Re: March 29, 2006 total eclipse - IT admin's WORST NIGHTMARE
From: Moe Trin (ibuprofin_at_painkiller.example.tld)
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:50:23 -0500
In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<g_idnbomjep52tXeRVnemail@example.com>, Charles Newman wrote:
>Well, this sounds like something this guy, and his engineers would try.
>If MediaZone really is a subsdiary of this guy's company, they just might
>well pull it off.
And you expect a company like MediaZone to be using clueless trolls
posting from anonymous relays (or like the posts in December and January,
through cracked windoze boxes) everywhere except California. That makes
sense to you I'm sure. I suppose you also expect CCH to be flogging
their services from anonymous servers, and you buy pharmaceuticals from
the same sources.
>Given that the transmissions are going to be encrypted, and he talked on
>here about encrypted transmissions, this just might be a subsdiary of his
That's stretching pretty far, isn't it? Or have you subscribed and are
hoping it's not fake. If you paid by credit card and can dispute the
>>From what I gather, MediaZone inked a contract with the USFSA to
>webcast all the events under their direct control.
Try using google - It's remotely possibly you might learn something.
>If this is a subsidiary of this guy's company, as I suspect it may well be,
What evidence do you think you have that this might be possible? By the
way - make up your mind which is a subsidiary of which.
>IT admins may well be in for some serious trouble. If the packets are
>encrypted, it would be that much harder to gather evidence to use
>inappropriate internet use as a reason to fire someone.
See, that's another reason you'd never make it in IT. You obviously
know nothing about computers, never mind networking. You might want
to check the 'alt.folklore.urban' newsgroup - there's a pretty
apropos thread that might even hint a solution to you. But then again,
it _is_ technical, even if it probably is fake.
>That would have to come up with another reason, such as to tell them
>they are being downsized. That is the most common reason cited. It
>allows a company to get rid of an unwanted employee without having to
>say anything to any future employers that call up for a reference.
Is that what you were taught by your bean counter instructor? Here's
a free clue - consult a lawyer before you try that, lest the state
of California Department of Industrial Relations comes down on your
a$$. Think I'm joking? Ask a rather large chain of stores with a
California headquarters near the Oakland/Bay bridge about that. (Can't
believe they were _that_ stupid.)