You want the entity with the strongest military and police force to back your currency specifically to address issues such as money laundering, speculation and hoarding.
What... you want some shmoe down the street to create and back your currency? At least we live in a democracy where we have some semblance of transparency surrounding these issues.
On a serious note: do we really want the tax dollars of our government being spent on maintaining and distributing massive amounts of gold so that ma an' pa can hide it under their bed?
Money laundering is a form of aiding and abetting a criminal act. It is basically a catch-all law for various kinds of fraud that are committed with the express purpose of hiding the source of funds either because they were illegally obtained or because they weren't declared for taxation purposes.
Very often when someone commits money laundering they are falsifying other financial documents in an illegal manner. Also, in many cases there are persons charged with money laundering who had nothing to do with the original commission of the source crime. So, it's not just a "pile on", very often its a specific act of fraud someone commits.
It's kinda unclear to me how this shouldn't be illegal. But then, based on the last sentence of your comment you seem to not believe in government and so there is no such thing as "illegal".
Are you saying that any employee of the telephone company has authorization to listen in to your phone conversations simply because they are the ones who run the cables together?
That's the line of logic you are going down when you are saying he did nothing wrong by snooping traffic to read email.
And generally speaking, if in the course of your job you are privy to critical information about the assets of the company, you most certainly are under a legal obligation to provide that information even after you are terminated.
He should have done his job and worked with his fellow employees. He should have properly documented his work and ensured that proper knowledge transfer had occurred.
Based on the information we had, he wasn't working completely alone. There were other employees. On a regular basis he decided not to share information and to purposefully cut people off from that information.
I highly doubt he had permission to snoop on his superiors' email.
And, regardless, just because you are the admin of a network and it is understood that *it's your job to make router config changes* doesn't mean you are also authorized to make such changes in an effort to lock out others. Just because a bank manager is authorized to take money from the safe doesn't mean he's authorized to take it for his own use.
You are correct, though, that we don't have all the information and he's definitely innocent until proven guilty. But just because he thought he was surrounded by idiots doesn't mean he was at all justified in his behavior. If he felt so strongly he should have raised public awareness of the fact that the network and its management was so insecure.
I realize this story hits close to home and we can all relate (I know I do) to his situation. But you've got to know when to call it quits in a situation like this. Clearly, he crossed the line. Big time.
We still don't know all the details. Perhaps all the accusations are trumped. But, if when his performance became a question he started hiding backups, monitoring his managers' email exchanges and is now not cooperating, he's definitely a criminal.
How can you possibly argue otherwise? Sure, he's the network admin, but does that authorize him to read people's email without authorization?
Sure, he's the admin, but does that give him the right to create a situation that basically takes the city's IT infrastructure hostage?
I'm not questioning that his superiors should share the larger part of the blame here. But I can't see how he's not at all at fault.
You can try and defend him and glorify him all you want... but as a professional system administrator he should have known that his singular access and pathological behavior was more dangerous than helpful.
What if, instead of being fired he was the victim of an accident or crime? What if he had a health problem? What if a serious, life threatening issue came up (say, you know, an earthquake) that caused the system to be unstable and, at the same time, prevented him from getting there to fix things?
He's still a criminal. But, he's not alone in his behaviour. Whoever his managers are sound to be guilty of criminal negligence. This never should have been possible in a city government the size of San Francisco. Especially when it comes to critical infrastructure. If I were a citizen of San Fran I'd be asking why heads aren't rolling at the highest levels. Why was this allowed to happen? In San Francisco, where you think they'd have no problem finding competent replacements.
The area where this is being built is one of the most important migratory bird routes on the East Coast... So, this is actually a pretty serious thing to have going up.
Seriously people... why not just go Nuclear? DE could build two plants and probably have enough electricity left over to become a net energy exporter to the surrounding states.
And anyone they killed is going to have a hard time getting back into society, as well.
I guess Nina is going to have a hard time "reaquanting herself with the social order" given that she's now in permanent "non-voluntary solitary confinement".
As for the starvation of a defenseless child... I don't even know how you can trivialize something like that.
That's the point isn't it? It can transmit that it is stuck and then you know there is a traffic problem in that location. Additional information could be used to identify the cause and extent of the problem as well.
A better way to handle that is to turn the loop body into a function or group of functions. makes the code easier to read and a good compiler will inline the function so their's no performance loss.
What about his employer's rights? Doesn't CNN have a right to protect their "image"?
News organizations are CONSTANTLY being attacked because they have a "perceived liberal bias". CNN probably spends a ton of money to fight this image because it takes seriously its need to be "perceived as an independent news organization." This perception affects every part of its business, from gaining interviews, advertisers and viewers.
This guy goes and posts rather liberal, opinionated diatribes on a regular basis.
How many stories has CNN run about people losing jobs, internships, etc. because of what they post to their blogs? This guy is either a complete idiot who should be fired because of his total lack of awareness on these issues indicates he's completely out of touch, or he was flagrantly violating his terms of employment (the employee handbook).
The fact that he coyly says he had "read the handbook" and had even seen the passage in question but "didn't take it seriously" shows that he was in the latter camp: flagrantly violating his terms of employment.
