I wont read this site for security purpose
|
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:00
•
by
Some Feminist
(unregistered)
|
They are still in Beta. Unfortunately we've had problems with the trade dress; they are often judged on apperance rather than substance, to the frustration of both the developer and the client. However, there is a promising program in R&D, codename "Fight Sexism" that we are hopeful will resolve issues related to stereotypes, which will in turn fix the trade dress issue. Another idea they've been kicking around in R&D is teaching grade school girls about Ada Lovelace. Who knows what crazy thing they'll come up with next. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:00
•
by
Matthew H.
(unregistered)
|
Yes, I would say it did. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:02
•
by
Code Dependent
|
You did that on purpose. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:09
•
by
Anonymous
(unregistered)
|
|
That's nothing.
National City Mortage (the mortgage arm of National City Bank) employs several de-staplers (whose sole task is to remove staples from papers), staplers (whose sole task it is to staple papers together, often the same papers that the de-staplers worked on just moments before), and copiers (whose sole task is to operate a copy machine). Strangely enough, they use a third party for shredding. |
|
There are plenty of women developers, and women in other IT positions.
None of them are named "Leigh", of course; they're all named "Hien" or "Xue" or "Ping" or "Arpita" or "Parvati" or... |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:10
•
by
DaveyDaveDave
|
Um... someone's... |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:11
•
by
Code Dependent
|
BBCode url tags, maybe. No, wait, that's already... um... nevermind. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:20
•
by
Flatline
|
Shredder is never made out to be useless, it's just stated that part of his job is the unecessary shredding of documents. The other aspect of his job isn't really covered in the article so it's hard to argue that when he is taken off the team that it SHOULDN'T make an impact on productivity. |
|
I wonder what the owner said when they tried to get him to go to rehab.
|
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:27
•
by
Richy C.
(unregistered)
|
|
Girls in IT? Nah - you're right, there aren't any... Apart from the one I'm engaged to ( http://www.whatkatydid.org/ ) and the one I'm currently doing some freelance work for (who also just jumped past Everest to raise funds for Computer Clubs 4 Girls - http://www.cc4g.net )...
Of course, the more girls in IT the better! |
|
Alex, please shred this comment. I don't want the Internet to read it (for security purpose)
|
|
Well, to be fair, Iron Mountain can suck. One of the companies I used to worked for used them and IR lost a whole bunch of their inventory. Just up and up vanished.
|
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:32
•
by
DoctorFriday
|
I love how the wikipedia article goes straight from "Early Career" to "Death". Those grade school teachers might have a little bit of explaining to do:
|
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:38
•
by
KäseMeister
(unregistered)
|
+1 |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:44
•
by
shadowman
|
You win the thread. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:47
•
by
Zach
(unregistered)
|
|
Hey, if we can celebrate Columbus, we can most definitely celebrate Ada. Besides, the heavy drinking aspect appeals to a lot of college students.
also: I like how the one guy messed up "someone's", using "someone" instead, but nobody yet has pointed out that he used "Muphry" instead of "Murphy" -- twice. as for the article.............. haha, $850 security blanket. Nothing quite beats the combination of paranoid and stupid. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 12:58
•
by
scruffy
(unregistered)
|
|
Oh god this reminds me of a couple of places.
