Entries Tagged 'Stupid' ↓

Today I read the story of Terry Childs, a bonafide BOFH of the City of San Francisco. Apparently he was disciplined for poor performance and so he took matters into his own hands and changed everybody’s passwords on the system. Now San Francisco’s networks are in his control even though he has been arrested and the city has set a $5 million bail.

First of all, I find this whole story bizarre because since the perpetuator is in jail and the city has physical access to the machines then they are able to reset the passwords or reinstall the systems. Second, what the hell were they doing by giving this guy so much power over the network? It doesn’t even seem like he was the IT director from the report. Third, I find the city’s reaction to this mischief to be quite overblown. The network is still running, but other admins cannot access the system. This shows that perhaps the other admins ARE more incompetent than Childs. They could have resolved the matter in a more civil manner than arresting the guy. That probably just pissed off the guy more.

Anyway, this guy was paid $150k last year, and since he has pulled this stunt I doubt he will be getting any new job offers soon. I don’t know if he did this to spite his employer or to keep his job, but it is safe to say that he probably would be fired soon enough.

Instead of doing this, he could have just told his superiors the security flaws and problems he sees at work. If they don’t listen, then there are other jobs out there he could apply for. If I were really angry at an employer I would just pack up and leave. I have left jobs before where someone or something pissed me off, but I just don’t think it is worthwhile to plan some kind of revenge. Terry Childs may have embarrassed his employer, but he also embarrassed himself by being so unprofessional.

Share This

Lately, one news story that has been really getting on my nerves is that of Laura Richardson, the Southern California congresswoman who defaulted on three separate homes repeatedly and most likely used her influence to take back a home that has already been sold. The investor that bought her home has filed a lawsuit against the congresswoman and Washington Mutual for illegally rescinding a proper sale. I hope the buyer James York wins because there was no possible way that the congresswoman didn’t know about the sale. She didn’t pay her mortgage for more than six months!! What did she think was supposed to happen? After the congresswoman’s mortgage troubles were publicized, more information came to light that she has a history of being a deadbeat and owed property taxes and many other debts. She took money out of her three homes to finance her campaigns, and made only a few payments on her Sacramento home. If debtors’ prisons were still in operation, this woman would be sitting in jail right now eating gruel . Instead, she is being treated to a fundraising party in her honor to help her with her debts. One thing that made me laugh and cry at the same time was that in this AP article she said “she is like any other American suffering in the mortgage crisis and wants to testify to Congress about her experience as lawmakers craft a foreclosure-prevention bill.” Right, she is just like any other American that buys three homes, pulls money out, stops paying the mortgage and property taxes, and then denies that she knew anything about an oncoming foreclosure. That is really believable and poignant!

Apparently, Laura Richardson is not the only representative with mortgage woes. A less publicized case is of state Senator Julia Boseman of North Carolina. She and her ex-partner Melissa Jarrell haven’t paid mortgage on their $1.3 million dollar mansion since August 1, 2007. In order to clean her own hands, Boseman has taken herself off the home’s deed without her ex-partner’s knowledge. The house is set to be auctioned, and I hope Boseman doesn’t use her political clout to take the house back like Laura Richardson did.

Finally, we have the bizarre story of Shirley Huntley, a state Senator from New York. She stopped paying her mortgage intentionally as an “experiment” to see if she gets proper notification from her bank. After four months of not paying her mortgage and facing foreclosure, she paid up everything plus legal fees to avoid foreclosure. According to the article, her “original mortgage in 1976 was $28,500. Three decades later, she owes $290,000 due to repeated borrowing against her home”. So did she really conduct an experiment or did she just try to cover up some financial trouble? Either way, at least this woman owned up to her debt and paid it off. The alarming thing is that she used her home as an ATM so that her initial debt ballooned to more than 10 times of its original size.

With representatives like these, I guess I understand why the housing bailout is so popular. Congressional rules do not prevent representatives from voting on issues that help themselves financially because it is hard to avoid, but is supporting financial irresponsibility really wise? Anyway, all members of Congress and the Senate are required to report their personal finances and you can see the reports at Open Secrets. I encourage all of you to take a look at your local politicians and see how responsible they are with their own money, because I believe a person really needs to get his or her own affairs in order before making laws that affect millions of other people.

