If the tax policy is a crime, then yes the worker bee should be prosecuted. Isn't this why we have laws? It would be a much better world if stupid laws could not be enacted because the worker bees would refuse to enforce them out for fear of being held personally liable. Do you think we would have vicious bully cops in the USA (and elsewhere) if they got criminal convictions instead of paid vacations as a consequence? If you work for the IRS and your boss orders you to beat somebody to death, aren't you still subject to prosecution? I don't see why other crimes should be any different.
On the contrary, every person should be held criminally liable for their actions regardless of instructions from "superiors". This would be an excellent precedent, let's get rid of the idea that a person can hide behind an organization or some other conspiracy and not be responsible for their own actions.
The European Court of Justice decision in the Google case will have implications way beyond search engines. Regular readers of this blog will recall stories of banks hounding innocent people for money following payment disputes, and a favourite trick is to blacklist people with credit reference agencies, even while disputes are still in progress (or even after the bank has actually lost a court case). In the past, the Information Commissioner refused to do anything about this abuse, claiming that it’s the bank which is the data controller, not the credit agency. The court now confirms that this view was quite wrong. I have therefore written to the Information Commissioner inviting him to acknowledge this and to withdraw the guidance issued to the credit reference agencies by his predecessor.
I wonder what other information intermediaries will now have to revise their business models?
A good point, which hooks into some of the above posts. Is it even possible to have an election that isn't secret ballot? I recall from history that the early elections in England were huge frauds until they instituted secret ballots. There were a lot of abuses such as the local landlord's thugs openly threatening anyone who voted for the wrong candidate. I don't think human nature has changed at all since then, so we would see the same sorts of problems. Maybe we could have a system where voters have to register in person for some sort of ticket or key, and then they could vote anonymously using that key. The public record would just say "key ### voted for John Smith". So any key holder could check on their own vote but no one could track the key back to them.
They are absolutely right, to an extent. Now hold on, hold on. What they of course carefully avoid mentioning is their sweetheart local monopoly deals. I don't think we need more government to solve the problem caused by government in the first place. If they want to shelter under the rubric of the advantages of a free market, let them have a free market and we'll see who innovates and competes. While they are profiting off government provided monopoly they can go pound sand.
"never uses your content or student data for advertising purposes" isn't exactly reassuring. Let's see. Could be used for research purposes so that someone else can make money off the results. Could be used to recommend mind altering drugs. Could be used to report "violent tendencies" to the government. Could be used to refine profiles for making advertising more effective on kids outside the class setting.
No. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. Yes I understand the Russian military that was already in Crimea was involved there. What I was thinking of was all the incidents, unrest, and violence in other parts of the (eastern) Ukraine. your statement implies these are 'by and large' the Russian military, which as far as I can tell is not true.
No I'm not kidding you, Coward. Is that how you judge what is true, based on what is "harder to believe"? Your feeling of "truthiness" aside, evidence is a better method.
Russia is sending in their own military. They are the ones fighting this counter-revolution - not the people they claim to be helping. This is by and large a Russian military intervention.
I would be interested in a citation. The last I saw, this claim was based on some photos that have been thoroughly debunked.
As I recall, they said 90% of the votes were pro-secession, with something like 80% eligible turnout. So to me, that was saying that all the Russians voted, 10% said no, and the other 20% (non-Russians who would have said no) stayed home. So I thought that lined up around the ethnic divisions within reason if we assume that almost all the ethnic Russians would say "yes". I'm not saying it wasn't faked, just saying that was how I looked at the numbers at first.
You are absolutely correct, this drives me nuts. An illustration from the corporate end user perspective: it is almost impossible to get any information from any AV vendor about WHY a certain signature was triggered. Given the prevalence of false positives with the latest heuristic and reputation-based detections, this information can be absolutely vital to making the correct decisions. But the best you can usually get is 'it is a trojan' or some other vague crap. They seem to view their signatures as some sort of secret sauce that must never be revealed.
You may have missed his point. Writing down the passwords means you can use stronger passwords that you don't have to struggle to remember. The threat from brute forcing stolen hashes is much greater than the threat of having your wallet stolen by someone who is going to know what to do with the passwords.
Self-correction, I was referring to the illegal form there. However, other forms of front running involve proprietary (non-public) information as well. Acting on public information isn't front running.
I am sorry, you are wrong on both counts. Attempting to anticipate orders that span exchanges is not illegal. Nor does that qualify as front running. Bear in mind that each exchange is a wholly separate private entity. Front running, by standard as well as legal definition, only refers to activity within a single entity, basically it means an organization trading advantageously against orders submitted by its own customers.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens now? I am sure this isn't the first time a nation has indicted citizens of another one.
If the tax policy is a crime, then yes the worker bee should be prosecuted. Isn't this why we have laws? It would be a much better world if stupid laws could not be enacted because the worker bees would refuse to enforce them out for fear of being held personally liable. Do you think we would have vicious bully cops in the USA (and elsewhere) if they got criminal convictions instead of paid vacations as a consequence? If you work for the IRS and your boss orders you to beat somebody to death, aren't you still subject to prosecution? I don't see why other crimes should be any different.
