Since I've been gone

It's been nearly three years since I posted an entry on my blog.

When last I posted, I was not aware that my career would tailspin so radically due to circumstances that were largely out of my control. Suffice it to say, there was a significant personality clash between me and my manager.

Wait a second.. the hell with that. I was fired. Things came to a head when my manager felt it necessary to yell at me in front of all of my co-workers for doing something that I thought I had been asked to do. I guess it was the last straw when I tried to defend myself instead of just rolling over and playing dead. I've never been in a less comfortable position in the workplace. While I am reasonably sure there were actions I could have taken that would have prevented my termination, I can say confidently that to dress down yell at someone who reports to you in full view/earshot of EVERY SINGLE ONE of their coworkers is unprofessional in the extreme. (By the way, how's that eHarmony profile working out for you? There's a reason you're single. Nobody can stand you.)

Now this wasn't the first time I've been terminated from a job. My job history is.. colorful.. to say the least. However, this one really hurt.

It means I can never apply for a job at Google.

Hell, when I tried to reach Google HR to find out if I was on the 'ineligible for hiring' list, my calls weren't returned.

Whether this is a result of overwork, a policy of not returning these kinds of calls, or an indication of my status, I don't know. All I know is that it very nearly killed me. I lost it, big time. The person from their in-house consulting group (I was a contractor) needed to almost literally talk me down from a ledge when she broke the news. I had seen this position as the 'foot in the door' that would hopefully exempt me from Google's infamously grueling multi-interview hiring process (which, realistically, I stood no chance whatsoever of passing in the usual way.)

I took it really personally.

It's coming up to three years ago now, and it still makes my hands shake a little bit from disappointment, anger, and frustration.

By now I'm sure you've written me off as some drama queen emo whiner who needs to man up and take his lumps like everyone else. To which I say: You don't know me. You don't know what it did to me. Next time you get fired from your foot-in-the-door, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, come look me up. I bet you'll think anyone who tells you to "man up" is going to sound like a total dick.

So people that I know have encouraged me to start posting again. Hi, guys. More to come.

Here, drive this car, but we're not giving you an engine

My workplace is fairly small, headcount-wise. As one of the three individuals identified as being in a "supervisory" or "adminstrative" role, I frequently will have to deal with manager-level issues (especially when the boss is at a meeting or traveling.) I don't have a whole lot of experience doing this. Matter of fact, I didn't have any to speak of at all.

But, it's a great opportunity and a terrific company to work for, so I do the best I can. I make judgement calls when I need to, and do my best to keep an eye on the big picture. I also try to remember that I'm only filling in, I'm not in charge of the place.

A fact that the boss never misses an opportunity to remind me of.

Every judgement call and situation that I've tried to handle recently has been undercut, second-guessed, and/or neutered by the Boss after the trip is over. I tried to address a specific problem created by Mr. Annoying last week by employing some training that the company had paid for. I did the best I could under the circumstances, and walked out of The Talk with Mr. Annoying feeling like we were at least on the path towards improving the situation.

At least that's what he told me.

Turns out that he went and whined to the Boss about how bad I made him feel and how he was afraid of losing his job. Nevermind that I made it very clear multiple times that his job was not in jeopardy, and if it were we would be having a different conversation. Just like everything else, he heard but didn't listen to what I was saying. Several times in the conversation I would say something, and ask him to tell me in his own words what I meant. Needless to say, he had about 25% accuracy in even repeating exactly what I had said with no translation.

The Boss made all kinds of excuses for his behavior, and that the solution to the previous problems with him were to "let it go". If he wanted to hoard cards, that was fine. If he wanted to waste time in a meeting, that was fine. If he wanted to completely ignore what I asked him to do, to the point of me needing to repeat myself several times a day, I was told that that was what we would do.

So that puts me in the unenviable position of having responsibility without authority. I'm not asking for hire/fire rights or input on long-term decisions; I'm just asking that I not be thrown under the bus on a regular basis. I don't see how this is so unreasonable.

Today was a new low. In trying to be helpful and follow The Boss's previous instructions, I tried to share some information from my experience regarding a technical matter. The Boss didn't think that was appropriate in that particular context, and in hindsight, that was probably correct. Did The Boss take me aside and give me feedback? Nope. Reply to the email saying "that's not relevant to what I'm requesting, let's stay focused?" Nope. The Boss decided it'd be more effective to shout at me from halfway across the room, saying how my input wasn't wanted there. Did I mention all the users were within earshot?

In my shock and surprise, I got into a somewhat heated debate about the need for what The Boss was requesting in the first place, which was something that was not appropriate to discuss in that setting. Finally, I realized things were not constructive at that point, so I just said "OK", meaning I wasn't going to argue anymore, and we could move on. The Boss didn't let me. The Boss insisted on arguing with me after that.

So I let it go until lunchtime, at which point I approached The Boss to try to resolve the conflict. I indicated what I thought the problem was, admitted that I was wrong in what I did, and expressed a desire to resolve things. The Boss's reaction was to send me home.

Sent me home. After yelling at me in front of my co-workers. Because I had the nerve to try to defend myself.

