Release the movie for free on the internet. Perhaps issue a bargain-rate DVD as well. If the people behind the hack really don't want this movie out there (as opposed to this being a smoke-screen), and you really are concerned that capitulation will inspire future attacks; up the ante and do the opposite.
To be sure: there is a fiscal cost... but that ship has sailed. Take more of a hit now to save ongoing bleeding.
Heck: Start a commercial campaign about how you stand up to terrorists.
There's a reason I said "something like". I was making an approximation from old memory, I used 300 million and 5,000.
And 1/108,072 is certainly "something like" 1/60,000 when compared to 1/250,000,000 that I was responding to. At least I was not 3 orders of magnitude off as was the person I responded to.
So you have 10 times the likelihood of dying in a car wreck every year than the worst year ever for terrorism. That's worth giving up all our rights for.
You correct me for a (correct order of magnitude) approximation and then respond with hyperbole.
I agree that's not worth giving up all our rights.
I remind you that "we" have not given up all of our rights (I can still vote, as an example).
I agree, however, that the reaction has been inappropriate to the danger.
I remind you that I never said otherwise. I just pointed out a rediculous number.
I can just see having to explain to a 7-year-old-child that heard about the program and doesn't understand why he can't try to be involved that it's because he's a boy. It's not just sexist, it may literally be the first obvious example of sexism that a young child notices.
Without even "other passengers" to dissuade them; what won't people do in such vehicles? As much as I look forward to the smell and sight of vomit, urine, fecal matter, seminal fluid, and the occasional dead body: I think I might want to have my own car... even an autonomous one.
For one thing: Will they outlaw "all the rest" from making their own search engine? They could even hire "Google" as the back end.
Plus: this doesn't seem to be a monopoly break up (Google is not a monopoly according to Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, whatever apple defaults to, etc); but it does seem designed to put Google at a competitive disadvantage to Yahoo and Microsoft who offer pretty much all the same services as well as search.
I was a kickstarter on Star Citizen, but missed Elite (wasn't paying attention to Kickstarter at the time). Star Citizen has worn me out with some of the same complaints I am seeing here on Elite.
The last week or so, I've brought up the Elite webiste many times and sat on the edge of buying. I kept arguing with myself. Well: argument over. I will not be pre-ordering. I'm too big a fan of offline mode. There are too many flags.
Which means, if this game is well reviewed by players, I'll buy it in a year when it goes on sale. I just see too much EA-style tactics here. Whatever my complaints with Wasteland 2, they never pulled any of what appears to be happening here.
So the police raid someone for child porn and collect a bunch of pictures. These pictures are evidence (and used in a trial) I presume. Are they also public record?
I assume they are not; that you can't have the police send you copies. Why is this video any harder to sort out than court evidence?
Or you could have nigh-100% public access by making it available in a viewing room. I'm not aware of anything in the FOIA that should require that copies be made.
Or, if the abuses of the FOIA are relatively few in number; allow judicial review upon request.
So what about those "fools on television" who are of said race? Do they not know what they hell they are talking about? http://www.blackyouthproject.c...
Even without this flaw, you could still steal up to a certain amount. The flaw just let's you bypass the limit (20 pounds in the UK).
This is an argument against allowing transactions without pins. Yes, it's convenient yo wave your card at something and not have to put in a pin; but it's also dangerous.
Better: I like the active "I won't share my information unless a code is manually entered on me" method of some speculative card systems and of a (configured to require a pin) google wallet.
How is "OMG I can't afford to stream 8 hours of video a day any more" going to set society back 20 years? If anything, it will be a huge improvement.
OK. So it will only set it back 10 years to the pre-internet-streaming days. I suppose Netflix and its Hungarian competitors may see revenue loss.
Some other ways to lower bandwitdth useage. Stop buying games that stream over the internet (loss of sales again), stop your updates from downloading as they can be quite large (cyber-security issues increase as people's PCs become less secure). You can also stop using video conferencing and, perhaps VoIP.
Won't do well for OS's that stream either (LINUX).
I can see a tax on the bandwith you buy; but on the consumption of that bandwidth? Seems poorly thought out.
Better phrasing would be "Mars is the only planet that is known to be solely inhabited by robots"
Neptune is a known planet. It might be inhabited solely by robots. More to the point: there are known exoplanets that we have never seen. They might be as well.
