Whistleblowing IT Director Fired By FL State Attorney

Do good ... by fewnorms · 2013-07-13 11:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

... get fired. I see a trend here.

--
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!

Re: Do good ... by Luckyo · 2013-07-13 12:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually socialism is pretty close to what you had during cold war in US because you had to care for your people to win it. High taxes on the rich, fairly solid safety net for the poor. It was there in the 60s and 70s. And it was dismantled in 90s after cold war ended.
It's funny when propaganda says the exact opposite of what actually ends up happening, and people swallow it. And then think they're "thinking against what government wants us to think".
You may also want to note that least corrupt countries in the world are socialist, while most corrupt are capitalist.
Re: Do good ... by obarthelemy · 2013-07-13 12:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually the 99% are fighting scraps because the 1% have gotten most of everything. And not, that's not socialism. I think the US have reached the level of a kleptocracy.

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Re: Do good ... by mc6809e · 2013-07-13 12:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually socialism is pretty close to what you had during cold war in US because you had to care for your people to win it. High taxes on the rich, fairly solid safety net for the poor. It was there in the 60s and 70s. And it was dismantled in 90s after cold war ended.
Hardly.
The safety net is bigger and more expensive than ever.
Significant parts of it came into existence only in the 60s and 70s, not coincidentally followed by inflation in the early 80s as demand for services put pressure on supply constrained by high marginal tax rates and regulations. We risked an Argentine-style economic collapse. Reagan was only able to get reforms passed with Democrats in control of congress because there was no other way to save the welfare state. Democrats knew something had to be done.
But anyway, what won the cold war was self-confidence in the West and self-doubt in the East. The Soviet Union voluntarily gave up on communism. I think that means they won, too.
Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 12:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Thank you, we needed some input from a typewriter owner.
Re: Do good ... by jythie · 2013-07-13 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pretty much. Employers generally do not trust people who question them doing something illegal or unethical. Loyalty is prised over all, at least going up. Loyalty going down is communism.
Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 13:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

My boy came a cropper off his bike the other day, made a right mess of himself. Took him to the emergency ward at a nearby hospital for immediate patching up, and we took him to our local GP for a checkup a couple of days later. Coincidentally he had a dentist's appointment (booked months beforehand) this week so the dentist was able to give his mouth an exam as well because he got a mouthful of stones and his gums got lacerated.
Hospital care, visit to the doctor, and dental care all in one week.
Expense to me, total: zero
Living in a socialist country that looks after its citizens: priceless
Re: Do good ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 13:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Obvious troll is obvious.
Actually I do have comprehensive private health insurance because you're crazy if you're a parent and don't, but got waved off each time I pulled out my wallet. "Nup, you're good."
But that's beside the point. The point is, in a civilized society fellow citizens look after each other. My taxes have paid for the care of every other kid that came off his bike too.
Socialism: it works, bitches.
Re: Do good ... by ahabswhale · 2013-07-13 14:31 · Score: 4, Informative

The safety net is bigger and more expensive than ever.
Social security, and welfare existed long before the 60's. Food stamps and medicare are from the 60's, however, welfare was scaled back decades ago when Clinton was in office. So your notion that the safety net has exploded is patently false. That said, the costs have certainly shot up. Medicare has skyrocketed due to the crazy increases in medical costs. Social security has shot up in spite of the fact that the benefits have been reduced because people are living longer. Welfare and unemployment are up because unemployment is up.

...followed by inflation in the early 80s as demand for services put pressure on supply constrained by high marginal tax rates and regulations...
The inflation in the 80s was primarily because of oil, food prices, and a falling dollar, and a reduction in productivity levels. Marginal tax rates had nothing to do with it.

