Where I work, I'm expected to be at the office for 9 hours a day, and I get a one hour break. The smokers in my office have to either split up their daily break time into pieces, and use it in parts, generally leaving a shorter time for lunch, or else work longer days.
Actually, they are just called "breaks"... and most jobs I've had allow only a certain amount of total break time in one day. Break-time (other than bathroom breaks) in my experience is always unpaid. The amount of break time allowed per shift is typically a function of the length of time that one is expected to be there, in my experience, can run anywhere from 15 to 90 minutes per day. Non-smokers already enjoy the benefit of being able to take more time to eat their lunch.
I disagree.... while yes, you are right that people want to see the human actors that they know and recognize, I can definitely see no small appeal to virtual computer actors, and a demographic of people that they would appeal to that is more than large enough to service.
While the most common reason for suicide is linked to a depressive state, it is not always the case that depression is linked to any ongoing psychological abnormality that could be diagnosed clinically, or that anyone would have a reason to want to do a brain scan on you in the first place over.
In fact, there are some life experiences that, if you didn't experience any kind of depression, and could always completely detach yourself from any emotional investment, then *THAT* would be an indication of something being wrong with you.
Losing a beloved family member, sudden unwanted changes in living circumstances, being wrongfully accused of a crime... all of these things and more can be legitimate reasons for a depressive state that can turn suicidal.
But such depression is entirely circumstantial, and not indicative of a larger scale psychological dysfunction... and because of its ephemeral nature, would not generally be caught on anything like a brain scan.
While the theory for this might seem wonderful, I have serious doubts it would actually ever save anyone's life.
I think you only have to worry about that when you have synthetic pop stars opening for other synthetic pop stars at an event that is not specifically geared at catering to the demographic that would find the novelty of the singer being virtual to be worth attending the event.
While I agree that Apple's response was entirely appropriate, I sincerely doubt that this leak actually cost them very much money except what they may have spent trying to get the video taken down.
Yo, Apple.. the competition is not going to steal some idea off a YouTube video literally a week before the product is in people's hands.
Irrelevant.
Second there was no willful disclosure of any trade secret because the iPhone X was already announced.
Announced, yes. Released? No.
As for you "but but the contract, the NDA, the rules!" idiots: I 100% guarantee if you were in a plane crash in the woods and needed a first aid kit to as save your friends you would break the law and break into a cabin to steal first aid supplies. And what about the guy in Las Vegas who stole a truck to drive victims of a shooter to the hospital? So do you honestly I think that driver should be charged with theft? Fact is saying something is against "rules" shouldn't come up in any argument. Let's talk about ethics.
What the fuck are you talking about? The girl wouldn't have been doing anything unethical if she hadn't made the video, and the ex-employee wouldn't have been doing anything if he hadn't allowed his daughter to have access to it. It certainly wasn't some kind of ethical obligation that anyone had here to break any rules here, so trying to compare this situation to one of your above to examples clearly indicates a lack of understanding about why the guy was actually fired
The point is that he *DID* allow his family to have access to confidential information (specifically, he permitted them to have access to the actual device which had not yet been released without explicit authorization from Apple), and even if no harm was actually done by this particular incident, it has shown that he cannot be trusted to respect the confidentiality that his employer requires. Apple may had announced that the device was being released, but that is not the same thing as actually having released it already and for people to have physical access to it.
I'm inclined to think that if they were going to play the "national security" card, they would have done so by now... putting it on the record that was really at stake.
Also, this wouldn't be a lawsuit, it would be a accusation of criminal behavior, which you couldn't dismiss on account of any lack of evidence in a criminal case on making false statements unless it was somehow in doubt that they ever made the statements in the first place. There is no such doubt, so there is no basis for dismissal before they get to the presentation of their evidence.
It's possible that the feds would pull out a late "national security" card, but at this point, it seems suspect, because they could have said that months ago without giving anything away when they were first challenged on this, and they may still be required to divulge some of the details to a judge in private who could then evaluate that it was not simply something they were falsely claiming in the hopes that this would all just go away when they were actually guilty as charged.
