Dwindling in importance? Are you certain? EU is considered quite readily as one of the most major powers lately, culturally it retains its identity fine (plus look past popculture; and also from where most of that popculture originated...)
Exactly, the EU as a whole is a major power collectively, where 100 years ago several of the individual countries were major powers. I think that's a sign of decline.
Sure, the Church will never be as powerful in Europe as it used to be, but Europe has been demographically, politically and culturally dwindling in importance for decades. The Church could lose Europe and still become more influential on a global level (not that I'm saying that would be good or bad, I'm just a neutral observer).
The Church could completely reinvigorate itself and make sure there are plenty of priests by doing two things: (1) allow women to be priests; and (2) allow priests to marry. Until they do either one or both of those things they'll continue to weaken.
As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete.
I disagree. If company X and company Y both manufacture product Z, which was developed by company x, then all things being equal company Y will always be able to undercut company X's prices because they don't have to spend the money on R&D.
PSO was great, like a MMORPG version of Gauntlet with beautiful graphics and art design. It was also unplayable for me because cheating was so rampant. Beyond rampant. Like unavoidable.
Most Mac owners I know are poor uni students, or were poor uni students. Most of them simply went without things that other people take for granted - cars, nice apartments, holidays, etc, and often made a small income from their machine - dj's, print designers, sound designers, etc.
I'm sure a lot of them just pretend to be poor uni students.
I'm an old school Mac user. I switched to Windows when it became clear (after trying the first 4 versions of OS X) that Apple no longer gave half-a-shit about usability.
Huh, interesting, OS X is the only thing that I think Apple has done extraordinarily right.
Give me a single example of a statement you could say at the time of arrest that you think you should then be able to later use to exonerate you.
The only thing I see about this being "self-serving" is that it takes away the advantage the state enjoys in prosecution, where the testimony of their agents is considered to be truthful only when it paints the defendant negatively.
The hearsay rule applies to everyone, defense and prosecution.
XKCD can be funny a lot of times, but I also find it frequently unbearably smug. Not old school nerd, more like the newer trendy hipster nerd thing that cropped up in the past few years.
So why then, do you bring up every single detail of the case as a means to exclude the other ways the law could be interpreted to apply to?
You're missing the point; Childs wasn't dragged in just because he refused to give a password, he was convicted because of a series of arrogant and illegal decisions he made over a period of time. To get arrested for this kind of thing you have to do a lot of sequential, stupid things.
aren't the people who designed and approved such a crazy system at fault as well?
Childs designed the system. He designed it to the people who actually paid for it didn't have ownership of it.
But sicking the law after him was just a power play by the city, and had nothing to do with protecting the public, property, or anything but some elected officials reputations.
Oh come on, the undisputed facts are pretty clear. They didn't call the law right away, they called it after they couldn't figure what else to do.
The only Superior he was supposed to give the password to is the Mayor. He was only supposed to do that in an environment deemed secure enough for no one else to get the password
So, in reality, when the rules say not to give the password to your boss, you don't. And when they say not to give the password out over unsecure communications, you don't. But you also don't make a pest of yourself; you take the initiative to find a way to get the password to the right person in a secure manner.
The copy of the rules I've seen was aimed at the average, everyday users, not IT staff, and simply meant that if you're in, say, accounting, you don't give your personal password to your boss. The IT department is different, and Childs wasn't withholding his personal password, but rather passwords to city systems.
Logic brought you to the conclusion that Mr. Childs was guilty based on the laws and definitions provided to you. However, you didn't like the verdict. Was jury nullification thought of?
He said he thought the law was a valid one, that Childs would not have broken the law if the city had competent IT supervisors, but at the end he thought it was the right decision. Jury nullification is not intended to let someone go free because you feel bad for them. Based on what this guy said an analogy would be if you were a juror during a murder trial, and you think the guy did it. He's a scared 18 year old kid who got caught up in bad circumstances, and kept making mistakes but you think deep down he didn't want to kill the guy. Would you let him go based on that sympathy?
'There are suddenly thousands of IT workers all over the country that are now guilty of this crime in a vast number of ways.
Setting up and configuring system where they have sole access, locking out the actual owner of the system, arbitrarily deciding that their direct supervisors aren't "authorized users" (based not on any actual rules or policies but their own nebulous "best practices" decision and by the way anyone who thinks a network engineer should have the authority to lock whoever he wants out of the system, based entirely on his own discretion, is incompetent), and then refusing to provide system access when he was assigned other responsibilities not dealing with locked system, then repeatedly refusing to provide the information even after being imprisoned? Really? Thousands of IT workers guilty of that?