As has been said elsewhere, his freedom of speech has in no way been violated. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this conversation because he wouldn't have been able to write what he did? His blog wasn't taken off line.
He lost his job. If he's as good a news person as he claims to be, he'll have a new one in no time.
Something tells me the way he handled this (flaming CNN on the way out) won't help him in that department.
I missed the story asking him questions. I actually think the list of questions answered was pretty lame given that the summary says there was a large response.
I would love to hear Ron talk about what sorts of compromises he would be willing to make in order to get legislation done. Too many "libertarians" act like the presidency is a kingship (yes yes... even though their supposed political "morals" would indicate otherwise). That's why I can't vote for libertarians any more.
My guess is that the D Block is the real game here.... First off... it's tied to government subsidies in order to maintain the public safety portion. This is something that the big telecoms LOVE.
Second, the rules are that the FCC has an OPTION to reauction that block if it fails to meet its reserve. The PSST can also negotiate with the high bidder of portions of its own pieces of the spectrum.
So... why not get Google to run after the C block and then turn around and pull some back room deals to pull out the D block at bargain basement prices?
If the reserves aren't met then there's too much room for back room dealing to get this thing wrapped up.
My guess is that, at the end of the day... the D block is where the real action will play out.
Silly question... but... what is the difference between sitting on the couch reading a book and sitting on the couch and playing a video game?
My question is in regards to your asking your kids to do something physically active in exchange for time spent on the couch playing video games. Do you do the same thing for time spent on the couch reading?
Seems to me that if your goal is to encourage a mixture of physically active and physically passive activities, playing a video game and reading a book are about the same and so should be accompanied by a similar tradeoff (perhaps trading 1-to-1 for video games and 2-to-1 for books so as to encourage books over video games by requiring less time outside as a trade-off).
Also... Is it potentially a downside in that your children are learning that physical things are negative because they have to do that to get what is restricted (playing games, reading books, watching tv, etc.)?
ps... I'm so glad I'm not a parent and don't have to worry about these things!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely.
You want the entity with the strongest military and police force to back your currency specifically to address issues such as money laundering, speculation and hoarding.
What... you want some shmoe down the street to create and back your currency? At least we live in a democracy where we have some semblance of transparency surrounding these issues.
Funny...
On a serious note: do we really want the tax dollars of our government being spent on maintaining and distributing massive amounts of gold so that ma an' pa can hide it under their bed?
From the capitalspectator link:
So, in other words, inflation is only possible if the Fed allows it?
That's what I believe.
How can you possibly waste your time listening to these people?
Money laundering is a form of aiding and abetting a criminal act. It is basically a catch-all law for various kinds of fraud that are committed with the express purpose of hiding the source of funds either because they were illegally obtained or because they weren't declared for taxation purposes.
Very often when someone commits money laundering they are falsifying other financial documents in an illegal manner. Also, in many cases there are persons charged with money laundering who had nothing to do with the original commission of the source crime. So, it's not just a "pile on", very often its a specific act of fraud someone commits.
It's kinda unclear to me how this shouldn't be illegal. But then, based on the last sentence of your comment you seem to not believe in government and so there is no such thing as "illegal".
Check your logic, man.
Are you saying that any employee of the telephone company has authorization to listen in to your phone conversations simply because they are the ones who run the cables together?
That's the line of logic you are going down when you are saying he did nothing wrong by snooping traffic to read email.
And generally speaking, if in the course of your job you are privy to critical information about the assets of the company, you most certainly are under a legal obligation to provide that information even after you are terminated.
No. He shouldn't have hired anybody.
He should have done his job and worked with his fellow employees. He should have properly documented his work and ensured that proper knowledge transfer had occurred.
Based on the information we had, he wasn't working completely alone. There were other employees. On a regular basis he decided not to share information and to purposefully cut people off from that information.
I highly doubt he had permission to snoop on his superiors' email.
And, regardless, just because you are the admin of a network and it is understood that *it's your job to make router config changes* doesn't mean you are also authorized to make such changes in an effort to lock out others. Just because a bank manager is authorized to take money from the safe doesn't mean he's authorized to take it for his own use.
You are correct, though, that we don't have all the information and he's definitely innocent until proven guilty. But just because he thought he was surrounded by idiots doesn't mean he was at all justified in his behavior. If he felt so strongly he should have raised public awareness of the fact that the network and its management was so insecure.
I realize this story hits close to home and we can all relate (I know I do) to his situation. But you've got to know when to call it quits in a situation like this. Clearly, he crossed the line. Big time.
We still don't know all the details. Perhaps all the accusations are trumped. But, if when his performance became a question he started hiding backups, monitoring his managers' email exchanges and is now not cooperating, he's definitely a criminal.
How can you possibly argue otherwise? Sure, he's the network admin, but does that authorize him to read people's email without authorization?
Sure, he's the admin, but does that give him the right to create a situation that basically takes the city's IT infrastructure hostage?
I'm not questioning that his superiors should share the larger part of the blame here. But I can't see how he's not at all at fault.
You can try and defend him and glorify him all you want... but as a professional system administrator he should have known that his singular access and pathological behavior was more dangerous than helpful.