As I said above though, even if they were found guilty of such actions by the court, there'd likely be no real legal consequences for anybody. It would be trivial to issue a pardon for themselves, but that would still be a declaration of guilt, and the general public would be able to make a more informed decision about the matter.
There's absolutely nothing about the process of natural selection that requires the source of potential death to be not man-made
In general, something being man-made is typically considered to be exclusive of it being naturally caused. You wouldn't go around saying that automobiles naturally exist, would you?
What greenhouse gasses do electric vehicles "emit", exactly? I understand that they have a greenhouse gas footprint, particularly owing to their manufacture, but afaik, the vehicles themselves are actually emissionless.
Lots of things happen all the time that "shouldn't" happen. Lots of things that "should" happen don't. The universe isn't fair, it never has been and never will be. Why should the fact that it happens to exist at all be any different?
Actually, we do already have something similar... a locker in the front lobby that postal workers can access. If a delivery comes via regular post, it gets put in one of the lockers and a key is put in that person's mailbox to access that locker. One retrieves their parcel, and then deposits the key in a special slot in the box so that they can reuse the key for a later delivery. However, this requires access to the building, which national postal workers have, but others do not (and the building has no front desk or office one can buzz to be let in).
I take "unlimited" to simply mean not limited as a consequence of any particular policy. That is to say, that nobody is *actually limiting* it... it may still be limited in the sense that there is a finite bandwidth, but absent any explicit policy which specifies any upper limit, it can still be reasonably taken as unlimited.
I have unlimited nationwide long distance calling on my cell phone plan, for example. While I am theoretically limited in how much I can *actually* use that benefit because of the finite number of hours in a day and the finite amount of days in each billing period, that theoretical limit is not something that actually impacts (nor can it impact) how much I am allowed to use my phone for such purposes without paying extra fees or suffering some additional inconvenience imposed upon me which was caused solely by my own usage patterns.
I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter if the statements are true or not... the point of the criminal allegation would simply be to force the government to either provide evidence to substantiate it (which they don't seem to want to do), shut up about it (and retract the claims), or else admit they deliberately lied. Even if they did the latter, I'm quite aware there probably wouldn't be any actual legal consequences, but the PR implications would persist.
It might be a bit of a money pit in that there's no real avenue for profit directly from it, but assuming that Kaspersky isn't actually guilty of what they have been accused of, if it gets the government to stop bad-mouthing the company, then Kaspersky can at least resume with selling to other people who would then have substantially less of a reason to think that the government knows what it is talking about when it recommends avoiding that company's software.
Of course, all of this is assuming that it is even worth Kaspersky's time to bother with going to that kind of trouble and expense. Maybe it's not, but considering how they are going on and on about it, I'd have expected it to be. If not, they are no less full of bluster than the government itself would be if they *HAD* been making this whole thing up.
would counter that its another example of natural selection, killing off the weak who can't handle a little smoke.
I'd agree with you if the cause of that smoke was itself natural. It is no more an example of natural selection, as you say, "killing off the weak who cannot handle a little smoke", than bullets fired from a rifle are natural selection, killing off the weaklings who can't take a gunshot wound. The exposure to both are caused by the choice of another person, and there is nothing natural about either.
To be perfectly honest, I'd rather they really just quit smoking than actually die... but the odds of dying (eventually) are substantially higher than them quitting soon enough to make a difference in how their behavior affects others.
Unfortunately not... while these imbeciles who didn't have the common sense to not start in the first place might very well be killing themselves off (not quickly enough, for my liking), they are also killing off the rest of us who have to choose between either inhaling the noxious stuff as well or not breathing at all when there's somebody smoking nearby. Unfortunately, one's ongoing need for oxygen may somewhat limits the non-smoker's options in this regard.
Assuming you can get down that far, you have to show that the statements were false statements of fact, not opinions, etc.
