Brian Beesley pontificated...
>At the time, Blosser claimed that he *did* have permission - but only
>from the "owners" of the PCs concerned - presumably someone else who
>should have approved his project either wasn't asked, or didn't give
>permission.
Having worked in both small and large corporate environments, its very
frequently TOTALLY unclear who has responsibility for something that hasn't
been 'thought of first'. If you try and do ANYthing within ALL the 'rules',
you will never get there. I'm heading to a planning meeting today that was
called last tuesday and involves participants from all parts of my current
employer ('megacorp S'). Several folks were denied travel authorizations on
the grounds that the VeePee in charge of pencil sharpening didn't get the
authorizations on his desk with some arbitrary proscribed lead time, so we are
going to have to plan a very complex WAN architecture without about 1/3rd of
the divisions inputs.
>1. A new rule that no more than a fixed maximum number of machines be
>allowed for each user identity in Primenet. I suggest about 50 for
>the limit.
Well, that will make those of us who only HAVE access to 10 or so systems look
good. Puh-LEEZ. Who appointed YOU netcop?
Anyways, someone who can run 1000's of copies will just cook hundreds of
identities. Where there is a will, there is a way.
>2. Blosser's user account to be reset to zero results & CPU years.
>All Blosser's previously-submitted results to be retained,
>but reassigned to a new user "anonymous" who will not appear in
>ranking lists.
Why?? Again, who appointed YOU to the thought police? Blosser's results are
still perfectly valid.
-jrp