--
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Re: Do good ... by amjohns · 2013-07-13 15:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you're claiming that inquiring whether the prosecutor, intentionally or not, withheld evidence from the defense is bad?
That has NOTHING to do w/ anyone's guilt or innocence, it has EVERYTHING to do with the rule of law. FTA: "Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbos’ report to defense attorneys." This man saw a potential violation, and questioned it. If that evidence HADN'T been turned over to the defense, it could have been grounds for an appeals court to overturn any possible conviction.
The entire American (and western world) legal system is based on the principle that a defendant has the right to all information the government may try to use against him/her, AND any information that could cast doubt on the prosecutor's evidence or interpretation of the facts; it's called exculpatory evidence. Whether it's relevant to the case is up to the (presumably impartial) judge, and then the jury if the judge allows it to be presented. Now that may not always be fair to the victim and their family, but it's the law, and everyone in the legal system, police, lawyers, judgets, etc is bound to uphold it.
Let me give a similar, but counter hypothetical example: What if the police had a rock-solid forensic expert who could positively identify some of the other evidence (e.g. the screams on the phone), and conclusively prove ZImmerman was innocent (not saying this exists... follow me here)? And they withheld that and still charged him with murder. Would it be right to bring that up? Obviously it would!
There's NO DIFFERENCE between that hypothetical and this actual situation, both are cases of the defendant potentially being denied their right to exculpatory evidence, to be vetted by the judge for relevance and bias.
Re: Do good ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-07-13 17:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

... both capitalists and socialists dislike labor unions...
Just. Stop. Right. There.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re: Do good ... by dns_server · 2013-07-13 17:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Socialist countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand are quite low on the corruption index, far better than capitalist america.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
Re: Do good ... by ahabswhale · 2013-07-13 18:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

lol...your argument might make sense if it weren't for the fact that marginal tax rates were much higher in the 50s but inflation was low. Sorry but history is just not on your side...at all.
Also, a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare seems like a pretty significant change to me.
Oh, and one more thing, the "obamaphones" are not paid for with taxes. Additionally, the program was created before Obama was even running for president. If anything, they are bushphones.
Perhaps you live on a different planet than I do.

--
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Re: Do good ... by saihung · 2013-07-13 19:33 · Score: 4, Informative

Nazism and Facism, for example are types of Socialisms (despite the unwillingness of some in accepting it mostly due to ignorance).
No. That is wrong. And while it's cute calling people who disagree with your bad facts "ignorant," that won't save you. Socialism runs the state's economic machinery for the benefit of the populace. This is its primary defining feature. Fascism runs the state for the benefit of the ruling party. This is its defining feature. The two are irreconcileable, which is why Fascists outlawed trade unions.

So sue 'em. by gl4ss · 2013-07-13 11:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hope he does. it's obviously not incompetence and blaming for seeking legal advice is just stupid to use as reasoning for incompetence.

"that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.
“If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”

coming from state attorneys office that's actually pretty funny. saying it like that covers also seeking advice on illegal working conditions and what have you..

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:So sue 'em. by cold+fjord · 2013-07-13 11:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

I hope he does sue, and that he wins. It may be an uphill battle though. Prosecutors have tremendous discretion in how they conduct cases, and enormous protection under the law, although it looks to me like this is well over the line. Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.
I can't say this is surprising though since the prosecution appears to be motivated more my politics than the actual legal situation.
In Audio Recording, Department of Justice Official Urges Protesters to Seek ‘Justice’ for Trayvon Martin
Branco Cartoon – Fanning the Flames
Racial politics supported by State power come down on George Zimmerman

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:So sue 'em. by Chewbacon · 2013-07-13 12:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Florida is a Right to Fire... erm, Hire state. I always confuse the two words because whenever I hear the phrase, it's always used in the context of firing people. Anyway, incompetence is a Florida-based employer's way of firing you simply because they don't like you. If you don't cross enough T's and dot enough I's it is grounds for incompetence.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Re:So sue 'em. by Frobnicator · 2013-07-13 12:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.
Close. The ethics violation is a relatively minor issue.
Yes it is an ethics violation, but more importantly it is also a violation of both the US Constitution and the Florida State Constitution.
It is an unfortunate trend, but prosecutors and police across the country have been facing ever-increasing claims of withholding evidence. Really, the defense should be given access to all information.
Even in this case there was a tussle about the evidence being actually withheld, and the judge agreed that they withheld it and demanded everything be handed over ... but no penalty was given to the state for their violation.
Sadly violations are usually discounted as being accidental oversights and punishments against prosecutors are non-existent. It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice, but there is no incentive for the "good old boys" club to change.

