The Glade 4.0

a) your imagination is limited because by your own admission you "can't imagine any other reason"
Perhaps I am involved in a donation drive.
Perhaps I know people who work with kids in schools who don't even have books, let alone computers.
Perhaps I have an issue with people using violence to make a point to children.
No, no you must be right. Its that I don't like guns. Yup. Ladies and Gentlemen, DiamondEye has solved the riddle.
And for the record, simply because I don't always throw pearls before swine doesn't mean the pearls don't exist. Or maybe I don't always want to get drawn into a "lets whip them out and measure" type argument.

b)No, actually you stated that "As for purging.. lots of work" demonstrating you don't actually know whats involved in wiping a hard drive cleanly. I'm sure you went out and looked up the data security policy AFTER the discussion got technical. (no shame, so did I, just to confirm the points I was making with Khross) but the point you were making was NOT that data wiping was insecure, but rather that you felt it was a somehow laborious task.
And no, systematically disassembling a hard drive with a screwdriver would be acceptable because it is not violent.

But since you seem to have problems with this definition we'll just go straight to a dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violent
vi·o·lent
   [vahy-uh-luhnt]
adjective
1.acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2.caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3.intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4.roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5.furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.

Take your pick.

Ohhh a vat of acid! That would be cool to watch yes?

_________________
Raell Kromwell

So TheRiov, it would be acceptable to write someone up at work for "exhibiting violence in the workplace" for having a really big sneeze? after all, that could be termed a 'violent' sneeze.

I think, in this context, it would be entirely acceptable to write someone up in the workplace for violent destruction of a laptop. I would be surprised if any company, other than maybe a security or gun company, would not view it as such.

Good question ;-p

Am I supposed to ahve a perfect imagination?



And you somehow think it's likely this guy would even know about your donation drive? It would be very lucky if he just so happened to live in your area.



In which case the loss of this single computer is unlikely to have meaningful effect.



Again, no violence has occurred.



No amount of sarcasm can overcome the fact that you continue to insist that violence has occurred when it has not.



Or maybe you were just trying to buy time to imagine a reason. If you didn't want to get into a discussion, why did you get into a discussion?



Again, I do know how much work is involved in the requirements for purging prior to connecting a classified system to an unclassified network. Specifically, it's 7 repetitions of what you described. That's a lot of work in my book. No matter how much you insist I "don't know what I'm talking about" you won't be able to change the fact that I don't need to know anything at all about how the purging actually works; I do know how much time it takes to do it to a level I would consider adequate for my personal data.



Then you're quite wrong. I knew it well before, because it was the standard required to reconnect computers we had used as classified in Iraq to unclassified networks upon our return, and the time involved proved a serious burden on our commo section because it was understrength. It was, in fact, a laborious task for them, and while they had more than one computer to do as well as other things, we're also talking about ONE guy who doubtless has other things to do with his time as well, and may not know how to do it, nor know anyone who can easily do it for him.

Of course you were "sure" that I only looked it up afterwords because you are just aching to find a reason I'm wrong about how much work it takes.



Why exactly is disassembling it with a screw driver not violent, but hitting it with a batseball bat or shooting it is violent?

But since you seem to have problems with this definition we'll just go straight to a dictionary:



1 Does not fit; the force was not "uncontrolled". It accomplished exactly what was intended and no more.
2 Using the screwdriver is also "violent" by that definition; the end result is that the computer is destroyed. One must exert force on the screwdriver to make it work, and disassembly destroys the computer.
3 highly subjective, but I see nothing terribly severe or extreme about a few bullets hitting a laptop in a controlled setting
4 might describe the man's feelings, but not his actions towards the computer
5 does not really apply at all; it refers to "violence" as a synonym for "intense" or "great".

What you're doing is objecting to violence that is supposedly objectionable to children, claiming this fits, and then use far more general definitions of violence in order to get it in there. In order to do this, you're having to use the broadest definition possible, but this results in absurdity: Shooting a paper target is, by that definition, "violent" as well. So is crushing a car in a car crusher. Neither of these is objectionable to children; they are orderly, controlled processes that might be considered "violent" in terms of "applying destructive force" but not in any way similar to the types of "violence" that are objectionable to children which (here's a clue) generally include violence against another human being.

