But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
As stated above, Halliburton was not "responsible for the drilling site." I don't know where you're getting your information, but you might want to consider adjusting your feeds if you're being misinformed.
From where I sit, I don't really give a crap about Halliburton or Transocean here, they were just hardware people. They could have taken a well-head to the Mojave Desert and failed to seal it there and it would be about the same. Frankly I don't care if the BOP failed, or the whatever is broken, or that whosit put weird chemicals in the thingy, BP is responsible for the OIL. They can break hardware all day long, but if any oil gets out, then BP is responsible (this time without scare quotes). This is what the law and what the lease says: BP is responsible for the oil. So, they can have fires and failures in equipment all day long for all I care, they just can't let any oil leak.
But they did. All of the Halliburton and Transocean kerfuffle is BPs backroom problem. It's all over but the crying, and BP is on the hook for the oil. They certainly don't try to deflect ownership when a well is successful, do they?
They care about this-quarter-now and screw-the-future precisely because publicly-held companies are legally beholden to their shareholders first and foremost, and if they don't do their best to provide a return on shareholders' investment, then they're in legal trouble of a different sort.
The shareholders can certainly generate a new board of directors, but as Dell is so vibrantly illustrating for us in just this story right here, being profit-centered can result in poor corporate health. They might fire a CEO who said that, but I don't think they would incur liability merely for promulgating a different direction. Anybody can make a fine case that ever-increasing profits are not possible without hurting the company.
Slashdot book reviews have been weak chapter-by-chapter "synopses" for years now. They simply do not have any standards beyond (perhaps) word count. Best just to exclude them from your front page.
Maybe it shouldn't have been. Maybe it was all just a massive cover-up.
The only coverup is that what is depicted in the video is SOP. The military doesn't want anybody to find out that their Rules of Engagement are so vague and permissive that the wrong people are getting killed left and right every day. If I get a second, I'll try to find one of the hundred or more articles about a drone killing some "Third In Command of Al Qaeda!!!11" along with 13 (or 30) people who happened to be nearby.
No. What you describe is not only allowed, but encouraged in law enforcement for questioning people. Entrapment is when they induce you to commit a crime you would not normally have done.
Didn't we see this happening at BestBuy or Walmart or something back when the Wii was hard to find? I remember the whole controversy starting this way, stores saying it was manufacturer's policy, when it then turned out to be 100% store policy only. Maybe it was PS3. Anyway, the PR department of the chain should be releasing a statement in the next few days saying they were isolated incidents.
If a country like Turkey is engaging in acts like this, what hope does the rest of the Middle East have?
Where is your brain, man? What if they aren't?
Or, put another way, can you think of anybody who has a motive these days to make Turkey look bad?
The mere fact that there are tweets in Turkish is supposed to be evidence to corroborate a vague and unnamed source? Pull the other one and it sings Limp Bizkit.
Hypothetically, that sounds like what dictators of certain countries would love to do to companies and newspaper publishers that don't support them. Just find an excuse, or create one.
You mean like "indefinite detention" for onetime-suspected terrorists and sex offenders? Sorry pal, but the "makin' shit up" method of justice has a fresh coat of asphalt, and the entire US government (as well as a large portion of its citizenry) is barreling along on that strategy bus. Might as well use it.
People are focusing too much on BP and ignoring Halliburton, which if you will notice is party to just about everything bad in America.
As much as I'd like to see Halliburton taken out to the woodshed and shot, they are BPs problem. BP's oil, BP's responsibility. I'm sure we'll see some hot potatoes passed around, blamewise, and everybody involved is going to satisfy their fiduciary responsibilities by avoiding culpability as much as possible, but this is BP's baby.
I just didn't like the whole "if you want a domain name, you have to make your social security number, name of your first pet, your medical history, and naked pictures of yourself public to any chump that feels like typing your address into a box on the internet" part of having a domain.
Look, we as nerds must STOP treating "data mining" like an epithet, or at least a scarlet letter on one's resume.
Look, we as nerds must STOP latching on to one facet of an argument, or at least representing it as the entire argument. The difference is DM in the context of ex-CIA, not DM in general. Relax, coffeeboy.
He can hit the road promoting an Android device or something. "Remember me? I'm the guy who blew it on the iPhone 4 prototype. That's why I work for X Android company, because I'd rather not work for the Bay Area gestapo anyway.
