I know it might be too late for you to catch this, but this caught my eye:
However, if your friend comes to you with a request to go flying...well, don't let the FAA find out (they have busted pilots for receiving no more compensation than logging the flight time!).
I know that it's an amazing program with a great cause, but one would think that a government organization like the FAA would have rather strict guidelines, and be leery of exemptions (however noble the cause)
Fair enough.
You've raised some interesting points about British and International Law (both of which I know very little about).
I won't ask you to unmask yourself here by posting an identifying document like that, but the whole situation is fascinating. It's always interesting to watch what happens when the state's monopoly of violence intersects with the liberties of its citizens (particularly when the state purports a facade of democracy).
Thanks for the introduction to the case - I expect that a weekend of reading is in store. [though if you wish to spoil the ending, I'd love to get a personal perspective on how it turned out (if it has, in fact, been processed yet)]
there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.
perhaps a simple matter of semantics, but does one necessarily follow the other?
That is to say (and, please forgive my ignorance on the matter), I assume that non-British citizens can petition the court and do have some standing to sue (just as non-citizens can be sued by the British court) to redress some wrong.
If that is the case, does asking the British courts to issue an injunction against the British Navy necessitate a recognition of sovereignty?
and if such a request of the court does imply such a recognition, where is the line drawn? Can the United States, or Mexico, or China ask the British government to refrain from blowing up their stuff without such a recognition?
and to where would the recognition apply? Do we acknowledge that the British possess total sovereignty (of all it surveys), or simply sovereignty over its own Navy, or would it be sovereignty over the requesting nation?
And to improving VBA support in things like LibreOffice, too; VBA is a close relative of VB6.
This. We have so many Macros and scripts in VBA (especially in Excel), that it's more cost effective to upgrade to a new version of Office every 3-5 years than it would ever be to port everything over to Open/LibreOffice.
Open up VBA and the Excel folks will be happy to switch - they are the ones watching the money and licenses. Everyone else just uses Word to make passive-aggressive notes for the lunchroom.
FTA:
"But a line is crossed when we start seeing keys being distributed and tools for circumvention. You step outside of the realm of protected free speech then." I'm not so sure you do. IANAL, but since when has it become illegal to talk about circumventing locking mechanisms (and that's assuming that simply posting the key by itself constitutes that). I'm sure we have all read MIT's guide to lockpicking - it describes in detail how to create the tools and the actual process of bypassing the lock (granted, physical locks weren't covered under the DMCA). I would like to see someone with a legal background give some insight, but I would not take any note of AACS - anyone can issue cease and desist letters.
While Accenture was formed by Arthur Anderson as a consulting division in 1953, they split from the company (1989) before the ugliness with Enron, and finally severed all contractual ties in 2000. Arthur Anderson had a separate consulting branch that directly competed with Accenture after the split. So, yes, they used to be a part of AA, but as far as I know, they had nothing to do with the questionable accounting practices that led to AA's downfall. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture)
calling in a bomb threat to his Hempstead Area high school (near Pittsburgh) Actually it was Hempfield. When I saw this, I thought, "Huh, I went to school near there, and I've never heard of Hempstead. I wonder if they mean Hempfield." I graduated from Hempfield Area, and my next thought was about the principal, "Please let it be Charlton, please let it be Charlton." Imagine my surprise. She struck me as a former cheerleader-type that never turned in her uniform when she left the squad. Jocks with good haircuts were the favoured sons, and anyone with more brains than school spirit was left to find their place in the geek underculture in the school of over two thousand students. Her attitude towards Webb is consistent with her style of running the school ("let's make snap decisions based on intuition rather than take the time to gather the facts and weigh the evidence against you"), and I don't think he can expect much more than a sullen apology (and that only if the School Board insists on her giving one).
'The industry that makes deca and PBDEs is freaking out because they lost so severely in Washington state and other states will follow,' said a spokeswoman for the Washington Toxics Coalition. They might have stood a better chance with a different name
While I can sympathize with your faith in the self-regulating power of the free market, the law has taken matters into its own hands. The ADA
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards
I think the real contention is in the definition of 'places of public accommodation.' Does this include the internet? What about a customer service call center for ordering from a catalog? I'm not a lawyer, and I can't decipher the letter of the law, but I think the spirit of it is fairly evident:
A public accommodation shall not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize standards or criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability
If we accept that a web site falls under the definition as a place of public accommodation (though I'm not sure I do, just yet), then we must treat such offenses as we would any other under the ADA.