If it was so fucking hard for you to figure it out in five months what chance did Mr. Childs have in a stressful environment under coercion?
Oh please; the jurors were coming into the case without knowing anything about it, Childs was intimately knowledgeable about the system AND the bureaucratic apparatus running it. If the COO isn't an "authorized user" then who do you think is?
Accidentally hit post; should have read: Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the legal systems' value or integrity from one case, then that is poor science. Plus, with all due respect, I don't think you understand all of the issues involved, it wasn't just about ownership of copyrights.
Are you kidding? This is monumental in showing clearly how stupid courts/court cases can be. This case went on for years without any shred of evidence ever!
There was evidence; you might not have found it convincing, but it existed.
Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the value everyone knows about the narcissism of many math/physics majors, but if you're extrapolating legal systems
Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.
That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.
Unbelievable? I find it suprising that you don't see the incredible untrustworthiness of such testimony. It's self-serving. If you've been arrested, why the hell should the court give ANY weight to something you said to save yourself at the time? Without any opportunity for the judge and/or jury to analyze how credible you are when you're saying it? If you want to rely on your own statements then you can get up on the witness stand and say it yourself, and be subject to cross-examination.
I mean, I have certain issues with how the rules against hearsay are implemented in our legal system, but you are completely and utterly wrong on this point.
ut of interest, do you feel someone whose left their job should have to hand over the passwords if requested?
Yes.
suspect though this was possibly legally dubious, but frankly I also didn't see why I should have to take phone calls from a boss I hated in a job I'd long left, for information I made sure I handed over once already before I quit.
Doesn't sound legally dubious to me; though in that situation as a practical matter I would put the offer to work pursuant to a consulting fee in writing, and in that writing also mention that you gave them the passwords a long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Dwindling in importance? Are you certain? EU is considered quite readily as one of the most major powers lately, culturally it retains its identity fine (plus look past popculture; and also from where most of that popculture originated...)
Exactly, the EU as a whole is a major power collectively, where 100 years ago several of the individual countries were major powers. I think that's a sign of decline.
Sure, the Church will never be as powerful in Europe as it used to be, but Europe has been demographically, politically and culturally dwindling in importance for decades. The Church could lose Europe and still become more influential on a global level (not that I'm saying that would be good or bad, I'm just a neutral observer).
The Church could completely reinvigorate itself and make sure there are plenty of priests by doing two things: (1) allow women to be priests; and (2) allow priests to marry. Until they do either one or both of those things they'll continue to weaken.
As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete.
I disagree. If company X and company Y both manufacture product Z, which was developed by company x, then all things being equal company Y will always be able to undercut company X's prices because they don't have to spend the money on R&D.
PSO was great, like a MMORPG version of Gauntlet with beautiful graphics and art design. It was also unplayable for me because cheating was so rampant. Beyond rampant. Like unavoidable.
Most Mac owners I know are poor uni students, or were poor uni students. Most of them simply went without things that other people take for granted - cars, nice apartments, holidays, etc, and often made a small income from their machine - dj's, print designers, sound designers, etc.
I'm sure a lot of them just pretend to be poor uni students.
I'm an old school Mac user. I switched to Windows when it became clear (after trying the first 4 versions of OS X) that Apple no longer gave half-a-shit about usability.
Huh, interesting, OS X is the only thing that I think Apple has done extraordinarily right.
See, that's the shit you get when nerds start getting laid.
That's what I meant exactly! These new, sex-having nerds are poseurs, they didn't go through what we did.
What's self serving about it?
Give me a single example of a statement you could say at the time of arrest that you think you should then be able to later use to exonerate you.
The only thing I see about this being "self-serving" is that it takes away the advantage the state enjoys in prosecution, where the testimony of their agents is considered to be truthful only when it paints the defendant negatively.
The hearsay rule applies to everyone, defense and prosecution.
Go with pharmacy or nursing. I think in today's climate it's better to have multiple specialties rather than be really good at one thing.
I find about 70% of the xkcd I run into funny.
XKCD can be funny a lot of times, but I also find it frequently unbearably smug. Not old school nerd, more like the newer trendy hipster nerd thing that cropped up in the past few years.
The rules that apply to us DO NOT apply to rich people.
How do you explain Martha Stewart? R. Allen Stanford? Jeffrey Epstein?
The way I read it, he was following the policy (law) to the letter.
He was required to store system passwords in a central repository. He violated the policy by failing to do this.