Yeah, that'll happen. In fact, I can remember it happening so many times before that I can't imagine this guy doesn't have a ton of "X Android" companies lining up in his inbox with baited breath. So predictable, so hackneyed, so cliched. It's just like that other guy, uh...what was his name...
You would be right if all companies followed the rules but many do not hence the article.
Well, no kidding. Thanks for the refresher on the purposes of journalism.
The upshot is that interns can force them to follow the rules in their own cases by filing a complaint with the Department of Labor, which they will win. You want to talk about organizational deadweight? Try DoL fines, penalties, and compensation for the "intern." The intern is already not going to be getting school credit, so the risk they run is to give up a position of valuable slavery. Some like it, some don't, and most of the time it's the employer who likes it and the "intern" who puts up with what they think is a necessary evil.
Trying to infer guilt from this (tempting though it may be) violates what most of us stand for.
There are real differences between civil and criminal juries. In civil suits, a jury is not very likely to give a person who invokes the fifth the benefit of the doubt, so what is happening here is that she's saving her own skin while possibly undercutting the school's defense. As far as a jury would be concerned, that is.
At the end of the day, though, civil suits are decided on a preponderance of evidence rather than a shadow of a doubt, so if the defense only ever invokes the fifth, they aren't supplying any evidence for their own benefit.
You want a healthy economy, you need jobs. Unpaid internships punish job creation. Why would company 'a' hire a person, give them a wage, when company 'b' can get a person to do the same work, for free?
Because in order to be a legally unpaid internship under US labor law there are six criteria that must be met, and the overall cant of the regulations is that legitimate internships actually constitute organizational deadweight.
Slashdot Mirror
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
As stated above, Halliburton was not "responsible for the drilling site." I don't know where you're getting your information, but you might want to consider adjusting your feeds if you're being misinformed.
From where I sit, I don't really give a crap about Halliburton or Transocean here, they were just hardware people. They could have taken a well-head to the Mojave Desert and failed to seal it there and it would be about the same. Frankly I don't care if the BOP failed, or the whatever is broken, or that whosit put weird chemicals in the thingy, BP is responsible for the OIL. They can break hardware all day long, but if any oil gets out, then BP is responsible (this time without scare quotes). This is what the law and what the lease says: BP is responsible for the oil. So, they can have fires and failures in equipment all day long for all I care, they just can't let any oil leak.
But they did. All of the Halliburton and Transocean kerfuffle is BPs backroom problem. It's all over but the crying, and BP is on the hook for the oil. They certainly don't try to deflect ownership when a well is successful, do they?
I think that's a good point. Short term betterment too often becomes long-term detriment.
I wonder if there could be a case of fiduciary responsibility or duty of care here.
More info:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/07/03/1250824/charge-was-dismissed-but-arrest.html
They care about this-quarter-now and screw-the-future precisely because publicly-held companies are legally beholden to their shareholders first and foremost, and if they don't do their best to provide a return on shareholders' investment, then they're in legal trouble of a different sort.
The shareholders can certainly generate a new board of directors, but as Dell is so vibrantly illustrating for us in just this story right here, being profit-centered can result in poor corporate health. They might fire a CEO who said that, but I don't think they would incur liability merely for promulgating a different direction. Anybody can make a fine case that ever-increasing profits are not possible without hurting the company.
What is this, Byte Magazine in 1993?
In a truly free market, why shouldn't you be allowed to "copy other's inventions and profit from someone else's ideas.". Think it through.
Where is this "free market" you refer to? I've only seen it in books and internet comments.
Slashdot book reviews have been weak chapter-by-chapter "synopses" for years now. They simply do not have any standards beyond (perhaps) word count. Best just to exclude them from your front page.
He spelled "appetite" wrong, ya doof.
...consider that companies can also lose their trademarks if they abuse them. That's not to say it happens very often, but it's an available remedy.
bon apetite!
I see you're from Quebec. Welcome!
It's classified; that's the whole point.
Maybe it shouldn't have been. Maybe it was all just a massive cover-up.
The only coverup is that what is depicted in the video is SOP. The military doesn't want anybody to find out that their Rules of Engagement are so vague and permissive that the wrong people are getting killed left and right every day. If I get a second, I'll try to find one of the hundred or more articles about a drone killing some "Third In Command of Al Qaeda!!!11" along with 13 (or 30) people who happened to be nearby.