--
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Re:So sue 'em. by thaylin · 2013-07-13 12:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

part of the problem with these types of states is that they can fire you for any reason, as long as they dont give a reason. If they give a reason than it has to be a valid one. Incompetence is a good one as it is typically hard to disprove, except when you just got a pay raise specifically for doing such a good job.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:So sue 'em. by binarylarry · 2013-07-13 12:33 · Score: 5, Funny

The solution is simple then: never, ever give raises.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:So sue 'em. by atamido · 2013-07-13 13:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

He can't sue.
Florida is a "At Will Employment" state. The only thing you can sue for here is Discrimination. In Florida, you can be fired for anything, with or without reason, and you can quit, with or without reason.
Emphasis mine. What you said is not strictly true. You can be fired without reason, but if you provide a reason then it can't violate the numerous federal laws on the matter. For example, you can't fire someone for race, religion, sex, etc.
In this case they appear to have given a reason, and the reasons would seem to violate federal whistle blower laws, so he can sue.
Re:So sue 'em. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-13 13:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

"It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice"
This.

My view is that it should be "an eye for an eye". In other words, people caught deliberately corrupting justice, by testifying falsely, or withholding evidence, etc. are putting others in danger of anywhere from jail to even the death penalty. So... the punishment for doing so should be exactly the same punishment faced by the defendant.

When a policeman on the witness stand could face life in prison unless they tell it straight... watch them start telling it straight.

I think that would be an excellent solution to this problem. Ethical and just. People who deliberately put others in jeopardy should face exactly the same jeopardy.

Loud and clear by Dunbal · 2013-07-13 11:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

The US government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:Loud and clear by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 11:24 · Score: 5, Informative

The US government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".
The Florida government is sending a message: "We don't like whistle-blowers".
Re:Loud and clear by Penguinshit · 2013-07-13 11:25 · Score: 5, Informative

actually it's the Florida State government. And with Rick Scott's record of corruption, you can bet he doesn't want anyone with a shred of integrity having root access to the state's computers...

--
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Re:Loud and clear by cultiv8 · 2013-07-13 11:30 · Score: 5, Informative

In Florida, transparency is not up to the whim or grace of public officials. Instead, it is an enforceable right.
From the website of the Office of the Attorney General of Florida titled Open Government. The irony is strong in this one.

--
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Re:Loud and clear by unkiereamus · 2013-07-13 18:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any chance they'll get this one branded a traitor by the end of next week?
Come now. Haven't you been paying attention to the US for the last 12 years?

They're going to label him a terrorist.

--
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.

Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 11:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

It sounds like the Florida State Attorney's Office has some s'plainin' to do. Withholding evidence from the defense is really, super unethical; I wouldn't be surprised if you could be disbarred for it. This is a highly politicized case, and it's not surprising that the state really wants to win it to save face, but really guys? Doing that kind of shit under the color of public authority is fucked up. Like Nifong (see Duke lacrosse) fucked up..

Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by maz2331 · 2013-07-13 11:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

A Brady violation is a big, big deal. And it's usually NOT a good idea to piss off the guy who has proof of wrongdoing - they just ensured that he will be a quite eager witness at their disbarrment proceedings.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by tmorehen · 2013-07-13 11:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

There was no evidence withheld from the defence: The raw data file had already been given to the defence. The IT fellow's analysis was prosecution work product, nothing more. As well, the pictures and text he found were irrelevant to the case: the girl and the gun were not at the scene nor did Martin have any marijuana on him. As well, Kruidbos had an obligation to keep information about the cases he works on confidential, particularly since he didn't raise any concerns with anyone else in the office. Consulting with a lawyer is probably ok, but not when that lawyer is a disgruntled former employee who breaks privilege by running off to the defence.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by erroneus · 2013-07-13 13:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