Right... and it's at this point that I believe that any prosecution against the US government on this matter would actually probably fail. Either way, however, it gets the government to put up or shut up about it. In the unlikely event that the government is found guilty, they'll probably pardon themselves for it and not have any legal penalty, but then everyone would *know* that they were lying about Kaspersky the whole time. The only way Kaspersky loses here is if they were actually doing something wrong, and that detail actually comes out in the proceedings. In all other scenarios, it's still a net win for them, even if there are absolutely no legal consequences for those who were involved as a result.
I didn't suggest that they are fraud.... I suggest, however, that they are covered under the statute that I quoted, and are definitely against US federal law.
The key word in that statute is "knowingly"... so to not be guilty of violating that statute, all the government needs to do to avoid being guilty of the crime is either a) explain why they believe the claim to be true (and note, this is immaterial to whether or not it actually is true), or b) admit that the claim is only an opinion, and not founded on any facts, and publicly retract the claims that would suggest otherwise.
That said, being a branch of the government, they would likely be immune to any of the legal effects of such prosecution if they were found guilty, but the social effects would not be any less real, because in that case, the government would have basically openly admitted to wrongdoing, and individuals could make their own decisions about whether or not they wanted to use the software that was recommended to be avoided by a government that falsely alleged it was ever actually dangerous.
Of course, the software may very well be dangerous to use. I do not know... but what I do know is that the government hasn't actually shown any reason for their allegation, and if it were, in fact, in the interests of national security that they not disclose what that evidence is, then I expect they would have at least publicly claimed so by now.... especially when they were told to either put up or shut up the last time.
Posting the statute against fraud in a second location does not suddenly turn it into a statute against slander or libel
That statute explcicitly *includes* slander and libel:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or,...
And to cover your other point:
Btw, you googled States Secrets Privilege yet?
If the government were really going to have claimed that, they would have done so months ago as their reason for not disclosing what their actual evidence for the accusation was when they were first told to put up or shut up about this.
As I mentioned elsewhere, what happened to Martha Stewart is just one noteworthy example in relatively recent times.
Also, many agents of the government have various forms of immunity for things they're doing as part of their job.
True... and although that might save them from the legal consequences, it wouldn't change the social ramifications.
They would have to give themselves an official pardon for the act, which would be admitting that they were knowingly spreading false information in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Hubble space expansion seems pretty perpetual. The fact that we havenâ(TM)t figured out any way to tap into it is irrelevant
Where I work, I'm expected to be at the office for 9 hours a day, and I get a one hour break. The smokers in my office have to either split up their daily break time into pieces, and use it in parts, generally leaving a shorter time for lunch, or else work longer days.
Actually, they are just called "breaks"... and most jobs I've had allow only a certain amount of total break time in one day. Break-time (other than bathroom breaks) in my experience is always unpaid. The amount of break time allowed per shift is typically a function of the length of time that one is expected to be there, in my experience, can run anywhere from 15 to 90 minutes per day. Non-smokers already enjoy the benefit of being able to take more time to eat their lunch.
Last time I checked, smoke breaks are unpaid... so are they suggesting only offering non-smokers more unpaid vacation time?
If so, that hardly seems like something newsworthy.
I disagree.... while yes, you are right that people want to see the human actors that they know and recognize, I can definitely see no small appeal to virtual computer actors, and a demographic of people that they would appeal to that is more than large enough to service.
While the most common reason for suicide is linked to a depressive state, it is not always the case that depression is linked to any ongoing psychological abnormality that could be diagnosed clinically, or that anyone would have a reason to want to do a brain scan on you in the first place over.
In fact, there are some life experiences that, if you didn't experience any kind of depression, and could always completely detach yourself from any emotional investment, then *THAT* would be an indication of something being wrong with you. Losing a beloved family member, sudden unwanted changes in living circumstances, being wrongfully accused of a crime... all of these things and more can be legitimate reasons for a depressive state that can turn suicidal.