What if, instead of being fired he was the victim of an accident or crime? What if he had a health problem? What if a serious, life threatening issue came up (say, you know, an earthquake) that caused the system to be unstable and, at the same time, prevented him from getting there to fix things?
He's still a criminal. But, he's not alone in his behaviour. Whoever his managers are sound to be guilty of criminal negligence. This never should have been possible in a city government the size of San Francisco. Especially when it comes to critical infrastructure. If I were a citizen of San Fran I'd be asking why heads aren't rolling at the highest levels. Why was this allowed to happen? In San Francisco, where you think they'd have no problem finding competent replacements.
Absolutely mind boggling.
And the rest of slashdot would be all over MS admins who blindly update their systems from AutoUpdate.
I find it really hard to believe you don't have at the very least a strawman test system. The fact that you don't says volumes.
Unlike McCain... who was not...
The area where this is being built is one of the most important migratory bird routes on the East Coast... So, this is actually a pretty serious thing to have going up.
Seriously people... why not just go Nuclear? DE could build two plants and probably have enough electricity left over to become a net energy exporter to the surrounding states.
Get off my lawn.
And anyone they killed is going to have a hard time getting back into society, as well.
I guess Nina is going to have a hard time "reaquanting herself with the social order" given that she's now in permanent "non-voluntary solitary confinement".
As for the starvation of a defenseless child... I don't even know how you can trivialize something like that.
Huh.
Punishment here seems to fit the crime.
That's the point isn't it? It can transmit that it is stuck and then you know there is a traffic problem in that location. Additional information could be used to identify the cause and extent of the problem as well.
A better way to handle that is to turn the loop body into a function or group of functions. makes the code easier to read and a good compiler will inline the function so their's no performance loss.
What about his employer's rights? Doesn't CNN have a right to protect their "image"?
News organizations are CONSTANTLY being attacked because they have a "perceived liberal bias". CNN probably spends a ton of money to fight this image because it takes seriously its need to be "perceived as an independent news organization." This perception affects every part of its business, from gaining interviews, advertisers and viewers.
This guy goes and posts rather liberal, opinionated diatribes on a regular basis.
How many stories has CNN run about people losing jobs, internships, etc. because of what they post to their blogs? This guy is either a complete idiot who should be fired because of his total lack of awareness on these issues indicates he's completely out of touch, or he was flagrantly violating his terms of employment (the employee handbook).
The fact that he coyly says he had "read the handbook" and had even seen the passage in question but "didn't take it seriously" shows that he was in the latter camp: flagrantly violating his terms of employment.
As has been said elsewhere, his freedom of speech has in no way been violated. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this conversation because he wouldn't have been able to write what he did? His blog wasn't taken off line.
He lost his job. If he's as good a news person as he claims to be, he'll have a new one in no time.
Something tells me the way he handled this (flaming CNN on the way out) won't help him in that department.
Love the Elvis ref.
If you are so passionate about this why don't you vote? That sounds stupid...
If you love the Constitution so much I would think you'd be all over it's greatest gift: the right to vote.
Well said...
I missed the story asking him questions. I actually think the list of questions answered was pretty lame given that the summary says there was a large response.
I would love to hear Ron talk about what sorts of compromises he would be willing to make in order to get legislation done. Too many "libertarians" act like the presidency is a kingship (yes yes... even though their supposed political "morals" would indicate otherwise). That's why I can't vote for libertarians any more.
I refuse to use any site that requires RealPlayer... Hence I don't use Amazon's song sampling...
I hate RealPlayer.
It would actually be a great thing for MS to take over Yahoo if only to help prevent the further spread of the virus that is RealPlayer.
My guess is that the D Block is the real game here.... First off... it's tied to government subsidies in order to maintain the public safety portion. This is something that the big telecoms LOVE.
Second, the rules are that the FCC has an OPTION to reauction that block if it fails to meet its reserve. The PSST can also negotiate with the high bidder of portions of its own pieces of the spectrum.
So... why not get Google to run after the C block and then turn around and pull some back room deals to pull out the D block at bargain basement prices?
If the reserves aren't met then there's too much room for back room dealing to get this thing wrapped up.
My guess is that, at the end of the day... the D block is where the real action will play out.
Silly question... but... what is the difference between sitting on the couch reading a book and sitting on the couch and playing a video game?
:)
My question is in regards to your asking your kids to do something physically active in exchange for time spent on the couch playing video games. Do you do the same thing for time spent on the couch reading?
Seems to me that if your goal is to encourage a mixture of physically active and physically passive activities, playing a video game and reading a book are about the same and so should be accompanied by a similar tradeoff (perhaps trading 1-to-1 for video games and 2-to-1 for books so as to encourage books over video games by requiring less time outside as a trade-off).
Also... Is it potentially a downside in that your children are learning that physical things are negative because they have to do that to get what is restricted (playing games, reading books, watching tv, etc.)?
ps... I'm so glad I'm not a parent and don't have to worry about these things!
Oh...that was easy...
Damn!
:)
As soon as I hit post I realized my stupid mistake.. I was hoping someone would post the fix...