So when it comes down to it, the case against Zimmerman hinges in no small way on intent. To show intent, they bring out character issues. Okay. I get that. So what about the defense's right to defend their case? The defense's case hinges in non small way on Zimmerman being attacked by a violent person. To prove that case, the character of the assailant is relevant evidence. At every turn, however, the evidence of character of the assailant has been blocked. It is EXTREMELY important and denies Zimmerman a fair trial when his defense case is self-defense. How can anyone prove it if they can't easily show that he was being attacked by a violent person? Lots of evidence shows that, but it wasn't allowed. Why?
Obligation to keep it confidential? When a miscarriage of justice is being perpetrated, it is a citizen's duty to report it. And suppression of evidence is a serious crime. The government is not "priviledged." If you think so, it's a problem. And there is no indication he gave evidence to anyone. It would seem he only reported that it exists.
Additionally, evidence of being a drug user was certainly important. 1. It was in his system. 2. He was not carrying "Iced Tea" he was carrying two ingredients for making "Lean." That's huge. Once again, proving the character of the assailant is key to the defense's case. It's the nation's legal responsibility that all charged receive a fair trial.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by erroneus · 2013-07-13 13:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

YES! The Victim caused his own death. It's a key and important factor in all of this. The claim is self-defense. Without the ability to show that the victim was also an drug-using, assailant with a history of violence and other criminal behavior, how can anyone ever prove self-defense? What evidence could serve to prove self-defense? Well, I suppose there was the uninjured body of Trayvon Martin... uninjured except for that bullet wound. Then there's all the head and face wounds all over Zimmerman. There was that eye-witness too. None of those matter right?
Blaming the victim is an important and relevant part of ensuring a fair trial. Just because someone is a victim does not mean they were completely innocent.
Re:Someone's got some s'plainin' to do... by 0111+1110 · 2013-07-13 14:56 · Score: 4, Informative

And it's defense, not defence.
Either spelling is acceptable. The people who invented the language spell it with a 'c'.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by Sycraft-fu · 2013-07-13 11:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman, but with all the antics they've been pulling, they are just asking to get an acquittal or an overturn on appeal. You can't go and give a guy a good performance eval and a raise, and then suddenly fire him and claim that he's a bad employee when he reveals that you may have been messing with evidence.

The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.

I hope this guys successfully sues these idiots.

Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by causality · 2013-07-13 11:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously, I think the state had a pretty good manslaughter case against Zimmerman
While I think Zimmerman should have stopped following Martin once the police were contacted, following someone on a public street is not actually illegal in any way in Florida. Legally Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong there. Then he was promptly jumped and attacked by Martin. Had Martin used his fists alone I would absolutely want to see Zimmerman punished, but Martin didn't stop there. Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement, something that can cause death or permanent disabling injury. He was, in effect, using the concrete as a deadly bludgeoning weapon. Zimmerman wouldn't have had a chance to try to flee considering he was on the ground getting pounded. That lead to Martin being shot. Correct me if I have any of that wrong (not liking it doesn't make it false...).

I think it's a damned shame that Martin got himself killed at such a young age. If it were up to me there would have been no conflict, or the mere sight of a gun would have scared him off and it would have ended there, but let's be clear about this: if you want to violently attack a stranger who has not initiated violence against you, you are taking a risk. It's a poor choice to make and all the sadness in the world about what happened doesn't suddenly make this a wise move.

Punishing Zimmerman doesn't change this reality, but it might make others who get attacked choose victimhood because they are afraid of the legal consequences of defending themselves. We already have states where homeowners hesitate to shoot a home invader because they might get in serious trouble, and all this does is lower the risk of burglarizing the law-abiding which in turn can only make burglers more bold. If being a violent criminal is a great way to remove oneself from the gene pool, I am absolutely fine with that. I have no sympathy for those who initiate violence. They live by the sword and sometimes they die by the sword. That's their choice. They are not victims. I reserve my sympathy for victims.

The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.
What is the value of refusing to let the jury hear this evidence? If it is truly irrelevant then it shouldn't influence their decision anyway. What damage could be done that the judge was trying to prevent by disallowing it?