But such depression is entirely circumstantial, and not indicative of a larger scale psychological dysfunction... and because of its ephemeral nature, would not generally be caught on anything like a brain scan.
While the theory for this might seem wonderful, I have serious doubts it would actually ever save anyone's life.
I think you only have to worry about that when you have synthetic pop stars opening for other synthetic pop stars at an event that is not specifically geared at catering to the demographic that would find the novelty of the singer being virtual to be worth attending the event.
While I agree that Apple's response was entirely appropriate, I sincerely doubt that this leak actually cost them very much money except what they may have spent trying to get the video taken down.
Irrelevant.
Announced, yes. Released? No.
What the fuck are you talking about? The girl wouldn't have been doing anything unethical if she hadn't made the video, and the ex-employee wouldn't have been doing anything if he hadn't allowed his daughter to have access to it. It certainly wasn't some kind of ethical obligation that anyone had here to break any rules here, so trying to compare this situation to one of your above to examples clearly indicates a lack of understanding about why the guy was actually fired
The point is that he *DID* allow his family to have access to confidential information (specifically, he permitted them to have access to the actual device which had not yet been released without explicit authorization from Apple), and even if no harm was actually done by this particular incident, it has shown that he cannot be trusted to respect the confidentiality that his employer requires. Apple may had announced that the device was being released, but that is not the same thing as actually having released it already and for people to have physical access to it.
I'm inclined to think that if they were going to play the "national security" card, they would have done so by now... putting it on the record that was really at stake.
Also, this wouldn't be a lawsuit, it would be a accusation of criminal behavior, which you couldn't dismiss on account of any lack of evidence in a criminal case on making false statements unless it was somehow in doubt that they ever made the statements in the first place. There is no such doubt, so there is no basis for dismissal before they get to the presentation of their evidence.
It's possible that the feds would pull out a late "national security" card, but at this point, it seems suspect, because they could have said that months ago without giving anything away when they were first challenged on this, and they may still be required to divulge some of the details to a judge in private who could then evaluate that it was not simply something they were falsely claiming in the hopes that this would all just go away when they were actually guilty as charged.
As I said above though, even if they were found guilty of such actions by the court, there'd likely be no real legal consequences for anybody. It would be trivial to issue a pardon for themselves, but that would still be a declaration of guilt, and the general public would be able to make a more informed decision about the matter.
In general, something being man-made is typically considered to be exclusive of it being naturally caused. You wouldn't go around saying that automobiles naturally exist, would you?
What greenhouse gasses do electric vehicles "emit", exactly? I understand that they have a greenhouse gas footprint, particularly owing to their manufacture, but afaik, the vehicles themselves are actually emissionless.
Lots of things happen all the time that "shouldn't" happen. Lots of things that "should" happen don't. The universe isn't fair, it never has been and never will be. Why should the fact that it happens to exist at all be any different?
Actually, we do already have something similar... a locker in the front lobby that postal workers can access. If a delivery comes via regular post, it gets put in one of the lockers and a key is put in that person's mailbox to access that locker. One retrieves their parcel, and then deposits the key in a special slot in the box so that they can reuse the key for a later delivery. However, this requires access to the building, which national postal workers have, but others do not (and the building has no front desk or office one can buzz to be let in).
I take "unlimited" to simply mean not limited as a consequence of any particular policy. That is to say, that nobody is *actually limiting* it... it may still be limited in the sense that there is a finite bandwidth, but absent any explicit policy which specifies any upper limit, it can still be reasonably taken as unlimited.
I have unlimited nationwide long distance calling on my cell phone plan, for example. While I am theoretically limited in how much I can *actually* use that benefit because of the finite number of hours in a day and the finite amount of days in each billing period, that theoretical limit is not something that actually impacts (nor can it impact) how much I am allowed to use my phone for such purposes without paying extra fees or suffering some additional inconvenience imposed upon me which was caused solely by my own usage patterns.