On the contrary, every person should be held criminally liable for their actions regardless of instructions from "superiors". This would be an excellent precedent, let's get rid of the idea that a person can hide behind an organization or some other conspiracy and not be responsible for their own actions.
Next up is sanctions against the individuals in question. No more iPhones for you !
But what about the children?
from 2012 to 2013, that I gave you—look at the statistics. If you go from just eleven thousand to twenty thousand, what does that tell you?
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
The European Court of Justice decision in the Google case will have implications way beyond search engines. Regular readers of this blog will recall stories of banks hounding innocent people for money following payment disputes, and a favourite trick is to blacklist people with credit reference agencies, even while disputes are still in progress (or even after the bank has actually lost a court case). In the past, the Information Commissioner refused to do anything about this abuse, claiming that it’s the bank which is the data controller, not the credit agency. The court now confirms that this view was quite wrong. I have therefore written to the Information Commissioner inviting him to acknowledge this and to withdraw the guidance issued to the credit reference agencies by his predecessor. I wonder what other information intermediaries will now have to revise their business models?
You're assuming that the bulk of the new hires would be CS grads.
Isn't every "high tech hub" an instance of this working? They weren't hubs from the very beginning after all.
True, we have the same weakness in the current system. It is just a lot harder to pull off since physical ballots are widely distributed.
A good point, which hooks into some of the above posts. Is it even possible to have an election that isn't secret ballot? I recall from history that the early elections in England were huge frauds until they instituted secret ballots. There were a lot of abuses such as the local landlord's thugs openly threatening anyone who voted for the wrong candidate. I don't think human nature has changed at all since then, so we would see the same sorts of problems. Maybe we could have a system where voters have to register in person for some sort of ticket or key, and then they could vote anonymously using that key. The public record would just say "key ### voted for John Smith". So any key holder could check on their own vote but no one could track the key back to them.
They are absolutely right, to an extent. Now hold on, hold on. What they of course carefully avoid mentioning is their sweetheart local monopoly deals. I don't think we need more government to solve the problem caused by government in the first place. If they want to shelter under the rubric of the advantages of a free market, let them have a free market and we'll see who innovates and competes. While they are profiting off government provided monopoly they can go pound sand.
The last time we had a bridge up there, the USA was invaded by Siberians! Come on, Americans, get your heads out of your butts and fight back!
In Soviet Russia, your blog posts YOU!
TANSTAAFL
"never uses your content or student data for advertising purposes" isn't exactly reassuring. Let's see. Could be used for research purposes so that someone else can make money off the results. Could be used to recommend mind altering drugs. Could be used to report "violent tendencies" to the government. Could be used to refine profiles for making advertising more effective on kids outside the class setting.
No. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. Yes I understand the Russian military that was already in Crimea was involved there. What I was thinking of was all the incidents, unrest, and violence in other parts of the (eastern) Ukraine. your statement implies these are 'by and large' the Russian military, which as far as I can tell is not true.
No I'm not kidding you, Coward. Is that how you judge what is true, based on what is "harder to believe"? Your feeling of "truthiness" aside, evidence is a better method.
Russia is sending in their own military. They are the ones fighting this counter-revolution - not the people they claim to be helping. This is by and large a Russian military intervention.
I would be interested in a citation. The last I saw, this claim was based on some photos that have been thoroughly debunked.
As I recall, they said 90% of the votes were pro-secession, with something like 80% eligible turnout. So to me, that was saying that all the Russians voted, 10% said no, and the other 20% (non-Russians who would have said no) stayed home. So I thought that lined up around the ethnic divisions within reason if we assume that almost all the ethnic Russians would say "yes". I'm not saying it wasn't faked, just saying that was how I looked at the numbers at first.
Given how many lies and half-truths have been circulated by the press about this, I am not sure I believe this at all.
You are absolutely correct, this drives me nuts. An illustration from the corporate end user perspective: it is almost impossible to get any information from any AV vendor about WHY a certain signature was triggered. Given the prevalence of false positives with the latest heuristic and reputation-based detections, this information can be absolutely vital to making the correct decisions. But the best you can usually get is 'it is a trojan' or some other vague crap. They seem to view their signatures as some sort of secret sauce that must never be revealed.
You may have missed his point. Writing down the passwords means you can use stronger passwords that you don't have to struggle to remember. The threat from brute forcing stolen hashes is much greater than the threat of having your wallet stolen by someone who is going to know what to do with the passwords.
Self-correction, I was referring to the illegal form there. However, other forms of front running involve proprietary (non-public) information as well. Acting on public information isn't front running.
I am sorry, you are wrong on both counts. Attempting to anticipate orders that span exchanges is not illegal. Nor does that qualify as front running. Bear in mind that each exchange is a wholly separate private entity. Front running, by standard as well as legal definition, only refers to activity within a single entity, basically it means an organization trading advantageously against orders submitted by its own customers.