So why then, do you bring up every single detail of the case as a means to exclude the other ways the law could be interpreted to apply to?
You're missing the point; Childs wasn't dragged in just because he refused to give a password, he was convicted because of a series of arrogant and illegal decisions he made over a period of time. To get arrested for this kind of thing you have to do a lot of sequential, stupid things.
aren't the people who designed and approved such a crazy system at fault as well?
Childs designed the system. He designed it to the people who actually paid for it didn't have ownership of it.
But sicking the law after him was just a power play by the city, and had nothing to do with protecting the public, property, or anything but some elected officials reputations.
Oh come on, the undisputed facts are pretty clear. They didn't call the law right away, they called it after they couldn't figure what else to do.
The only Superior he was supposed to give the password to is the Mayor. He was only supposed to do that in an environment deemed secure enough for no one else to get the password
Can you provide a cite to this rule?
So, in reality, when the rules say not to give the password to your boss, you don't. And when they say not to give the password out over unsecure communications, you don't. But you also don't make a pest of yourself; you take the initiative to find a way to get the password to the right person in a secure manner.
The copy of the rules I've seen was aimed at the average, everyday users, not IT staff, and simply meant that if you're in, say, accounting, you don't give your personal password to your boss. The IT department is different, and Childs wasn't withholding his personal password, but rather passwords to city systems.
Logic brought you to the conclusion that Mr. Childs was guilty based on the laws and definitions provided to you. However, you didn't like the verdict. Was jury nullification thought of?
He said he thought the law was a valid one, that Childs would not have broken the law if the city had competent IT supervisors, but at the end he thought it was the right decision. Jury nullification is not intended to let someone go free because you feel bad for them. Based on what this guy said an analogy would be if you were a juror during a murder trial, and you think the guy did it. He's a scared 18 year old kid who got caught up in bad circumstances, and kept making mistakes but you think deep down he didn't want to kill the guy. Would you let him go based on that sympathy?
'There are suddenly thousands of IT workers all over the country that are now guilty of this crime in a vast number of ways.
Setting up and configuring system where they have sole access, locking out the actual owner of the system, arbitrarily deciding that their direct supervisors aren't "authorized users" (based not on any actual rules or policies but their own nebulous "best practices" decision and by the way anyone who thinks a network engineer should have the authority to lock whoever he wants out of the system, based entirely on his own discretion, is incompetent), and then refusing to provide system access when he was assigned other responsibilities not dealing with locked system, then repeatedly refusing to provide the information even after being imprisoned? Really? Thousands of IT workers guilty of that?
If it was so fucking hard for you to figure it out in five months what chance did Mr. Childs have in a stressful environment under coercion?
Oh please; the jurors were coming into the case without knowing anything about it, Childs was intimately knowledgeable about the system AND the bureaucratic apparatus running it. If the COO isn't an "authorized user" then who do you think is?
They aren't MY rules. They are YOUR rules.
Then I can change them. Give me the password.
Accidentally hit post; should have read: Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the legal systems' value or integrity from one case, then that is poor science. Plus, with all due respect, I don't think you understand all of the issues involved, it wasn't just about ownership of copyrights.
Are you kidding? This is monumental in showing clearly how stupid courts/court cases can be. This case went on for years without any shred of evidence ever!
There was evidence; you might not have found it convincing, but it existed.
Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the value everyone knows about the narcissism of many math/physics majors, but if you're extrapolating legal systems Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.
That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.
Unbelievable? I find it suprising that you don't see the incredible untrustworthiness of such testimony. It's self-serving. If you've been arrested, why the hell should the court give ANY weight to something you said to save yourself at the time? Without any opportunity for the judge and/or jury to analyze how credible you are when you're saying it? If you want to rely on your own statements then you can get up on the witness stand and say it yourself, and be subject to cross-examination.
I mean, I have certain issues with how the rules against hearsay are implemented in our legal system, but you are completely and utterly wrong on this point.
ut of interest, do you feel someone whose left their job should have to hand over the passwords if requested?
Yes.
suspect though this was possibly legally dubious, but frankly I also didn't see why I should have to take phone calls from a boss I hated in a job I'd long left, for information I made sure I handed over once already before I quit.
Doesn't sound legally dubious to me; though in that situation as a practical matter I would put the offer to work pursuant to a consulting fee in writing, and in that writing also mention that you gave them the passwords a long time ago.
That is no trivial matter by itself.
To future HISTORIANS? Yes it is.
It's for the benefit of future historians
Good grief, let's not overstate the importance of this case.