"If someone leaves their car unlocked and leaves a valuable item in plain view in the front seat, we might feel less sorry for them if they return to their car to find it stolen. But it's a logical error to blame the victim just because they took a risk; the real reason to blame them is that there's no counterbalancing benefit to leaving the car door unlocked, or failing to move the valuable item into the trunk. "
The benifit of not puttin the thing in the trunk and not locking the car is it was less effort to do and will be less effort to open the car and get to the thing aftewards.
Much like the hacked accounts and the benefit of not using a more secure password.
I'm worried that "victim blaming" has been redefined. It seems it might once have been "the perpitrator is excused becuase of the victim", which is not what has been said.
I'm sure there are costs associated with banks building vaults, locking doors, hiring guards, having survellence: avoiding those costs would be a clear benefit. But if they fail at those (or if Home Depot fails to spend enough money wisely enough on securing their POS systems) we correctly fault the bank (or Home Depot) for their lack of care while still rightly villifying the person who broke in and stole the money.
These people took risks. Those risks included taking nude photos, uploading those photos to internet-attached servers, and failing to use good security. Those risks did not apy off. This does not excuse those who hacked the accounts. It is not "victim blaming" in the classic sense either. it is rightly pointing out a lack of due care.
It relies on the premise that "killing is superior to interaction".
"Don't ride horses: kill the horses to make way for an automobile factory and roads. That's more ethical"
Since any position is going to be arbitrary (theirs or mine), I can't really dispute the conclusion (unless there's inconsistancy); but it seems a rather dumb one.
To super-smart aliens. I'd rather you interact with me in a kind way than kill me.
Of course I don't know what his personal contract of employment might read. Neither do you. Neither does the original poster.
Generally though, unless organized labor has been involved in drafting them, the contracts (for non-executive positions) are mostly to protect the employer. It would be odd for a company to remove from itself the ability to fire "because they feel like it".
To the tennor of your post: it's uncalled for and inflammitory. You imply that I am a "lying sack of shit", though it's a straw man. You assert that I claim to be an expert (another straw-man as I never did), and further claim knowledge you don't have about me to assert why. You are leveraging your ignorance of who I am with your misreading, deliberate or otherwise, of my post to claim to be an expert on his contract and my experience.
And no. I didn't "look it up in Wikipedia". I researched my particular state's statues because I have had employees.
Hell. I didn't even check if he was *in* a right-to-work state or not. He may not be. What I said was that it was not clear that he did have grounds. Feel free to prove that it's clear with support if you can.
"implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."
To begin with: I worry what "implicitly" means. Do they mean "she had it on her person when arrested"?
That said. If I "implcitly consent" to you searching my pocket, and my house-keys are in it, did I just consent to a home search and the use of my house? I think not.
So what, in many cases people choose mates and friends based on their race preferences.
Many clients choose which businesses they will deal with based on the origin business owner (some prefer to frequent or to avoid Indian or Middle Eastern or Asian establishments for example).
People must be able to discriminate however they see fit and I am talking about people in their individual lives and I am also talking about businesses obviously.
Of course: this is a situation that has been tried. See pre-reconstruction US (or Suni/Shia/Kurd male/female in the middle east, or the caste system in India).
It creates a caste system where entire portions of society are disenfranchized. It usually results, in the end, in an awful lot of deaths.
See also: Segrigation, Aparthtide, etc.
Yes, it should be possible to discriminate based on race, absolutely. Race, age, sex, any form of discrimination must be absolutely legal (and by the way it is unconstitutional, illegal for the federal government to regulate businesses and the entire concept of interstate commerce does not allow government to regulate business, it is only there to prevent individual States from erecting barriers of entry, which are still all there, so the federal government is not doing what it's job is and instead it constantly harasses businesses for no reason whatsoever).
Your statement of fact, offered by you without support, is false. It has been established false by the court system and by the legislatures (which have not ammended to correct the courts).
Now, government must not be able to discriminate against anybody based on age, race, sex, ethnicity but that is also constantly happening for example with the war on drugs, with the so called 'war on terrorism', with every war that government runs.
Government must not be able to discriminate because it destroys the rule of law, destroys the free market (which is already destroyed in USA of-course) and eventually destroys the economy and thus the society. Government must be forced to treat people equally regardless of their natural characteristics, individuals must not be forced into anything.
If you will not accept government forcing you to marry any particular person or to frequent any particular business then it is inconsistent for you to be cheering for the government forcing a business to either hire or to serve any particular person.
This is a straw man fallacy. The government does not force the hiring or serving of a particular person. It disallows the refusal to hire or serve a particular *class* of people. You can still not hire or not serve any individual you like: as long as the reason is not their membership in a protected class.