I haven't lost my job, a point which The Boss emphasized (to the point of asking me to please come back the following morning.) However, The Boss's Boss is getting involved.

I should have just gone to The Boss's Boss in the first place.

Anyone else have a boss like this? Who's stated that they "don't believe in apologies in the workplace?" Who never hesitates to make you look like an idiot in front of your co-workers, but goes postal when you question something (even if it's your job to do so?)

I know the answer to that question, actually. There's lots of them. I just didn't think I'd find any of them where I am.

Mr. Annoying is at it again

Everyone's favorite annoying bastard is at it again. This time, he's added a "selfish" aspect to his completely irritating behavior.

So we have a process at work that utilizes colored index cards as a visual cue as to what stage of production something is in. (Pesty, that NDA.) Some of these cards get destroyed in the process; they are replaced when they fall short. Occasionally, one of our workers will run out and have to get help from a lead. No big deal, the lead gets more cards, everyone goes on with their lives, only having been interrupted for a couple minutes.

Unless, of course, you're Mr. Annoying.

Mr. Annoying doesn't like to run out of cards. Mr. Annoying feels that a couple of minutes is too much of a delay for him. So what does he do?

He starts hoarding cards.

Remember that these are a shared resource. Everyone uses them. Everyone is subject to them running short. But Mr. Annoying has decided it's more important that he not run out of cards. So in effect, instead of him being inconvenienced for a couple minutes, it's better for several others to run out instead. Seriously, the guy had about 2 inches' worth of cards stashed on his desk.

When I saw this, I tried to explain to the pinhead that he shouldn't be removing them from the flow, and they should be returned when he's got extra. He didn't listen. He replied that "sometimes I run out". I tried to explain to him how that's not fair to the others in the group. He again replied that "sometimes I run out." I tried to reason with him, to no avail. Finally, I just said to him "Don't do that, asshole." (Well, what I said was "I would rather you didn't do that.") He still didn't understand how he'd done anything wrong.

This might seem to be a minor thing. But remember that this is a production environment, and it's important that things run as efficiently as possible, so the team can meet its goals. By taking this action (in order to avoid an interruption of a few minutes in his work), he's created a problem for multiple others on the team (and, predictably, multiplying the problem unnecessarily.)

This is a symptom of a larger problem with him. No matter how many times it's explained to him that there are several factors involved in evaluating his performance (not the least of which is the quality of his work), using the smallest words possible, the only thing he ever thinks about is his raw production. The numbers. There have been days where I've had to repeat this to him three times. He just doesn't get it, and doesn't want to get it. He's focused his rat-like mind (hit lever, get pellet) on that one measurement, and nothing in the world can get him to realize that there might be more to it.

This one is a little different. This is the first time something he's done has negatively impacted production. The rest of the time, he just pisses me off.

Time to start making notes....

Spy all you want, we'll make more

I was catching up on my Slashdot today (having just spent 11 of the last 48 hours on a plane) and came accross this article from the Washington Post. In a nutshell, only 24% of Americans polled "strongly objected" to the NSA's newest round of Stupid Privacy Invasion Tricks, while 63% said everything was hunky-dory.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.

Don't you realize that each chunk of privacy that you give up is another battle that the terrorists have won? That the companies that provide services to you are run by the most short-sighted greedy opportunistic bastards in the history of mankind?

Sure, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". BULLSHIT. If I call my Aunt Louise to wish her a happy birthday, how the fuck is that the government's business? If I call up a local liberal charity to donate some money, is that the government's business? If I happen to call someone who knows someone who knows someone that's on a hotlist of "suspected terrorist sympathizers" (whatever the fuck that means this week), does that make me a security risk in need of further investigation?

Even if you can look past the massive Constitutional issues at stake here, not to mention the betrayal of companies that we count on to be able to function in society (phones make modern life possible), there's the ENORMOUS potential for abuse! Hypothetically, data mining could be used to determine who is likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in the next presidential election (through their associations) and they could be targeted for further investigation (read: harassment) on the pretext that they're suspected of "terrorist" activities. After all, to a lot of people, if you're a Democrat (or, $deity forbid, a Liberal), you may as well throw the bombs yourself.

It's another step in a long line of the COMPLETELY insulting and offensive tactic of using the tragic events of September 11th 2001 to justify creating a police state, where your every move, communication, transaction, or association are monitored to ensure that you're not a "terrist". What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Or "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?" I'd call the arbitrary recording and/or monitoring of individuals who are not even SUSPECTED of any crime a pretty blatant violation of the Bill of Rights.

Oh, wait, that's obsolete. Silly me. Am I bending over far enough for you, Mr. GOP man?

It's things like this that make me embarrassed to be an American.

Oh Noes! No death penalty! Kill the jury!

I'm giving it about 3 hours before some right wingnut goes on a frothing-at-the-mouth kill-the-ragheads rant about how a federal jury sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life in prison without parole instead of the death penalty. I would not be shocked in the least to hear some knuckle-dragger demand the arrest of the jury as enemy combatants and tried for treason.

Listen up, assholes.

