>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?
I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.
Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.
What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.
Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.
This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.
Part of my job is to advise companies on security policies like this, and I have advised in favor of such restrictions when asked. However this is done out of respect for the end-user's privacy. The reasoning is that there are two conflicting priorities in permitting BYOD use and network access:
First, as a security officer I have a duty to ensure that the network and all devices connected to it remain secure.
Second, as an agent of the company I have absolutely no right to dictate to an employee what they must or must not do with their device to prove that it is secure. It is their device which they purchased with their money to use for their own purposes.
Since I cannot prove that the device is secure without violating their privacy or exerting an unreasonable amount of control over the device, the only resolution is that the device is not permitted.
If you really need a device, then the resolution to that is to get the company to buy you a device -- at which point the company owns it, and can dictate what security measures are taken.
At the end of the day, a company pays you to do a job, and as such has the final say over how you do it and what tools you use to do it. It may not be your choice, or the best choice, or even an efficient choice. But that's how they want it done.
Good employers will listen to their staff and make adjustments and get the tools that their staff need. But it isn't mandatory.
If you don't like the job, and the employer won't change it to suit you, you have two choices: live with it, or leave.
Been there. Done that. Failed repeatedly, and for various interesting reasons, none of which are generalizable.
Your problem has several aspects to it, and as far as I can nobody's talked about them. Lots of the answers talk about specific parts of the problem but not in a general way.
Here's your problem:
Frankly the last issue is the most important. If you can get management to sign off on spending money (and really, your time is their money) then you are 50% of the way home. If you get sandbagged halfway through when you discover you need to unplug three linksys switches that happen to form the iSCSI core network that will take the world offline for six hours to sort out a spanning-tree loop, then you'll have other problems. But the technical ones are easy to sort out once management has committed to spending time and money to solve them.
This doesn't work for the same reason that virtualization rarely yields absolute savings. Instead of "doing the same with less", the pointy heads see all this newly-freed up hardware and decide to re-use it. You end up "doing even more with the same". So your costs-per-work-unit go down, but your absolute costs stay the same (or go up once virtualization costs are factored in).
The same goes for people buying hardware. We rarely say "oh, I can buy this computer that has A) the same performance and B) better energy consuption rates as my existing one for less than I paid for it" -- we say "oh, I can buy one that is so much faster and powerful (and ususally, energy-hungry) than my existing one for the same as I paid for the originial".
Why spend more money to get what you already have, when you can spend more money to get -- more?
What happens when he's on vacation or sick and a server dies? What happens when the website has an issue and then *anything* else goes wrong?
Oh, that's easy:
In fact, I'd lay odds that's how the vacancy occurred.
It is more subtle than that. The problem is that the "freedom" being exercised in the current ecosystem is that of the Software Engineer: they have the freedom to write bad applications (or write good applications badly, which is different). The end result is that the end user no longer cares if you, the Software Engineer has unfettered market access to their device. They are tired of dealing with the garbage that the unfettered market is providing. They don't want freedom -- they want to do the things that these devices are supposed to enable, instead of being hung up on the devices themselves. For example, the difference between operating a camera and taking a picture.
Your reply also confuses me, as you seem to take a position against mine, then go on to use your own poor experiences with your non-restricted Android platform as an argument -- which to my mind, just reinforces my argument. If someone had been curating your app experience with the Android, it might not have been so bad.
Apple's App Store is a logical result of the chaos that's been exhibited on general purpose computing platforms for the last 20 years.
When end users experience crashes, blue screens, data corruptions, poor user interfaces, hung devices, and insufficient functionality, they are not "feeling their freedom". They are feeling the results of you exercising yours. And when their "local nerd" is asking them questions which leadingly suggest that they shouldn't have been doing what they've been doing, they feel angry.
End users want computing like they want toast. Put in their bread/data, push a button, and get their toast/video. The fact that this is very hard, and in some cases virtually impossible, does nothing to limit the end users' expectations. For years they have been told these computers will make their lives better and enable them in so many ways -- which they have, but they sure don't like the hidden costs that these ecosystems have dumped on them.
You know all those arguments that have been made? If you don't like it, you don't have to use it! That's all the end user is doing.
Sturgeon's Law explains that 90% of anything is crap. If curation -- in the form of App Stores or whatever -- can change those odds, even just a little bit, end users are going to move towards them in droves.
Software engineers have squandered their freedom, and end users are increasingly acting like they don't want to have any part of it any more.
(I wrote up a much longer article on the same theme.)
I haven't posted a journal here in almost three years, because I couldn't find the button to start a new entry.
So... hi, Slashdot. I used to be really active here, but now I mostly lurk and read. I've missed you.
If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never have given up being a rock 'n' roll star. -- G. Hirst