Again: we've lived without these protections; and there are many areas in the world today without these protections; and the results were poor.
"Free Market" is in many areas of the world as well (try Somalia, for example); and also has been tried in the US (just set your time machine to -100 years). It turned out poorly. Indeed: you can look at the feudal structure and see that the issue was not that the nobility was the government, but that it was the property holder in an free-market society with only one player. That turned out with behedings and pitchforks.
In "right to work" states, you can fire someone for "no reason at all", but there are things you can not fire people for even in "right to work" states, retaliation is one of them.
That would require "legally proper, necessary, or desirable activities". Fire someone for unionizing and you have retaliation. Fire someone for suing over discrimination and you have retaliation. Firing someone for misuse of your company clout? That seems to fall well within valid firing. Even firing someone because they got someone to come complain about them and it annoyed you... that's usually fair game in an at-will state. (your mileage may vary)
Look, we all hate Comcast, but something is fishy here about this guy. I will go as far as saying that the write-up is one-sided, and if "true", the employer has opened themselves up to a lawsuit, and I really don't think HR and their lawyers would do this.
We are not hearing the full story.
I'm not so sure (and suspect that it depends on which state he's in). My state, for example, is "right to work". Which means, unless it expressly violates some protection (disabled, race, gender, etc): I can fire you for anything at all. I can fire you because my astrologer said I should fire anyone who wore a red shirt in today.
I would think *comcast* might be actionable *if* they actually lied. Otherwise, and unless he's in a state with more signifigant protections than mine, he's SOL.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Sony,
Release the movie for free on the internet. Perhaps issue a bargain-rate DVD as well. If the people behind the hack really don't want this movie out there (as opposed to this being a smoke-screen), and you really are concerned that capitulation will inspire future attacks; up the ante and do the opposite.
To be sure: there is a fiscal cost... but that ship has sailed. Take more of a hit now to save ongoing bleeding.
Heck: Start a commercial campaign about how you stand up to terrorists.
If Sony wants to fight back ideologically: release the movie for free on the internet.
The most obvious thing to take are the backup tapes.
But if you've compromised the switches already (I believe that's in the claim?) just installing your own NAS seems even better.
There's a reason I said "something like". I was making an approximation from old memory, I used 300 million and 5,000.
And 1/108,072 is certainly "something like" 1/60,000 when compared to 1/250,000,000 that I was responding to. At least I was not 3 orders of magnitude off as was the person I responded to.
So you have 10 times the likelihood of dying in a car wreck every year than the worst year ever for terrorism. That's worth giving up all our rights for.
You correct me for a (correct order of magnitude) approximation and then respond with hyperbole.
I agree that's not worth giving up all our rights.
I remind you that "we" have not given up all of our rights (I can still vote, as an example).
I agree, however, that the reaction has been inappropriate to the danger.
I remind you that I never said otherwise. I just pointed out a rediculous number.
But I'll take a 1 in 250,000,000 chance of dieing in a terrorist attack over a 1 in 1 chance of having my mail read any day.
I wonder where that number came from: As an American civillian, my odds of dying specifically in the 9/11 attacks were something like 1/60,000
"Pluto was discovered, and for 48 years it remained the only known object whose orbit takes it beyond the gravitational pull of Neptune."
Long Period comets for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... - Discovered 1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... - Discovered 1911
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X... - Discovered 1106 (though I don't know if they determined its orbit at the time)
Some of these have orbits that take them 2 orders of magnitude farther from the Sun than Pluto
Was my first thought too.
I can just see having to explain to a 7-year-old-child that heard about the program and doesn't understand why he can't try to be involved that it's because he's a boy. It's not just sexist, it may literally be the first obvious example of sexism that a young child notices.
Without even "other passengers" to dissuade them; what won't people do in such vehicles? As much as I look forward to the smell and sight of vomit, urine, fecal matter, seminal fluid, and the occasional dead body: I think I might want to have my own car... even an autonomous one.
For one thing: Will they outlaw "all the rest" from making their own search engine? They could even hire "Google" as the back end.
Plus: this doesn't seem to be a monopoly break up (Google is not a monopoly according to Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, whatever apple defaults to, etc); but it does seem designed to put Google at a competitive disadvantage to Yahoo and Microsoft who offer pretty much all the same services as well as search.
I was a kickstarter on Star Citizen, but missed Elite (wasn't paying attention to Kickstarter at the time). Star Citizen has worn me out with some of the same complaints I am seeing here on Elite.