Share This

So there is chatter in the news the government worked out a deal with major banks to freeze the adjustable rates on mortgages of many subprime borrowers. The rules are, the loan has to be originated from the beginning of 2005 to July 30th of 2007 and the rate is set to reset in 2008 to 2010. The subprime borrower also have to have a good payment history and live in the home to qualify. So I thought I would do an non-expert analysis on who benefits the most in this situation.

The Winners

The biggest winner is the banks that made these loans. Some of the teaser rates for these subprime loans are as high as 8%, so I don’t think the banks are hurting much by collecting a rate thats 16 times the average of national banks interest payout on savings accounts. Additionally, by keeping the borrowers in their homes, the banks do not have to deal with an asset that has depreciated in value. Basically, the banks are saving and earning billions by keeping subprime borrowers up to date with their debt.

The next big winner in this situation is the government. Why? One word: taxes. By keeping these stretched homeowners in their homes the government can continue to collect property taxes. Additionally, since the mortgage rates are not rising the homeowners will have less mortgage interest to deduct on their taxes and that means more tax revenue for the government than they would have had otherwise.

The Indentured

I don’t consider the homeowners who keep their homes in this plan to be winners. Sure, they get to keep their home, but many of them are so financially stretched that almost their entire income is going to the banks and that is a very stressful situation. In fact, if they weren’t financially stretched, they wouldn’t qualify for the program. This is Secretary Paulson’s outline of the plan:

Paulson offered a general outline of the plan on Monday. He identified four groups of subprime borrowers facing rate increases on their adjustable-rate loans: Those who cannot afford their payments even at the current rate; those who could afford payments at the higher rate; those can refinance into a “sustainable mortgage while keeping investors whole;” and those who can afford their mortgages today but could not at the higher rate.

Only the fourth group would get help.

These homeowners are just indentured servants to a gargantuan money hungry force. Their rates will be frozen for five years, but they will have to keep on paying the price on an asset that has depreciated greatly with all that they have.

The Angry

I would count myself amongst “The Angry” because I think the plan is unfair to most consumers and Americans in general. I don’t own a home, but I know many people who took out reasonable fixed rate loans at higher rates than these subprime borrowers, only to see irresponsible behavior rewarded. Additionally, as Paulson said, “those who could afford payments at the higher rate” will not get help. How is that fair? I suppose life just isn’t fair. I think this plan, and other mortgage related bailouts are just further discouraging people from saving money, and living a sustainable lifestyle. I also think the subprime borrowers who had absolutely no equity in their homes would do better just to walk away, save some money and buy a home for a much cheaper price. I know it’s not that easy, but we can’t continue to support this manipulated bubble economy.

Quote Source: San Francisco Chronicle 12/6/2007 Kathleen Pender: How mortgage-rate freeze could go wrong. This article is a great read that echos some of my thoughts.

Share This

Recently I read a headline that since congress still isn’t sure about what to do with the alternative minimum tax, millions of potentially incorrect tax forms are going to the government printers. Additionally, tax returns will probably be delayed next year since people who use the incorrect forms will have to file an amended return. I haven’t even heard of the alternative minimum tax until I started working in 2005. Apparently a lot of my peers aren’t aware of this tax either. Even if they do know what it is they’re pretty confused about it. I am actually pretty confused by it, too, but I will list a few things I know that annoys me here. I encourage those who are more knowledgeable about this particular tax system to comment.

1. It’s Another Set of Forms to Fill Out – I think this part annoys me the most. Filing taxes is already complicated enough, but it’s doubly as annoying when you have to fill out forms for a second set of tax rules. This second set of rules makes everything more confusing because you have to keep track which set of rules goes with with tax system. What’s more annoying is that I usually can’t determine whether or not I have to pay the AMT until I complete both forms.

2. You Can’t Deduct State and Local Taxes – In the regular tax system the taxes I already paid to California is a deduction and no federal tax is paid on the money, but in the AMT state and local taxes (including local real estate taxes) are disallowed as deductions. This means that you pay taxes on the money you already paid as taxes. That just doesn’t make sense to me. In high tax states like California it could mean paying hundreds to thousands of dollars more on money you didn’t receive in the first place.