This article did not have much detail, but somereports from February when the suit was initially brought provide a bit more insight.
the suit charges that visual information is missing "alt-text," or invisible code that allows screen readers to detect and vocalize a description of an image. In addition, the site lacks accessible image maps, an impediment to jumping to different site destinations
If all Target had to do was add some alt-text to their images, it seems foolish for them to refuse to do so - which leads me to believe that there is more at play here.
I think that it is in the best interest of a business to make themselves accessible to the widest audience possible, but it seems that the litigants want to hold the nation's businesses to standards created by the TTS industry (I'm assuming they use some variant of TTS software - I know very little about software for the blind). An international standard would be ideal, but in an age where technology changes so rapidly, it will be difficult to regulate compliance with ADA laws. If we compare this to wheelchair access ramps, we have a design that has fundamentally remained unchanged - wheels going up a ramp. It would be like requiring companies to rebuild their ramps every few years to accommodate new wheelchair designs while expecting them to maintain backwards compatibility with older models.
it sure was nice of her not to outright fire the leak
I'm not so sure that would have been entirely within her purview.
From the article a few days ago:
According to Perkins, the leaker-director himself refused to resign, saying it was up to shareholders to make such a decision; that director continues to serve on the board.
You do raise some good points about the risks of being under-informed about the whole situation. Yes, they are privy to facts and insights we are not, and yes, there are always two sides to every story. But, if the rest of the board members did, as you say, afford her the moral high-ground, their approval of the crime was more than tacit. Until we hear some mitigating information, such an assumption increases rather than decreases their responsibility.
Maybe some of them were completely happy that they only had to sacrifice that to find out who was leaking information? Perhaps this invasion of privacy is the norm in corporate America, you just have to accept it once you get to that point
I am totally projecting my own biases here, but I really, really hope you are wrong. As a college student about to enter this Corporate America, the thought or such an environment terrifies me. I would rather throw away my degree and work in an honest, low-profile blue-collar job than sacrifice my freedoms and rights. This attitude may change, but I really hope I can maintain my ideals in the face of such low integrity.
HP's reputation has been damaged by a leaker who refused to come forward knowing this investigation was going on," she said, a person who "lied to the rest of the board, by omission and commission, about the fact that he was the source of this information for a long period of time.
Does she hear herself when she talks? HP's reputation has suffered far more from this mess than it ever could have from 'leaked information' - I don't care how sensitive it was (baring forced anal probes of random citizens). This hypocrisy will not die when she is inevitably forced out. The other members of the board that did not resign in protest bear some of the responsibility as well. The indifference of those men is as inexcusable as the action itself.
John and his other American colleagues, had not even heard of the company's name before joining Infosys.
It doesn't exactly sound like we are losing our best and brightest to extra-national corporations. If these guys can't be motivated to do a little research before signing on, do we want to keep them?
Though I must admit, I am curious about what kind of innovations we will be seeing in the next few years. It sounds like some Indian companies are ready to become leaders in the field, and a fast growth environment like that can only benefit from this cross-cultural communication.
The company is offering one year of free credit monitoring to people whose Social Security numbers were on the tapes.
Free credit monitoring is the least they should be offering. Asking the customer to buy protection against potential misuse that was caused by the company is extortion. This is no different from throwing bricks close to someone's window and telling them, 'whoops, my bad. I tell you what, since I'm such an upstanding citizen, I'll make sure your window doesn't break from flying bricks for up to a year. Of course, there's no way I can guarantee the safety of these windows, but I'll let you know as soon as one is broken - and I might even help you if you want to file a police report against whoever threw them.'
Slashdot Mirror
However, if your friend comes to you with a request to go flying...well, don't let the FAA find out (they have busted pilots for receiving no more compensation than logging the flight time!).
how does this affect Angel Flights?