This is the system we have. This man was sentenced by a jury of his peers. Based on the evidence presented to them, they decided that this was the right decision. That's how it works.

If you don't like it, why don't you go live somewhere where you don't have the right to trial by jury. Say, Iran. Or Saudi Arabia. I'm sure you'll fit right in there, with your Bud Light and your NASCAR.

The right to a trial by jury is a building block of the American society. If you don't like it, then you must hate America. (I've always wanted to throw that line back in the face of some asshole neocon.)

Killing this man (who is, arguably, mentally ill) would make us no better than the "terrists" who you claim to hate so much. The only difference is that we don't televise the executions. (Yet. "Mr. President, Fox on line 1.") Not to mention we'd be creating yet ANOTHER martyr for Al Quaida to use as a recruiting tool.

Enough people have died already. 3000 of our citizens died that day. Killing this one person will not bring them back. Matter of fact, nothing will bring them back, not turning the Middle East into a glass parking lot, not deporting all the Mexicans, not shooting all the Muslims. None of it will help.

Then again, you're not about the help. It's much easier to hate.

Big Brother ^H^H^H^^H^H Microsoft knows what's best for you

I wanted to share something that I just noticed on this PC. I'm running Windows XP Pro SP2 on this desktop, and apparently Microsoft is assuming that they know what security and update settings I want. Yesterday I had the little yellow shield come up in my clock tray informing me that my system was downloading updates automatically, as I had set. I had chosen the "download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them" setting. I was checking my system today, since I didn't remember choosing updates to install after that, and lo and behold, the automatic updates setting had been changed. Hmm, I wonder who did that...

If you want to check your own system, open Start->Settings->Control Panel->Automatic Updates and look for the setting. I had mine set to "Download updates..." but it had been changed to "Automatic(recommended)". Screenshot is below.


Why does this matter? Well, it seems the latest round of "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" bullshit (read: You're a fithy pirate until we say otherwise) will keep you from being able to download security updates until you prove to MS that you've actually paid for Windows. Which I guess is fine, if it works right, and if Microsoft can be trusted to not demand people arbitrarily buy new copies of Windows because their old versions didn't "pass" for some reason.. oh, wait. Fuck.

Also, I don't want MS's fucking Spyware Removal Tool or Malicious Software removal whatever installed on my PC. MS can't be trusted to objectively say what is and isn't spyware/viruses. They've already proven their decision can be bought if there's enough incentive for them to do so. There's just too much potential for abuse here; we really don't want MS to be selling weapons to both sides in this war.

Take 5 seconds to check your settings. Drop me an email if you have any questions.

Traffic slow? Too bad, pay us more and we'll fix it.

So the big telecom companies are trying to assram through some legislation that basically would specifically allow them to shape network traffic (i.e. give priority to some traffic over others) based on how much the web site (likely targets are Yahoo!, Myspace, Google Video, Amazon, etc., the biggies) has paid them for their bandwidth. By paying more for their service, their traffic will be sent more quickly than those who are paying less. IOW, if there's four other people in your neighborhood watching Google Video, and you're trying to download a grant proposal form .PDF from a non-profit, your ass is out of luck until some bandwidth frees up.

Right now this does happen, but not intentionally. Every packet (bit of Internet information) has an equal chance at being sent from point A to point B. Under the proposed scheme, if A has paid more than B, A's traffic gets sent while B's traffic just sits there.

"Gee, that's a nice .com business you've built up there, it'd be a shame if anything ....'appened to it.." That's right! It's a Protection racket! The organizations with all the power (in this case, the fiber and copper that carry the Internet's traffic) are demanding money from businesses in return for not destroying them. It also means that unless you've got the cash to effectively bribe them with, your startup is doomed to obscurity and failure.

What does ths mean, practically? It means that 1) the big bandwidth providers, namely telcos and cable companies, get to extort more money from sites on pain of having their traffic shitcanned, and similarly, 2) they get to choose what companies can succeed, instead of the consumer making their choice based on silly things like customer service and/or value.

You might be thinking that "well gee, if they want to pay a premium for premium service, what's wrong with that?" If this were any other medium, I'd agree with you. But previously, companies would pay more money for more bandwidth, and the usual economies of scale would apply (if you buy in larger quantities, you'd get a better price per unit, etc.). Under the new proposal, you'd still be paying for that bandwidth, but then paying more to make your bandwidth more important than the other guy's. It's kind of like the carpool lane; you get access to a faster lane if you meet some requirements, like carrying several people or driving a hybrid. But the difference is, you'd have to pay an extra toll to drive in that lane, meaning the rich could get around that much faster, making it that much harder for the less rich to do what they need to do. Replace cars with Internet traffic, and you've got the idea.

Doesn't really seem fair, does it. Companies already pay for bandwidth, as do consumers. But double-dipping isn't enough apparently, now they want to triple-dip. Apparently they've learned that there's still some money out there that isn't in their pockets (those damn consumers! How did our money get in their checking accounts?) and of course, they can't allow that!

Tell your congresscritter that this is bullshit (but don't use that word, please be polite.) Hopefully there will be enough of them that haven't completely handed over the titles to their souls to big business to make a difference.