 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Is there anyone here who *doesn't* think it's porn?
Dunno. I have loads of files on my computer that I wouldn't want to put
on a shared drive. Financial documents, scripts with passwords embedded
in them, drafts of letters, etc.
--
"Class, please! If you don't learn Roman numerals, you'll never know the
dates certain motion pictures were copyrighted." -- Mrs. Krabappel in
The Simpsons.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I would have recommended a USB memory stick, myself.
>
> That only works if you *have* a USB stick. :-P
If the files are that important, I'm sure he can buy one. They're cheap.
--
"Class, please! If you don't learn Roman numerals, you'll never know the
dates certain motion pictures were copyrighted." -- Mrs. Krabappel in
The Simpsons.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> I'd use CDs too if I were her, otherwise I wouldn't know who else was
> looking at the files or where they were getting backed up etc. At least
> she can take the CDs home or burn them or shred them or whatever and be
> 100% sure nobody else has used them.
>
And if it's a company laptop, normally connected to the company network,
she should know that admins can access all that data at any time.
Without her noticing.
Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read
your files/emails ;).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> HDs were once of questionably reliability, but floppies are so
> hopelessly unreliable it's not even worth thinking about!
That (HD's unreliability) is what RAID is for.
>
> I mean, forget for a moment the fact that editing a Word document stored
> on a floppy is 97% guaranteed to result in file corruption...
I don't recall so, but if you'll take the floppy out before closing the
document (and won't put it back in quickly enough), you'll have 100%
sure corruption.
> A new
> document for each page?
No, a new page for each document, ie. 5 letters on a floppy means a
5-page document.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> HDs were once of questionably reliability, but floppies are so
>> hopelessly unreliable it's not even worth thinking about!
>
> That (HD's unreliability) is what RAID is for.
Yeah, but I mean I can remember being warned not to move a computer
while it's turned on for fear of causing a head crash. Now they put them
in PORTABLE MP3 PLAYERS! (I must admit, I feel happier with the
solid-state ones...)
>> I mean, forget for a moment the fact that editing a Word document
>> stored on a floppy is 97% guaranteed to result in file corruption...
>
> I don't recall so, but if you'll take the floppy out before closing the
> document (and won't put it back in quickly enough), you'll have 100%
> sure corruption.
Yeah, that too.
But according to the Word MVP site, it's a very bad idea to edit files
on a flopy. Copy them to the HD, edit them, save, close, then copy back
to floppy. That's the recommendation anyway... [This probably only
applies to new versions of Word. Older ones were less accident-prone.]
>> A new document for each page?
>
> No, a new page for each document, ie. 5 letters on a floppy means a
> 5-page document.
Gah. I typed that the wrong way round... although thinking about it,
what I actually typed would be really weird too!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:16:17 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read
> your files/emails .
I've been saying that for *years*. I'd get questions every once in a
while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the
network. My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT
admins?".
Granted, there are *some* limited cases where this is necessary because
of regulations in some industries. That's what happens when people who
know nothing about technology create legislation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:43:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> You can't even buy a hard drive that won't hold five Commodore Pet
> computers worth of memory for every *bit* of memory a Commodore Pet
> could address.
I'm trying to remember - what was the addressable space fro the Pet?
There were so many models, but the address space was the same on all of
them IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:16:17 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
>> Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read
>> your files/emails .
>
> I've been saying that for *years*. I'd get questions every once in a
> while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the
> network. My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT
> admins?".
A manager thinks he and only he is the boss, unless it is a woman. In
which case she thinks she is the boss. I think it comes as a surprise
when they find out that other people have more access than they. And no,
they are not going to give them the same permissions. Especially if
these people are much less pays than themselves.
In our hospital the IT people have access to all rooms and labs, even
the ones that are protected with badge readers because people may be
using e.g. genetically modified organisms or dangerous chemicals there.
It is impossible to have their access restricted (or force them to get
the right qualifications to enter). So we simply have to trust them that
they only enter in case of a real emergency, i.e one that can't be
solved by disconnecting the networkport.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:17:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:16:17 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>>
>>> Admins need to be people you can trust, because they actually can read
>>> your files/emails .
>>
>> I've been saying that for *years*. I'd get questions every once in a
>> while from managers wanting to keep their IT people out of files on the
>> network. My first question was always "why don't you trust your IT
>> admins?".
>
> A manager thinks he and only he is the boss, unless it is a woman. In
> which case she thinks she is the boss. I think it comes as a surprise
> when they find out that other people have more access than they. And no,
> they are not going to give them the same permissions. Especially if
> these people are much less pays than themselves.
I've only on a couple of occasions working in IT had a boss who insisted
on equivalent permissions to the ones I had. One was a relatively small
business (just a couple hundred users), and he actually backed me up, so
it made sense.
But the whole notion of having an administrator whom you don't trust is
just inherently wrong to me. If you don't trust them (as a manager) AND
can show cause WHY you don't trust them, then they shouldn't be your
sysadmin. End of story.
On the flip side of that, it's the sysadmin's responsibility to act in a
trustworthy way. I *always* had access to financial information, salary
information, and the like, and I *never* *ever* abused my authority to
see what my peers were making or find out how much the CEO was making. I
honestly just didn't care - it's not as if knowing that is going to get
me a raise anyways.
> In our hospital the IT people have access to all rooms and labs, even
> the ones that are protected with badge readers because people may be
> using e.g. genetically modified organisms or dangerous chemicals there.
> It is impossible to have their access restricted (or force them to get
> the right qualifications to enter). So we simply have to trust them that
> they only enter in case of a real emergency, i.e one that can't be
> solved by disconnecting the networkport.
That's a good level of trust. I'll bet the management puts a lot of
effort into making sure they hire people who are trustworthy.
Some companies have an "administrator agreement" that the admins must
sign that says they won't abuse their access. Last company I worked for
had that, ironically, I never did sign one - they just never asked me to.
I also have always insisted (when I've had administrative access) that I
be allowed to disable my own accounts and to *force* my boss to change
the administrative password with me not watching so they *know* I don't
have that information. As an IT person, there's nothing worse than being
even *accused* of inappropriate access once you've left the company.
That can be a career killer. I was asked to leave one job by my boss'
boss (don't know if the boss ever found out why I was leaving - it was
because he was a very poor manager and I called attention to it with his
boss - and his boss had been given the task of turning the poor manager
into a good manager; so basically, I was telling the director he was
failing at one of his main objectives, and he just didn't like it being
pointed out). I still got them to let me delete my own account and then
change the administrator (and the emergency backdoor administrator)
passwords.
I never heard from them again. Well, I bumped into the boss at a trade
show a few years later, and he acted like I should be happy to see him.
I wasn't, but I was polite to him, while still getting out of the lunch
area as quickly as was reasonably possible.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm trying to remember - what was the addressable space fro the Pet?
Same as every 8-bit computer, I'd think. 64Kbytes. (I just picked
Apple and Commodore pretty much at random as popular machines.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