Most recently I went for a contract, The "Ah Ha" moment for me was when they hired me as a linux dev, and on the first day I had to sit through the "Viral GPL will wreck our IP" argument. Earlier, during the induction, (WTF itself, who inducts contractors?) the head of HR had gone off on a massive bitch-fest about an invisbile line around the building, that you could be fired for crossing. And how somebody had established a "corporate policy" (Amongst a massive 80 people.) that all emails be sent in one font _and_ font size, and all printed matter be the same font, but a different size. She moaned about no-one being able to change it back, then she ranted about security meaures... as if I'd never worked on a list-x site before. Still the receiptionists wonderfully low neck-line. (Very nearly a navel line, if we're honest.) Nearly swung it for me. But I couldn't quite face a two hour commute AND an 07:00 start... |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:05
•
by
Code Dependent
|
I wonder whether those "scandals" were so scandalous because of her gender? At any rate, perhaps she was simply following the example set for her:
|
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:06
•
by
Mogri
(unregistered)
|
Completely missed the point. (captcha: genitus. so close, and yet so far...) |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:08
•
by
Code Dependent
|
It's always a good idea to check out posted links before ridiculing someone. However, the missing apostrophe is unforgivable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:08
•
by
mark
(unregistered)
|
So this guy who works in an aquarium Get summoned by his boss Who is looking very worried. And she says to him, "I've just walked by the dolphin tank, And they're feeling very amorous - They're doing all sort of things to each other. And the trouble is in less than an hour, We've got three busloads of second graders are coming. We can't have them watching those naughty dolphins Behaving as if they were in a porno flick. "Now there is only thing that acts as an anti-aphrodisiac for dolphins, And that's the meat of baby seagulls. So I want you to go down to the seashores, And catch us baby seagulls, Put them in this bag, And hurry on back. "But be careful - A lion escaped from the zoo this morning. And although he was heavilly sedated, He still just might be dangerous. O.K., get going, And make it snappy." So the guy takes a shortcut through the forest to the seashore. He fills the bag with baby seagulls. And he's walking back to the forest, When he sees lion, And it is lying, across the path, Directly in front of him. It's too late to run away, And the feline does seem so placid. So summoning up all his courage, He steps across the lion. Nothing happens. And so with much relief, the guy begins to resume his journey When none of the sudden, the policeman steps aside out of the forest. He graps the guy by the eye, And says to him, "You're under arrest!" The guy can't beleave it. He says, "Tell me officer, what's the charge?" And the policeman says, Transporting young gulls across the staid lion for immoral porpoises! |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:15
•
by
P
(unregistered)
|
The random "featured comment" selector doesn't seem to have selected this one :) |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:17
•
by
Code Dependent
|
I first saw this in Readers' Digest about 25 years ago. In that version, the gulls were used as part of a recipe that would make dolphins and porpoises live virtually indefinitely, leading to the conclusion, "Transporting gulls across a staid lion for an immortal porpoise". |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:25
•
by
jDeepBeep
(unregistered)
|
Well, we could safely say they weren't PCI compliant. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:26
•
by
hymie!
(unregistered)
|
It's considered polite to credit the author when you post somebody else's work. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:30
•
by
FUrPorpoise
(unregistered)
|
Wow, I was expecting a great punchline after having to read all of that. What a disappointment. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 13:46
•
by
jvanderb
|
Oh, no-no-no-no, that wouldn't work. They might steal the voices in my head. They can't be trusted! |
|
Another Ahh haaa moment should come shortly after seeing about 100 table names in the company's flagship system titled AACC_TableForSomething AAACC_TableForSomethingElse ... or if you see a "password field" and then a "password2" field.
Have fun with that :) |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 14:05
•
by
cparker
|
*wink wink, nudge nudge* |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 14:06
•
by
genitus
(unregistered)
|
You must work in my old department. In that group of 11 developers, 6 were female: Hien, Xue, Ping, Arpita, and Parvati, and Olga. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 14:09
•
by
amischiefr
|
Oh man you had me rolling :) Soooooo true... |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 14:13
•
by
amischiefr
|
Web designers don't count. My 13 year old cousin does web design ffs. |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 14:23
•
by
Jeff Rife
(unregistered)
|
Unfortunately, a website that requires Javascript for the most basic functions and then still fails in Firefox 3.0.1 with Javascript enabled is a good example of many of the "girls in IT". Of course, it's also a good example of most of the lack of quality in IT that keeps TDWTF in business. |
|
Heh... Now to start shredding comments!
For security purposes... Crinkle cut baby! \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// |
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 14:26
•
by
Michael
(unregistered)
|
|
My moment was when our CIO told me: "Solaris is alright, but you have to reboot it every day or it will run out of memory."
|
Re: For Security Purposes, Of Course
2008-10-14 14:31
•
by
operagost
|
I guess they got their archival and shredding businesses mixed up. |
| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Next » |