Incidentally it certainly can't be worse than the photos shown of Martin when he was twelve years old, an obvious attempt to make him look as helpless and childish as possible to further demonize Zimmerman rather than showing him as he actually was, big enough and strong enough to do some damage to another man and old enough to know better. When people have to resort to these kinds of emotional appeals and outright distortion and propaganda tactics to make their case, I have to assume it is because the facts are against them.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by VinylRecords · 2013-07-13 11:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

[i]The worst part? Sounds like the evidence wasn't really relevant.[/i]
I watched the coverage gavel to gavel of the Zimmerman trial. What was on Trayvon Martin's phone is maybe the most damaging information of all to the State's case. It is incredibly damaging to Trayvon Martin and his family and introduces criminal findings against them.
The State withheld evidence that Trayvon Martin was dealing and using drugs, dealing illegal firearms, and was in possession of an illegal firearm. And that Trayvon Martin was into fighting and beating people up and had punched someone in the nose earlier that month. And that he had assaulted a public bus driver and the police showed up but the driver was told to continue his route and not press charges.
There is also significantly strong evidence that Trayvon Martin's father was working with his son to acquire illegal weapons and that his father's nickname 'Fruit' was used amongst organized gang circles. There are texts that mention buying and selling pistols. And even a photo of Trayvon holding an illegal pistol. The photo is all over the internet and is not hard to find. The State withheld all of this and forced the defending attorneys to run around in circles to obtain the phone data.
The judge also ruled that none of the phone data on Trayvon Martin's phone was admissible. Why? Because there was no hard proof that Trayvon was actually the one operating the phone when those messages were sent and received. And that "anyone could have been operating Trayvon's phone at any time". The phone was DOUBLE password protected and took the State an entire year to crack. But the State said in court that even a "seven-year-old child could have cracked the phone and sent those messages". The judge agreed.
This case is disgusting. It is clear from top to bottom that it was rigged. When you have even the President of the United States deliberately poisoning the jury pool by commenting on the situation without knowing any discovery evidence years before a trial begins it is unreal. The State of Florida is out of control. This entire affair was a political theater event designed to win some elections.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by obarthelemy · 2013-07-13 12:19 · Score: 4, Funny

But, wasn't, like, ...an unarmed kid shot and killed ?

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up by sumdumass · 2013-07-13 14:03 · Score: 4, Informative

The state also proved Zimmerman was on top while martin was on the bottom when the shot was fired.
I think you have that wrong. The prosecution was trying to say that when the shot was fired, there was a distance between the two that would have allowed Zimmerman to retreat instead of shooting. Expert witnesses in the field of forensics say the evidence matches Martin being on the top of Zimmerman and the gun being between 2 and 4 inches with the muzzle touching his shirt. The muzzle touching the shirt is what clinches it as gravity would cause the shirt to fall away from the body. This is how the gun was X inches away but touching the shirt, in a position of being over top of someone, the shirt falls away from the body towards the gun which was held by the person on the ground and under the one shot.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/forensic-expert-says-zimmerman-on-bottom-fired-at-close-range/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/prosecution-witness-in-zimmerman-trial-testifies-martin-on-top-in-fight/
I'm not sure where or how, but there is a lot of misinformation out there about this. I know the mass media has already been caught doctoring the 9/11 recordings to make things sound different then what happened. They have posted pictures of Martin at age 12 instead of 17 in attempts to gain sympathy or whatever for him. We have documents declaring the US government being involved and aiding protesters for some reason. It is as if there is a concerted effort to cause a problem at the ending of this trial in order to push some political agenda or something.

The truth of the case by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 11:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Obama hired Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon so he wouldn't have to pay child support.

Trayvon didn't just "look like" his son...

More proof the entire trial by hsmith · 2013-07-13 11:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is nothing more than a dog and pony show to convict Zimmerman. I don't care either way what the verdict is - but lets call a spade a spade. The political push to prosecute him from the President down doesn't surprise me that the state was hiding evidence to support their case.