No. What you describe is not only allowed, but encouraged in law enforcement for questioning people. Entrapment is when they induce you to commit a crime you would not normally have done.
Didn't we see this happening at BestBuy or Walmart or something back when the Wii was hard to find? I remember the whole controversy starting this way, stores saying it was manufacturer's policy, when it then turned out to be 100% store policy only. Maybe it was PS3. Anyway, the PR department of the chain should be releasing a statement in the next few days saying they were isolated incidents.
If a country like Turkey is engaging in acts like this, what hope does the rest of the Middle East have?
Where is your brain, man? What if they aren't?
Or, put another way, can you think of anybody who has a motive these days to make Turkey look bad?
The mere fact that there are tweets in Turkish is supposed to be evidence to corroborate a vague and unnamed source? Pull the other one and it sings Limp Bizkit.
Did they not honestly believe that a disaster could occur?
Every single drilling plan is required to include contingency plans for every conceivable problem.
Hypothetically, that sounds like what dictators of certain countries would love to do to companies and newspaper publishers that don't support them. Just find an excuse, or create one.
You mean like "indefinite detention" for onetime-suspected terrorists and sex offenders? Sorry pal, but the "makin' shit up" method of justice has a fresh coat of asphalt, and the entire US government (as well as a large portion of its citizenry) is barreling along on that strategy bus. Might as well use it.
People are focusing too much on BP and ignoring Halliburton, which if you will notice is party to just about everything bad in America.
As much as I'd like to see Halliburton taken out to the woodshed and shot, they are BPs problem. BP's oil, BP's responsibility. I'm sure we'll see some hot potatoes passed around, blamewise, and everybody involved is going to satisfy their fiduciary responsibilities by avoiding culpability as much as possible, but this is BP's baby.
I just didn't like the whole "if you want a domain name, you have to make your social security number, name of your first pet, your medical history, and naked pictures of yourself public to any chump that feels like typing your address into a box on the internet" part of having a domain.
Dude, you're using the wrong registrar.
Look, we as nerds must STOP treating "data mining" like an epithet, or at least a scarlet letter on one's resume.
Look, we as nerds must STOP latching on to one facet of an argument, or at least representing it as the entire argument. The difference is DM in the context of ex-CIA, not DM in general. Relax, coffeeboy.
He can hit the road promoting an Android device or something. "Remember me? I'm the guy who blew it on the iPhone 4 prototype. That's why I work for X Android company, because I'd rather not work for the Bay Area gestapo anyway.
Yeah, that'll happen. In fact, I can remember it happening so many times before that I can't imagine this guy doesn't have a ton of "X Android" companies lining up in his inbox with baited breath. So predictable, so hackneyed, so cliched. It's just like that other guy, uh...what was his name...
You would be right if all companies followed the rules but many do not hence the article.
Well, no kidding. Thanks for the refresher on the purposes of journalism.
The upshot is that interns can force them to follow the rules in their own cases by filing a complaint with the Department of Labor, which they will win. You want to talk about organizational deadweight? Try DoL fines, penalties, and compensation for the "intern." The intern is already not going to be getting school credit, so the risk they run is to give up a position of valuable slavery. Some like it, some don't, and most of the time it's the employer who likes it and the "intern" who puts up with what they think is a necessary evil.
Trying to infer guilt from this (tempting though it may be) violates what most of us stand for.
There are real differences between civil and criminal juries. In civil suits, a jury is not very likely to give a person who invokes the fifth the benefit of the doubt, so what is happening here is that she's saving her own skin while possibly undercutting the school's defense. As far as a jury would be concerned, that is.
At the end of the day, though, civil suits are decided on a preponderance of evidence rather than a shadow of a doubt, so if the defense only ever invokes the fifth, they aren't supplying any evidence for their own benefit.
You want a healthy economy, you need jobs. Unpaid internships punish job creation. Why would company 'a' hire a person, give them a wage, when company 'b' can get a person to do the same work, for free?
Because in order to be a legally unpaid internship under US labor law there are six criteria that must be met, and the overall cant of the regulations is that legitimate internships actually constitute organizational deadweight.
Here, educate yourself: http://laborlaw.typepad.com/labor_and_employment_law_/2007/11/unpaid-internsh.html
Check the sidebar: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
I'm anxiously awaiting the SD1200 port.
Here's the URL for the video on the TED site, in a larger format, and without "techflash" anywhere nearby:
http://www.ted.com/talks/blaise_aguera.html