Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling

(that's not the issue here)

by Jouke (Curate)
on Dec 25, 2001 at 15:30 UTC ( #134279=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Re: Oregon Supreme Court declines to hear my case
in thread Oregon Supreme Court declines to hear my case


I expected no less than to be downvoted for my node...and it happened of course. However I still feel that if you posted a node explaining what happened and how we could learn from it, I would have no problem at all with it, in fact, I'd be happy to see it.

What you did however was telling us something quite unrelated to Perl, being the court decision. People would learn from your story if you explained the whole thing, which I think is no longer nessecary because I think the whole Perl world knows about it already

Again, I do symphathize with you and I think the State of Oregon is being rediculous, but like I said on the CB yesterday: if anyone else, an unfamous monk, would have posted this, it would most definately be reaped because the content of the node is not related to Perl.

But that's my final word about it. I expect you will respond to this one, and if I feel the urge to respond again, I'll /msg you.

May your court-troubles soon be over!

Jouke Visser, Perl 'Adept'
Using Perl to help the disabled: pVoice and pStory

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (that's not the issue here)
by merlyn (Sage) on Dec 25, 2001 at 20:10 UTC
    which I think is no longer nessecary because I think the whole Perl world knows about it already
    One glance even at the messages posted here tells you that this is not true. Even with all the desk-pounding and pavement-pounding I've done on the story, I still find people who are amazingly unaware of my story.

    And you fail to draw the distinction I made yesterday. This is important to the Perl community because it is me. There's no point in bringing up what would happen if an "unfamous monk" posted a story similar to this.

    -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

      merlyn says:
      And you fail to draw the distinction I made yesterday. This is important to the Perl community because it is me. There's no point in bringing up what would happen if an "unfamous monk" posted a story similar to this

      You sense of self-importance is truly astounding.It appears Ovid's response was entirely mistaken as far as your motives for posting are concerned. It isn't about the law at all. Its all about you. Your post's only import here being that the personal problems and hardships endured are **yours** and not some rank and file member of the community?? Wow. I don't believe you even see yourself as _part_ of the community, you seem to hold yourself as somehow outside and above the community.

      As for claims by Randal and others that he was only doing his job here are a couple of excerpts from his interviews by police and an Intel superior. For full context please go and read everything for yourself including the police reports and trial transcripts.

      reports court
      Detective Lazenby's report:
      I asked Randal why he would need forty to fifty passwords and he said, "I needed them in case they caught me doing it and knew they would shut me down so the more passwords I had, the longer I could continue doing what I wanted to do."
      Rich Cower's report:
      Randal was asked why he was running the Crack process, and he replied it was to keep his access open should his account on Brillig be found and subsequently terminated. If the Brillig account had been discovered, he needed another place to run the "gate" program, and Crack would give him access to a system to do that.
      Rich Cower's report:
      I asked when he had started using Brillig for his "gate" process. Randal had moved the process to Brillig about 5 or 6 months ago, after this process was discovered on a system named Mink. He mentioned he was told not to run it on Mink and at this time he moved it to Hermes, which he found too slow for his needs. He then changed it slightly, and moved it back to Mink where it was found for a second time. This occurrence resulted in the Mink system administrator to remove his account [at Randal's request according to court transcrips], and Randal then moved the process to Brillig. I asked when his contract an authorized access to Brillig had ended, he responded with sometime in Oct/Nov/Dec of 92. He admitted he knew it was a violated of policy to do this, but did it because he needed this access to respond quickly to email. Randal explained that Rich Cower had put roadblocks up in the form of policy and software to make what he wanted to do impossible.
      Rich Cower's report:
      I asked how he had obtained the SSD password file. Randal explained that when he cracked passwords on the Brillig system, he had obtained a password of a user named RONB. RONB also had an account on SSD, and Randal admitted to using the RONB user name and password to access SSD. Once Randal was on the SSD system impersonating RONB, he could easily take the password file.
      Randal's own words in the fors-faq:
      As I have already said in this forum before, I answered 'yes' to the prosecutor's question of 'so you did this for personal gain?', when in fact, what I was thinking of was 'well, it was to keep my employment at Intel, and that benefits me personally, so yes.'

      I believe Randal was very afraid that he was being accused of something dire and serious like espionage in those initial interviews and he wanted to assure everyone that was not the case. He told the truth. The truths he told then do not align with the stories he tells today of standard operating procedure for sysadmins in the 80's. He was NOT just "doing his job". He was doing things he was expressly forbidden to do. He was NOT just trying help out and secure the system like some white knight. What he was doing was for his own benefit. Not selling secrets true but certainly not for atruistic reasons. He had terminated his own SSD contract two months early due to disagreements in decisions and policy there. Now much later under a different contract with a different division he saw a way to both get back at certain people there and thought he could win back some respect and his job at SSD. Just doing his job. Please.


        I find Randal's sense of self-importance to be plainly justified on its face. To be "astounded" by it shows (optimisticly) deep ignorance of his role in the history and development of Perl. Alternate interpretations of "astonishment" carry far more pejorative implications, particularly for an Anonymous Coward.


      Randal this, randal that. Let's face it, everyone here is too busy pointing fingers and shifting blame rather than actually trying to do something FUN with perl.

      So let me be the one who starts with the FUN again, in the hope others will follow.
      Here's a FUN little program which uses a slightly adapted schwartzian transform to generate comments from various categories provided some conditions are true.

      Allthough I can't tell you how I got the idea for this program, I'd like to stress it's intended as FUN!


      no strict 'truth'; ### the 'variables' in the world of $has_been my $has_been = { ego => 1000, skill => 50 }; ### well.. it's... 'life' ### my $life = 500; ### our automatons ### my %groupies = ( '8-year-old' => { iq => 60 }, 'family dog' => { iq => 80 }, 'Matt Wrong' => { iq => 50 }, 'l33t sk1llz' => { iq => 70 }, 'hoo[tk]ers' => { iq => 40 }, ); ### the universal measure of intelligence ### my $midget = { shoesize => 20 }; while ($has_been->{'ego'} > $life) { for my $automaton ( keys %groupies ) { chop $groupies{$automaton}->{'iq'} until $groupies{$automaton}->{'iq'} < $midget->{'shoesize'}; printf "%12s says: %-50s\n", $automaton, babble( type => 'random', content => 'suck +-up'); sleep 1; } } sub babble { my %args = @_; ### known catetegories ### my $cat = { 'mindless' => 0, 'suck-up' => 1, 'defensive' => 2, }; ### responses likely given by $automaton when $has_been is ### publicly critisized. ### the 2nd element is a string of scored in the 3 different ### catagories in $cat my $rants = [ [q|His sense of self-importance is plainly justified|, 453], [q|Why should he have to temper his personality to others sens +ibilities?|, 345], [q|He can ridicule me, because He Is Right|, 514], [q|More, please!|, 122], [q|*nod nod nod nod nod nod*|, 231], ]; ### now to order the reply by score in the catogory requested ### ### this calls for a schwartzian transform ;) ### my @sorted = map { $_->[0] } sort { $a->[1] cmp $b->[1] } map { [ $_, substr ($_->[1], $cat->{$args{'content +'}}, 1) ] } @$rants; if ($args{'type'} eq 'random') { return $sorted[int rand @sorted][0]; } elsif ( $args{'type'} eq 'most' ) { return $sorted[$#sorted][0]; } else { return $sorted[0][0]; } }

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://134279]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2019-08-21 09:46 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found