Re:He won't. His firing is legitimate. by tdelaney · 2013-07-13 12:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Was the computer assigned to him to be wiped clean as part of his duties as IT Director? The letter doesn't say.

Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by Penguinisto · 2013-07-13 13:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Get 'em

Maybe - he'd have to find a lawyer that will do it on a contingency basis, and it would have to have some potential for a really big cash settlement/judgement before one will touch it. OTOH, maybe there's a lawyer who figures it'd be good for a little publicity - who knows?

Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants (seriously, would you want to catch the attention of the AG's office, potentially exposing your company to "extra scrutiny" if they felt like playing dirty pool against the guy? Didn't think so.)

Chilling effects all around, truth be told - he'll ahve to move out of the reach of that office before he could even hope to find a job, let alone pursue a lawsuit. Unless the state governor gets involved and (IMHO rightfully) fucks over the AG execs who did this to him, the dude is kinda fucked.

IMHO, it stands as a very good reason why you'll never get me to work for any law firm, government (let alone prosecutor's) office, or suchlike. Unless you find a lot of good juicy skeletons in their closets early on (and keep the evidence secure), the boss(es) there would pretty much own your ass, ethics be damned.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Oh grow up by Sycraft-fu · 2013-07-13 13:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously the OSW "99%" whining is really, really stupid.

So let's do a bit of analysis: You have to be making over $400,000 per year (or have multiple millions in the bank) to be in the top 1% in the US. Everything under that is, by definition, "the 99%". The median income in the US is about $50,000 which would be "the 50%".

So, what is life like there? Well I have a fairly good idea, what with making around that. At that income you can afford to own your own house. Not a huge one, but plenty of space. You can afford to have a car that is nice, and in good working order, you don't have to fight with a junker. You can have all the appliances of modern life: dishwasher, fridge, washer/dryer, A/C, stove, etc, etc. You can get more food than you can or should eat, even if you eat out semi-regularly. You can have entertainment, like a bigscreen TV, surround sound, modern computer, broadband Internet, etc. You have enough money you can afford to put some in savings, to deal with unexpected events and not be thrown into debt by them.

In other words, you can have a damn good life. I want for nothing, I have an exceedingly good standard of living on a global scale and I am very, very grateful for it. Do "the 1%" have it better than me? Sure, but I am not "fighting scraps" (I presume you meant fighting for scraps). I am sitting in my air conditioned home, typing on my nice 30" computer screen while contemplating which of my many food options I wish to avail myself of for dinner. That is not a bad life in any way, shape, or form.

So seriously, stop with the uninformed bitching. Stop with this class warfare "1%" type shit. There IS an income inequity problem in the US and we do need to look at it. However it is not a case of "all of us vs them" nor is it valid to pretend that everyone who isn't the most privileged of the elite are starving in the streets.

Also, when you start talking equality, you might want to look on the global scene. You may well BE "the 1%" globally. Starts are a little hard but the median GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is like $12,000. So you can say if you want true equality that anyone making more than that, including you probably, need to give up their money.

Re:Oh grow up by Rockoon · 2013-07-13 22:46 · Score: 4, Informative

The average is (rounded up) 13. However, the odds of you making average are better are only 1 in 5. 4 out of 5 times, if you're given one of those random numbers, you're going to be getting a "lower than average" number.

You just explained why the average figure is meaningless...

He used the median instead of the average, so what is your argument?

It seems that even though you are perfectly capable of understanding that the average is a meaningless figure and that median should be used, you are still focused on the average.

At no point did you even make an attempt to show that those at or above the median (the 50%) are having a hard time. They aren't having a hard time, but you pretend and argue as if they are. Thats dishonesty on your part. Dishonesty is never backed by reason that passes scrutiny, for if your argument was a reasoned one that passed scrutiny then you wouldnt need to be dishonest.

I'm guessing jealousy. Jealousy is the unreasoned motive for your dishonesty.

--
"His name was James Damore."

Show Trial by damicatz · 2013-07-13 13:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Zimmerman trial has been nothing short of a farce from the get go. It is reminiscent of Soviet-era show trials because the race baiters have turned this into a witch-hunt.