The last week or so, I've brought up the Elite webiste many times and sat on the edge of buying. I kept arguing with myself. Well: argument over. I will not be pre-ordering. I'm too big a fan of offline mode. There are too many flags.
Which means, if this game is well reviewed by players, I'll buy it in a year when it goes on sale. I just see too much EA-style tactics here. Whatever my complaints with Wasteland 2, they never pulled any of what appears to be happening here.
So the police raid someone for child porn and collect a bunch of pictures. These pictures are evidence (and used in a trial) I presume. Are they also public record?
I assume they are not; that you can't have the police send you copies. Why is this video any harder to sort out than court evidence?
Or you could have nigh-100% public access by making it available in a viewing room. I'm not aware of anything in the FOIA that should require that copies be made.
Or, if the abuses of the FOIA are relatively few in number; allow judicial review upon request.
So what about those "fools on television" who are of said race? Do they not know what they hell they are talking about?
http://www.blackyouthproject.c...
Even without this flaw, you could still steal up to a certain amount. The flaw just let's you bypass the limit (20 pounds in the UK).
This is an argument against allowing transactions without pins. Yes, it's convenient yo wave your card at something and not have to put in a pin; but it's also dangerous.
Better: I like the active "I won't share my information unless a code is manually entered on me" method of some speculative card systems and of a (configured to require a pin) google wallet.
I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.
Or, and bear with me on this: perhaps the desire to win a cyber-war is the paramount priority over and above ideal morale conditions.
Of course it's also possible they have a plan to accomplish both.
How is "OMG I can't afford to stream 8 hours of video a day any more" going to set society back 20 years? If anything, it will be a huge improvement.
OK. So it will only set it back 10 years to the pre-internet-streaming days. I suppose Netflix and its Hungarian competitors may see revenue loss.
Some other ways to lower bandwitdth useage. Stop buying games that stream over the internet (loss of sales again), stop your updates from downloading as they can be quite large (cyber-security issues increase as people's PCs become less secure). You can also stop using video conferencing and, perhaps VoIP.
Won't do well for OS's that stream either (LINUX).
I can see a tax on the bandwith you buy; but on the consumption of that bandwidth? Seems poorly thought out.
Unless it's different than the one I am thinking of: it was developed under US government grant.
It wasn't the single-payor (or multi-payor) system that did it; but rather direct government investment in research.
Better phrasing would be "Mars is the only planet that is known to be solely inhabited by robots"
Neptune is a known planet. It might be inhabited solely by robots. More to the point: there are known exoplanets that we have never seen. They might be as well.
"If someone leaves their car unlocked and leaves a valuable item in plain view in the front seat, we might feel less sorry for them if they return to their car to find it stolen. But it's a logical error to blame the victim just because they took a risk; the real reason to blame them is that there's no counterbalancing benefit to leaving the car door unlocked, or failing to move the valuable item into the trunk. "
The benifit of not puttin the thing in the trunk and not locking the car is it was less effort to do and will be less effort to open the car and get to the thing aftewards.
Much like the hacked accounts and the benefit of not using a more secure password.
I'm worried that "victim blaming" has been redefined. It seems it might once have been "the perpitrator is excused becuase of the victim", which is not what has been said.
I'm sure there are costs associated with banks building vaults, locking doors, hiring guards, having survellence: avoiding those costs would be a clear benefit. But if they fail at those (or if Home Depot fails to spend enough money wisely enough on securing their POS systems) we correctly fault the bank (or Home Depot) for their lack of care while still rightly villifying the person who broke in and stole the money.
These people took risks. Those risks included taking nude photos, uploading those photos to internet-attached servers, and failing to use good security. Those risks did not apy off. This does not excuse those who hacked the accounts. It is not "victim blaming" in the classic sense either. it is rightly pointing out a lack of due care.
It relies on the premise that "killing is superior to interaction".
"Don't ride horses: kill the horses to make way for an automobile factory and roads. That's more ethical"
Since any position is going to be arbitrary (theirs or mine), I can't really dispute the conclusion (unless there's inconsistancy); but it seems a rather dumb one.
To super-smart aliens. I'd rather you interact with me in a kind way than kill me.
You are corect. I improperly used "right-to-work" where I should have used "at-will". Thank you for pointing it out :)
Of course I don't know what his personal contract of employment might read. Neither do you. Neither does the original poster.
Generally though, unless organized labor has been involved in drafting them, the contracts (for non-executive positions) are mostly to protect the employer. It would be odd for a company to remove from itself the ability to fire "because they feel like it".