What if you live in an apartment?
I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter if the statements are true or not... the point of the criminal allegation would simply be to force the government to either provide evidence to substantiate it (which they don't seem to want to do), shut up about it (and retract the claims), or else admit they deliberately lied. Even if they did the latter, I'm quite aware there probably wouldn't be any actual legal consequences, but the PR implications would persist.
It might be a bit of a money pit in that there's no real avenue for profit directly from it, but assuming that Kaspersky isn't actually guilty of what they have been accused of, if it gets the government to stop bad-mouthing the company, then Kaspersky can at least resume with selling to other people who would then have substantially less of a reason to think that the government knows what it is talking about when it recommends avoiding that company's software.
Of course, all of this is assuming that it is even worth Kaspersky's time to bother with going to that kind of trouble and expense. Maybe it's not, but considering how they are going on and on about it, I'd have expected it to be. If not, they are no less full of bluster than the government itself would be if they *HAD* been making this whole thing up.
I'd agree with you if the cause of that smoke was itself natural. It is no more an example of natural selection, as you say, "killing off the weak who cannot handle a little smoke", than bullets fired from a rifle are natural selection, killing off the weaklings who can't take a gunshot wound. The exposure to both are caused by the choice of another person, and there is nothing natural about either.
To be perfectly honest, I'd rather they really just quit smoking than actually die... but the odds of dying (eventually) are substantially higher than them quitting soon enough to make a difference in how their behavior affects others.
Unfortunately not... while these imbeciles who didn't have the common sense to not start in the first place might very well be killing themselves off (not quickly enough, for my liking), they are also killing off the rest of us who have to choose between either inhaling the noxious stuff as well or not breathing at all when there's somebody smoking nearby. Unfortunately, one's ongoing need for oxygen may somewhat limits the non-smoker's options in this regard.
Uh... adults? How is that supposed to work, exactly? I thought gene editing in mammals could only be done on embryos.
Right... and it's at this point that I believe that any prosecution against the US government on this matter would actually probably fail. Either way, however, it gets the government to put up or shut up about it. In the unlikely event that the government is found guilty, they'll probably pardon themselves for it and not have any legal penalty, but then everyone would *know* that they were lying about Kaspersky the whole time. The only way Kaspersky loses here is if they were actually doing something wrong, and that detail actually comes out in the proceedings. In all other scenarios, it's still a net win for them, even if there are absolutely no legal consequences for those who were involved as a result.
I didn't suggest that they are fraud.... I suggest, however, that they are covered under the statute that I quoted, and are definitely against US federal law.
The key word in that statute is "knowingly"... so to not be guilty of violating that statute, all the government needs to do to avoid being guilty of the crime is either a) explain why they believe the claim to be true (and note, this is immaterial to whether or not it actually is true), or b) admit that the claim is only an opinion, and not founded on any facts, and publicly retract the claims that would suggest otherwise.
That said, being a branch of the government, they would likely be immune to any of the legal effects of such prosecution if they were found guilty, but the social effects would not be any less real, because in that case, the government would have basically openly admitted to wrongdoing, and individuals could make their own decisions about whether or not they wanted to use the software that was recommended to be avoided by a government that falsely alleged it was ever actually dangerous.
Of course, the software may very well be dangerous to use. I do not know... but what I do know is that the government hasn't actually shown any reason for their allegation, and if it were, in fact, in the interests of national security that they not disclose what that evidence is, then I expect they would have at least publicly claimed so by now.... especially when they were told to either put up or shut up the last time.
That statute explcicitly *includes* slander and libel:
And to cover your other point:
If the government were really going to have claimed that, they would have done so months ago as their reason for not disclosing what their actual evidence for the accusation was when they were first told to put up or shut up about this.
18 U.S.C. SS 1001(a)2
True... and although that might save them from the legal consequences, it wouldn't change the social ramifications. They would have to give themselves an official pardon for the act, which would be admitting that they were knowingly spreading false information in the first place.