3. It Is No Longer a Tax for the Rich — The legend goes that this second system of taxation was invented in 1969 to prevent 155 extremely rich individuals from paying very little or no taxes. Then it was never indexed for inflation so now almost 40 years later we’re still using 1969’s standard of “extremely rich” to determine who should pay this tax. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Also, the standard of “rich” is very different across the United States. Here in the Bay Area, a family of four making $75,000 to $100,000 a year is by no means fabulously rich because our cost of living is extremely high. Adding to our cost of living is our high state taxes that can’t be deducted. Exemptions on children also can’t be deducted so families with more kids would be more likely to thrown into AMT status. It is estimated that 50% of families making $75,000 to $100000 a year will be subject to the AMT, and it is just an additional financial burden on a lot of middle class families.

4. It Nullifies Most, If Not All Tax Cuts in the Original System — Whenever I try to explain this point I have people saying that I am a conspiracy theorist and that the government didn’t intend for the AMT to hit the middle class. But here are the facts, suppose you paid $3000 originally in federal taxes and your AMT calculation comes out to $2999, then you don’t have to pay the AMT because your tax amount in the original system is higher. However, suppose the Bush Tax Cuts cut your taxes in the original system down to $2400, then you scored $600 right? Nope! You still have to pay $2999 because the rules governing the AMT hasn’t changed and now the AMT is the larger amount. In cases like these the AMT pretty much nullifies the tax cut completely. I have known people who started to pay the AMT because the Bush tax cuts made their federal tax lower than the AMT, and basically these middle class families didn’t benefit very much at all from the “tax relief”. I actually think the Bush tax cuts are fiscally possible because of the AMT. As I mentioned in the previous point, the AMT isn’t indexed for inflation, so they know that more and more people will be thrown into AMT status every year, and that means collecting more revenues from this second system as time goes by.

Anyway, I will conclude my rant here. Here’s a funny thought: if the alternative minimum tax never gets indexed for inflation, eventually everyone will qualify, and it will no longer be “alternative” and nobody can say that it’s a tax for the rich because everyone will be paying it. Then the IRS can just print one form again and completely abolish the original tax system!

Share This

It’s tough to hire good people these days in the Silicon Valley mostly due to the world renowned event known as the “dot-com bubble”. A lot of people my age decided not to pursue software engineering, or switched jobs so the talent pool is pretty small. Additionally, there seems to be a “Bubble 2.0″ brewing in the Valley as a new battallion of small “Web 2.0″ companies are sprouting up like mushrooms after a rainy day. It’s especially difficult to find mid level people with 3 to 6 years of experience because those are the classes that graduated during the great technology depression. In the past few years of working in the Valley I conducted many interviews, and here are some stories and lessons learned.

Lesson 1: Retain My Position as the Interviewer

When I started out, I was not yet 22, and I had to interview a lot of people much older than me. That was a bit intimidating, and there are times when the candidates actually started telling me what I should do in my job. It was pretty annoying because it felt like they were interviewing me and giving me advice. Later on I learned to just take the reins of the conversation and stop candidates when they babble on. An interviewer really has to be in control.

Lesson 2: Object Strongly to Candidates You Don’t Want

You spend most of your waking hours with your coworkers if you work at a regular office with a regular eight hour shift. So it’s really important to reject the people you don’t want. There is a problem when someone above you is bent on hiring someone you don’t like, but object as loudly as you can. I’ve already had to deal with this twice. The first time my own manager hired someone he didn’t want because a VP above him wanted to hire the candidate who happened to be the VP’s excoworker. The end result was that the new person really didn’t fit in well within our team but had the support of the VP, and I ended up leaving the company, and then my manager and two other team members also left so the only person left was the VP’s excoworker. The second time, I really thought that one candidate wouldn’t be able to learn as quickly as she needs to, and told my manager that. However, he hired her anyway, and the end result is that she felt really overwhelmed and quit in three months. It’s an incredible waste to hire someone that could destroy an entire team or produce discord in an otherwise happy team. It’s hard to assess a person in a short amount of time, but if you can’t even deal with someone for thirty minutes to an hour, it would be very hard for you to work with them for eight hours a day. If you’re not the hiring manager, it’s best to voice your objections as much as you can before a horrible hiring mistake is committed. Now I think my manager trusts my opinions more because I was the only one who really objected to the hiring of that particular candidate. If your manager isn’t open to suggestions and objections, then he/she probably isn’t a very good manager anyway. That’s why in my last company my whole team left after that particular VP took over.