To the tennor of your post: it's uncalled for and inflammitory. You imply that I am a "lying sack of shit", though it's a straw man. You assert that I claim to be an expert (another straw-man as I never did), and further claim knowledge you don't have about me to assert why. You are leveraging your ignorance of who I am with your misreading, deliberate or otherwise, of my post to claim to be an expert on his contract and my experience.
And no. I didn't "look it up in Wikipedia". I researched my particular state's statues because I have had employees.
Hell. I didn't even check if he was *in* a right-to-work state or not. He may not be. What I said was that it was not clear that he did have grounds. Feel free to prove that it's clear with support if you can.
"implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."
To begin with: I worry what "implicitly" means. Do they mean "she had it on her person when arrested"?
That said. If I "implcitly consent" to you searching my pocket, and my house-keys are in it, did I just consent to a home search and the use of my house? I think not.
So what, in many cases people choose mates and friends based on their race preferences.
Many clients choose which businesses they will deal with based on the origin business owner (some prefer to frequent or to avoid Indian or Middle Eastern or Asian establishments for example).
People must be able to discriminate however they see fit and I am talking about people in their individual lives and I am also talking about businesses obviously.
Of course: this is a situation that has been tried. See pre-reconstruction US (or Suni/Shia/Kurd male/female in the middle east, or the caste system in India).
It creates a caste system where entire portions of society are disenfranchized. It usually results, in the end, in an awful lot of deaths.
See also: Segrigation, Aparthtide, etc.
Yes, it should be possible to discriminate based on race, absolutely. Race, age, sex, any form of discrimination must be absolutely legal (and by the way it is unconstitutional, illegal for the federal government to regulate businesses and the entire concept of interstate commerce does not allow government to regulate business, it is only there to prevent individual States from erecting barriers of entry, which are still all there, so the federal government is not doing what it's job is and instead it constantly harasses businesses for no reason whatsoever).
Your statement of fact, offered by you without support, is false. It has been established false by the court system and by the legislatures (which have not ammended to correct the courts).
Now, government must not be able to discriminate against anybody based on age, race, sex, ethnicity but that is also constantly happening for example with the war on drugs, with the so called 'war on terrorism', with every war that government runs.
Government must not be able to discriminate because it destroys the rule of law, destroys the free market (which is already destroyed in USA of-course) and eventually destroys the economy and thus the society. Government must be forced to treat people equally regardless of their natural characteristics, individuals must not be forced into anything.
If you will not accept government forcing you to marry any particular person or to frequent any particular business then it is inconsistent for you to be cheering for the government forcing a business to either hire or to serve any particular person.
This is a straw man fallacy. The government does not force the hiring or serving of a particular person. It disallows the refusal to hire or serve a particular *class* of people. You can still not hire or not serve any individual you like: as long as the reason is not their membership in a protected class.
Again: we've lived without these protections; and there are many areas in the world today without these protections; and the results were poor.
"Free Market" is in many areas of the world as well (try Somalia, for example); and also has been tried in the US (just set your time machine to -100 years). It turned out poorly. Indeed: you can look at the feudal structure and see that the issue was not that the nobility was the government, but that it was the property holder in an free-market society with only one player. That turned out with behedings and pitchforks.
In "right to work" states, you can fire someone for "no reason at all", but there are things you can not fire people for even in "right to work" states, retaliation is one of them.
You may want to research that a bit further: http://www.ncsl.org/research/l...
That would require "legally proper, necessary, or desirable activities". Fire someone for unionizing and you have retaliation. Fire someone for suing over discrimination and you have retaliation. Firing someone for misuse of your company clout? That seems to fall well within valid firing. Even firing someone because they got someone to come complain about them and it annoyed you... that's usually fair game in an at-will state. (your mileage may vary)
Look, we all hate Comcast, but something is fishy here about this guy. I will go as far as saying that the write-up is one-sided, and if "true", the employer has opened themselves up to a lawsuit, and I really don't think HR and their lawyers would do this.
We are not hearing the full story.
I'm not so sure (and suspect that it depends on which state he's in). My state, for example, is "right to work". Which means, unless it expressly violates some protection (disabled, race, gender, etc): I can fire you for anything at all. I can fire you because my astrologer said I should fire anyone who wore a red shirt in today.
I would think *comcast* might be actionable *if* they actually lied. Otherwise, and unless he's in a state with more signifigant protections than mine, he's SOL.