1.The original probable cause affidavit was so riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies that even a 1L (first year law student) wouldn't make such a mistake. To put speculations in an affidavit and then to swear, under of penalty of perjury, that they are facts is perpetrating fraud upon the court. Affidavits are not places where you speculate or state what your gut feeling is or what you think might have happened. It is a place to state facts. In addition, deliberately omitting evidence from the affidavit that is exculpatory in nature is unethical. Even Alan Dershowitz, who is about as left as you can get, blasted their handiwork.

2.The media has been doing their damnedest to make this about race. Every thing from inventing new terms, like white hispanic, to altering Zimmerman's photo to make him appear whiter and only showing pictures of Trayvon Martin when he was much younger to make him appear more angelic and innocent. In addition, they have been working tirelessly to plant the idea of having riots into peoples minds by continuously bringing it up.

3.The prosecution's entire side was a joke. I mean, Rachel Jeantel changed her story so many times that you would need an entire notebook to keep track of all of them. It was also painfully obvious that she had been coached by the prosecution. The other "witnesses" weren't much better.

4.There is no evidence for murder and the prosecution knows it. Even if the jury convicts (most likely, out of fear for their life or just plain idiocy since jurors are picked based on their emotional susceptibility rather than their intelligence), it will be overturned so fast on appeal that they won't even know what hit them. The case for manslaughter isn't much better and introducing that AFTER the defense has rested is highly unethical on the part of both the judge and the prosecution.

5.Speaking of the judge, she is a life long democrat and has demonstrated very clear evidence of bias. When George Zimmerman refused to testify, she disparaged and criticized him. A defendant has the right not to testify and it is highly unethical for a judge to browbeat a defendant for that because you are not allowed to make a negative inference from an exercise of the 5th amendment.

6.Now we get evidence that the prosecution is, once again, withholding exculpatory evidence. To go after the whistleblower, who blew the whistle on their unethical and illegal activities, just demonstrates how truly execrable the prosecution is.

Regardless of what you think of George Zimmerman, regardless of what you think of Trayvon Martin, regardless of who you think is to blame, regardless of whether you think George Zimmerman was racist, you should not be supporting such a mockery of justice. Everyone accused of a crime deserves their change to have a proper, fair, and just trial. This is nothing of the sort; it is a show trial and a political witch hunt.

Re:Sounds like a good whisteblolowing lawsuit. by mysidia · 2013-07-13 14:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants

A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.

Integrity, Intelligence, and Energy are the the most important characteristics to look for in a good employee, and Integrity is the hardest to find -- but the most important one.

Re:No, you grow up by Sycraft-fu · 2013-07-13 17:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

You feel like you are "fighting for scraps" because your big screen TV is 6 years old, you have a surround sound system but you don't like it, and your fridge 10?

See this is what I'm talking about with needing to take a more global look at things. Oh no, you don't have all new conveniences, whatever shall you do! I don't either, for that matter. My fridge is about 10 years old, and I've no wish to replace it as it keeps working great. My microwave is over 30 years old, it was given to me a long time ago and just keeps on trucking. Again, no reason to replace it as it still works great. Having a good life doesn't mean buying everything new all the time. In fact a big part of it can be managing your money by spending it smartly on things as needed and keeping what works.

Then of course you have to go with the silly doom and gloom "You won't have a good life soon!" shit and show a rather poor understanding of economics.

Look man, sorry that your life is not working out as well as you believe it should but you also should maybe do a little research and see how good you have it compared to the majority of the world's population.

Also consider that maybe, just maybe, you are part of the problem with your ability to get and keep a job. Layoffs are something that everyone is likely to face from time to time, but if you keep losing your job, if you are always having problems finding one, well then perhaps you are doing something wrong. I don't know much about you so I can't say what, but perhaps some introspection is in order. It is like the people who perpetually have bad relationships yet never seem to consider they may have a part of that.

Slashdot Mirror

Whistleblowing IT Director Fired By FL State Attorney

47 of 569 comments (clear)