The only reason you're doing this is because a gun was used, and you are associating guns with violence against people; because guns can be and are used for that purpose, you are transposing the qualities of a human onto the computer. This is silly; it is no more inherently objectionable to shoot up a computer than a paper target or a clay pidgeon. The only possible objection was one you made already; it could be donated and be useful elsewhere, but that would undermine the force of the point he was trying to make and be counterproductive to his purpose. The same applies to the baseball bat; you object to hitting it with a bat or an axe because you are equating that with hitting a human. Screwdrivers, on the other hand, are rarely used as weapons, very difficult to employ effectively in that role, and utilized in an entirely different manner as a tool than as a weapon; while you hit things with a bat when using it both as a tool and a weapon, the same is not true of a screwdriver. The screwdriver is therefore less objectionable to you because it does not bring connotations of violence against people to your mind - connotations that are not relevant.

In fact, even violence against other human beings is not automatically considered objectionable to "children"; we allow children to participate in sports like ice hockey, football, and martial arts, and while all of these have parameters for what kind of violence is acceptable and what isn't, the fact remains that "violence + children = bad" is not a valid equation; in point of fact, in at least the first two, children who participate are often criticized by their coaches when they do not use enough violence.

So, your complaint of violence makes no sense:
A) The computer is not a human being
B) The "Child" in question is only a child legally; she is not a child in the sense of development. She is an adolescent. Even legally speaking, adolescents are not the same as small children; they can be held to greater levels of accountability and even tried as adults in serious cases. By using the term "child" you are objecting to what this father did as a means of teaching a lesson to a far broader age range, not the one specific child in question. The fact that a much younger child might be alarmed, frightened, or unable to understand the difference between shooting an inanimate object and shooting a person does not somehow allow you to object to using the same technique for an adolescent simply because they are both legally "children".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again de. You are proving you don't know how a hard drive wipe is performed. I was not exaggerating when I said it takes less than 90 seconds of my time. If anything I grossly overestimated the time required. I pop in a disk I prevails for the task. I reboot. I walk away. And I have done so literally thousands of times in my job.

So in other words, you're conceeding everything else.

Here's a clue: I don't need to know how a hard rive wipe is performed, and I never claimed to know the actual process for doing it. I do, however, know that it means tying up the computer for quite some time while it does the wiping, and I do know that to be considered safe for connection to unclassified networks this must be repeated no less than 7 times, and is an inconvenience becuase you have to come back to the computer every couple hours or so to restart the process. I also would point out that just because it takes you 90 seconds does not mean it takes an untrained person 90 seconds, especially if they have to figure out how it is done. You have a handy dandy disk laying around to do it with, but most of us don't, so he would at a minimum also need to have prepared the disk, and he's most likely untrained at that as well.

It doesn't matter how many times you've done it or how experienced you are at it; the actual process is not the issue here. What's the issue is the fact that wiping the hard drive needs to be done over and over several times if prudence is to be observed; this is inconvenient, and doing so would only have been for the purpose of donating the computer when this man had no compelling reason to do so in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes. Me being unwilling to type long drawn out posts point by point from an iPhone keyboard=concession

It's how DE wins arguments. By having a higher boredom and stubbornness threshold than anybody else.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

This is why I've adopted more of a hit it and quit it model for posting.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

As opposed to using extensive prejudicial language,and relying on the Glade Popularity Contest? Yeah, ok. I'm not, you'll note, the one posting from my phone, but yet I'm somehow the "stubborn" one.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

MY GOD! IF ONLY!!! IF ONLY COMPUTERS COULD BE GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS AND THEN TOLD TO REPEAT THE PROCESS MULTIPLE TIMES WITH A SINGLE COMMAND!! IF ONLY!!!

Oh. wait.


That's exactly what computers DO.



Yeah. You can stop talking now DiamondEye. I don't post to threads claiming I know how to assemble and reassemble an M-16, or how to storm a building or how to perform an arrest.

Stop trying to post to threads claiming you know jack **** about IT. You don't.

People, people -- calm down. I know we don't all see eye to eye about a lot of things, but isn't more important that we find common ground? Let's not spend all our energies bickering over our differences about shooting laptops and wiping hard drives and, instead, meet each other on that fertile ground of agreement that you're BOTH retarded.


+1

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Ok.. how exactly you think that leaving the computer and then coming back to it is anything other than "giving it instructions and repeating them" is beyond me. No, I don't know much about IT. See, the problem you have is that I'm not claiming to. I'm repeating what I was told was the standard by our S6 (communications, which in the army includes IT) soldiers, NCOs, and officers. If I were going to give up a personal computer, I would want it wiped to the standard they described to me. I also know that it was a burden on their time to have to do this, because we had a hard turn-in date that any computer to be wiped had to meet or it would be... impossible to wipe it prior to our RIP date.