I know that it's an amazing program with a great cause, but one would think that a government organization like the FAA would have rather strict guidelines, and be leery of exemptions (however noble the cause)
Fair enough.
You've raised some interesting points about British and International Law (both of which I know very little about).
I won't ask you to unmask yourself here by posting an identifying document like that, but the whole situation is fascinating. It's always interesting to watch what happens when the state's monopoly of violence intersects with the liberties of its citizens (particularly when the state purports a facade of democracy).
Thanks for the introduction to the case - I expect that a weekend of reading is in store. [though if you wish to spoil the ending, I'd love to get a personal perspective on how it turned out (if it has, in fact, been processed yet)]
there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.
perhaps a simple matter of semantics, but does one necessarily follow the other?
That is to say (and, please forgive my ignorance on the matter), I assume that non-British citizens can petition the court and do have some standing to sue (just as non-citizens can be sued by the British court) to redress some wrong.
If that is the case, does asking the British courts to issue an injunction against the British Navy necessitate a recognition of sovereignty?
and if such a request of the court does imply such a recognition, where is the line drawn? Can the United States, or Mexico, or China ask the British government to refrain from blowing up their stuff without such a recognition?
and to where would the recognition apply? Do we acknowledge that the British possess total sovereignty (of all it surveys), or simply sovereignty over its own Navy, or would it be sovereignty over the requesting nation?
You can only perjure yourself if you "knowingly" make a false statement under oath
Not so. The State is quite capable of convicting you of perjury if you make the mistake of truthfully answering a question asked, instead of truthfully answering the question that they meant to ask https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bronston_v._United_States#United_States_v._DeZarn
And to improving VBA support in things like LibreOffice, too; VBA is a close relative of VB6.
This. We have so many Macros and scripts in VBA (especially in Excel), that it's more cost effective to upgrade to a new version of Office every 3-5 years than it would ever be to port everything over to Open/LibreOffice. Open up VBA and the Excel folks will be happy to switch - they are the ones watching the money and licenses. Everyone else just uses Word to make passive-aggressive notes for the lunchroom.
I used to think so, too. Turns out, you can turn on sloppy focus in Windows (haven't confirmed in 7, yet).
Of course not, you're expected to pay for that level of depravity
Looks like they missed the the planet Genesis by quite a bit.
"Outsourcing, take them away!"
-ZAP-
"It's a miracle! They moved our factory to a third world country!"
"Now I have more time to play the lottery, CA-CHING!"
While Accenture was formed by Arthur Anderson as a consulting division in 1953, they split from the company (1989) before the ugliness with Enron, and finally severed all contractual ties in 2000. Arthur Anderson had a separate consulting branch that directly competed with Accenture after the split. So, yes, they used to be a part of AA, but as far as I know, they had nothing to do with the questionable accounting practices that led to AA's downfall. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture)
HP might be a decent company but for its management.
when will these 'researches' be arrested for pointing out flaws in a security system.
I really hope this means it's time for some proper write support to NTFS
I think the real contention is in the definition of 'places of public accommodation.' Does this include the internet? What about a customer service call center for ordering from a catalog? I'm not a lawyer, and I can't decipher the letter of the law, but I think the spirit of it is fairly evident:
If we accept that a web site falls under the definition as a place of public accommodation (though I'm not sure I do, just yet), then we must treat such offenses as we would any other under the ADA.I think that it is in the best interest of a business to make themselves accessible to the widest audience possible, but it seems that the litigants want to hold the nation's businesses to standards created by the TTS industry (I'm assuming they use some variant of TTS software - I know very little about software for the blind). An international standard would be ideal, but in an age where technology changes so rapidly, it will be difficult to regulate compliance with ADA laws. If we compare this to wheelchair access ramps, we have a design that has fundamentally remained unchanged - wheels going up a ramp. It would be like requiring companies to rebuild their ramps every few years to accommodate new wheelchair designs while expecting them to maintain backwards compatibility with older models.
Though I must admit, I am curious about what kind of innovations we will be seeing in the next few years. It sounds like some Indian companies are ready to become leaders in the field, and a fast growth environment like that can only benefit from this cross-cultural communication.