Lesson 3: Don’t Be Too Friendly to the Candidates

I’m not saying “don’t be nice”, but don’t talk to a candidate like you would talk to a friend. Be courteous but not too familiar. Useless smalltalk in interviews really bother me and they’re a waste of time. At the time of the interview, I really don’t care that a candidate loves cats or can cook really good vegetarian food. I also don’t like people who read the things on my shirts and ask me about them. I am also disturbed by compliments on my looks, because that’s almost like sexual harassment. I liked to get to the business of interviewing and nothing more

Lesson 4: People with Long Resumes Aren’t Necessarily Skilled

I just went through two beyond painful interviews today with two candidates with 10+ years of experience. It’s almost like they write as much as they can on their resumes without actually having corresponding skills to back it up. It’s really easy to just throw a few simple questions at them and discover that they pretty much lied on their resume. That really doesn’t sit well with me. I asked a candidate once why she wrote all that stuff she clearly didn’t have any knowledge about, and she said, “well, my friend told me that I should write every technology I have heard of”. That is really not the way to go. So now when I see resumes with too many keywords I go into the interview fearing the worst. Most people are experts in a few things, and I think it’s better to highlight one’s expertise rather than writing every hot buzzword there is on the resume.The problem is, HR people can only search on resumes, and they tend to be fooled easily by these liars and we end up wasting some time.

Lesson 5: Don’t Feel Sorry for the Candidate When You Reject Them

Basically, don’t be afraid to reject a large number of people you interview and don’t take their feelings into your consideration. They might find another job with a competitor, and possibly create an inferior product. That’s better for your company anyway. So don’t feel bad for them.

Lesson 6: Keep on Improving My Own Skills

The technologies we use change very rapidly, and it’s important to upgrade my own skills. I have interviewed a few people with more years of work experience than years I have been alive, but their skills are no longer applicable. It’s really easy to learn things these days because there are so many manuals and tutorials available on the web. Having a few horrible interviews actually motivated me to not become a dinosaur and upgrade my knowledgebase in order to be competitive.

Okay, enough of the serious stuff. Now I bring you some highlights of comical and craptacular interviews:

• Once I was asking a candidate a question, and he said, “excuse me, may I go to the bathroom?” So of course I let him go, and then five minutes after he came back he asked again, “may I go to the bathroom?” At this point it was clear to me he had some sort of bowel problem. So we finished up the interview and I returned to my supervisor. I said to him, “I think the candidate has diarrhea”. My supervisor almost fell out of his chair and exclaimed, “WHAT?!”. I repeated, “I think he has diarrhea.” He seemed relieved and said, “oh my god, I thought you said he DIED”. We all had a pretty good laugh about it over happy hour. I guess the lesson here is to cancel interviews if you’re feeling sick.
• Once there was a man I interviewed that I could barely understand. When I asked him what about the company interested him he answered, “when you guys go public lots of money!” I really appreciated the honesty and thought that was a better answer than the cliche answer “I like your product”, but unfortunately, he had none of the technical skills we were looking for.
• I’ve gotten some horribly wrong answers to some of the simple technical questions I ask. One of the simplest questions I ask is “how do you get an output of all the lines in a text file that start with a certain word or letter”. This is a list of horrible answers I have gotten (a few were from today): ping A, ls -lrt, dir, find A, head, tail,some Unix command. The one that takes the cake is “ping”, because two different people gave this answer independently. Is there some demented interview guide that tells interviewees just to say “ping” to things they don’t know? In my opinion, even answering “manually copy and paste the lines that start with the word or letter” is better than throwing out random command names and hoping it’s right.
• This one is short, and it was funny to me. I walked into the interview room and introduced myself. Then the candidate got a call and looked extremely nervous. When he got off the phone he said, “I need to go back to work” and left.

Interviews are the closest thing to blind dates. It’s hard to find that special someone, especially in this mad place. People are always switching jobs and doing new things here, and maybe one day I will be interviewed by one of my ex-interviewees (the horrors!). Anyway, if you know someone who is awesome at programming or QA please send me a note and maybe we can set up something.

Share This