So, you can tell me I don't know anything about IT all you want and you'll be right.. except that I am just repeating what I was told by IT people. Don't bother telling me I didn't understand them either; when someone comes to me and tells me "Sir, it will take X long to accomplish the task, it must be repeated Y times, therefore it needs to be started no later than time Z" there's no secret IT knowledge it takes to understand that concept either. That works for any task, IT or otherwise.

Also, you are still ignoring the fact that while it may be trivially easy for YOU to set up a computer to wipe several times, it certainly isn't trivially easy for everyone, and I don't know of any reason to think its a trivial task for the man in the video. If you were to claim the aforementioned M-16 was difficult to disassemble and I were to start hollering and screaming about how trivially easy it is, and you're wrong, and don't know anything about guns when you've never been properly instructed on how to do it, or tried to do it before and I've been doing it for a good 17+ years now.. that would be wildly unfair of me, and it would be even more unfair for me to tell you what an idiot you are for thinking the bolt is re-inserted before the charging handle if you were told that by someone who DID know how to assemble an M-16.

Think about what you're saying. You're loudly repeating that I don't know anything about IT, so why exactly is it a problem for me to go off the information I was given by people who DO? Not only that, but why are you then screaming about how easy this task is for someone like you, who is trained? You just got done telling me I don't know anything about IT, so why would you think it would be trivial for me to accomplish.. and why would you think it was trivial for the man in the video who, to the best of our knowledge, knows no more about IT than I do?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wait, you mean the guy who says at the start of his own video that he works in IT?

Yeah, that guy.

What I found the most humorous is that he starts out the video claiming that his daughter should know better to hide this kind of thing from him because he's in IT, and supposedly there for smart enough to snoop it out, etc, but if you read the second link which has the follow up, he found out because the Dog had a FB login which the kid didn't hide. So in fact it was dumb luck, not is amazing IT skilz that uncovered what happened.

Huh, after re-looking at the video, I apparently totally missed that. I got the part about the log-in and the dumb luck, which somehow made me overlook his involvement (whatever it might be) in IT. My apologies, TheRiov, maybe it would be reasonable for him to wipe the hard drive without much time invested. However, that doesn't change the fact that deciding not to is hardly a serious deprivation of potential resources to charity, or that "teaching children through violence" is not an accurate characterization of what happened.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wow...this thread got crazy. My take...it is reasonable to say that he was being wasteful, and that he should have donated it to charity. It is however, his laptop to do with as he wishes. People are wasteful all the time, and it could be he thought the lesson to his daughter was more important than the waste.

Second, calling this violence is ridiculous. SuiNeko, you completely avoided answering my question. The only definition of violent that would apply to this guy's destruction of his laptop, is the same one that would apply to the crumpling of a piece of paper.

I disagree there's any similarity between a sneeze , crumpling paper, and using a weapon to destroy something. My point in answering your question was that most workplace policies I'm familiar with also draw tat conclusion; something that occurred to me cause of your question.

I accept you disagree - and I'm not goin' to engage 20 pages of terrier argument over it, which I'm sure is a great relief to you and all other readers of the thread

Peace!

Shooting a laptop in the middle of an office building, in an uncontrolled situation, would of course be an act of violence. It would recklessly endanger people around him, would be intimidating to those around him, and would be completely inappropriate. The context of the act is everything. If I stood up at work and started singing Comfort Ye from Handel's Messiah, I would freak out my coworkers, likely get written up by HR, and forced to get a psychological evaluation. If I did the same thing at church on Sunday morning (in the appropriate time) I'd likely get complements.

In the same way, if this person worked someplace that was developing rugged laptops, and shot a laptop with a gun, in the middle of an office building, in a controlled environment, then would that be considered a violent act?

In the context of the video, in an open field, on his own property, with no one around, it is not a violent act. I hope that explains my position better.

Edit: One other thing...sneezing, in the right context, could be considered a violent act. If you have tuberculosis and you intentionally sneeze on someone, in order to give them TB, I would consider that a violent act.

Why? If the property is yours to do with as you please, what makes using a weapon to destroy it any different than anything else?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I absolutely support the right of an individual to own firearms (which I finally do myself after getting my FOID a few weeks ago!), but I forget, what was the point of him announcing what caliber his gun was and the type of ammunition he used? (and before you try to lawyer this up, watch it again, which I did, he was so over-excited about his .45 and finding an excuse to announce his 'exploding hollow rounds'...who gives a ****? What relevance did that have exactly? And again, don't lawyer up and claim that he needed to, to guarantee destruction of the laptop)

By that logic then there is no difference between dying peacefully in your sleep and being slowly abraded to death with a belt sander.

Of course there isn't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In other words, don't provide certain types of explanations because you've decided in advance you don't like them?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."