While that is the traditional use of the polygraph, IT people recruited for sensitive jobs are also questioned about any dirty tricks they may have pulled for fun or profit. Downloading pr0n on the corporate backbone while waiting for an upgrade to complete is enough to do it. Divorced IT people are effectively unclearable because almost all of them have guessed or otherwise obtained their ex's passwords for email, facebook, etc., and used these for nefarious purposes, minor or otherwise.
So if you've ever held down two buttons at once on a vending machine to see what happens, you need not apply.
Um, so what happens? I am feeling a bit peckish...
The same thing that happens if you try to ssh to whitehouse.gov. Which is to say, nothing, if the system under test was properly designed and constructed.
When you consider that only a lily-white goody twoshoes can pass the lifestyle polygraph it's no wonder they can't find enough people. They figure if you've ever tried to access any system without the Proper Authority, ever, you're a bad risk. So if you've ever held down two buttons at once on a vending machine to see what happens, you need not apply.
That makes about as much sense as refusing to recruit people into the army because they were in a fight, once.
There is no shortage of people with black hat skills. The problem is that the government does not want all but a handful of those few who are willing to work a job where a routine fuckup can be prosecuted as a felony.
Like any other vegetable oil, the oil derived from Copiaba has to be processed using Transesterification to be useful as a fuel. Though the process is not difficult or costly, there's more to it than just dumping the raw oil in your fuel tank.
Untold millions of dollars have been spent in search of a cost effective process to produce ethanol from cellulose for use as a fuel, leading me to wonder exactly what the catch is.
Of course, converting much of the world's cropland to pulpwood production isn't exactly an environmental panacea.
It is difficult to imagine how the text-only English translation of the Kama Sutra could be considered porn by anyone who has not spent the last 20 years in a Skinner box. Today, it is probably best understood as an interesting piece of history, since its contents are neither especially informative or titillating.
Of course, if some of the reviewers at Apple have spent the last 20 years in a Skinner box, that would explain a number of the bogus rejections.
The GPL is a license, not a contract. Failure to comply with the GPL cannot result in having to give out source code that you wrote. On the other hand, it may result in a suit for infringement. In contrast, most commercial products are covered by contractual agreements that don't have that safety valve.
Licenses for closed-source commercial products are no better, just different. There are all kinds of restrictions on what and how you can distribute from the Microsoft Visual Studio tools. There are termination clauses in the contract. And despite all the M$ bashing, that contract is relatively liberal and lightly enforced compared to most commercial software tools, particularly those for phones and embedded devices.
I used to work for a Fortune 100 company that allowed us to use GPL code with less red tape than certain commercial products. The difference? The commercial products had an enforceable indemnification provision that could have cost millions of dollars had things gone badly.
And how can she can prove it's her ex in a court of law? Even with Yahoo's cooperation it may not be possible, especially if the ex has more than the least bit of understanding about internet anonymity.
Ultimately, there is no substitute for having an actual human being review the complaints and make a judgment call on whether they are actionable.
The federally-imposed system for uniform handling of credit card and charge card complaints might be an ideal model to use. It requires the customer to choose one of about a dozen specific complaints, supply supporting information and evidence depending on the nature of the complaint, and submit a signed statement. If the form is filled out properly and the story is plausible, the bank issues a chargeback and it is then up to the merchant to fight it if they wish. While the system has flaws affecting both sides, it works reasonably well and costs are minimal.
The structure of the safe-harbor provisions in the DMCA is similar but simplified.
Pushing individual cases out to the courts doesn't work because the anonymity of the person posting the libelous content is not known and often can't be determined with certainty.
Yahoo, like eBay, is trying to claim that customer service is too expensive to fit their business model. So abuses flourish because of their arrogance. Some sort of judicial or legislative backlash is inevitable if this continues. Even Wikipedia will take down clearly libelous material if you ask.
I expect that Bloomsbury will indeed make a small profit.
There are many books that are sold profitably even though their contents is available in its entirety online and is redistributable. Project Gutenberg has the complete works of Shakespeare online, a text in the public domain that anyone can print. Yet thousands of print copies of these works are sold through bookstores every month. The same can be said of other classic works now in the public domain, as well as some editions of the Bible, and most classical music scores.
I believe this situation is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Unlike audio and video recordings, which by their nature require some type of playback device, books are self-contained and offer certain advantages over even the most advanced and unrestricted reading device.
When you stop and consider that the typical author's royalty is less than 10% of the cover price, you realize how inefficient the distribution model is. If that doesn't do it for you, take a look at the price of classics that have long since been in the public domain, as they're not cheap either. What exactly is the value add of the publishers, distributors, and retailers? For today, it's the inherent complexity in forecasting demand and then printing, warehousing, distributing, and selling books.
People still buy books and newspapers because the portability and physical experience is better than a notebook or even a Kindle. That's the opposite of the situation with CDs and DVDs, where the physical media just adds to the nuisance.
While the book publishing industry has nothing approaching the expense structure the record labels had during the glory days, I'd still be looking for a new career if I were a junior editor or sales assistant at Doubleday.
The trouble is that many people participate in social networking sites where the use of real names is expected. Opting out of social networking entirely is like opting out of the banking system -- possible, but not worth it for most people.
It's usually the market that keeps employers from following through on ridiculous "agreements" like this.
I believe they have increased boldness because the high unemployment makes them less concerned about how they will replace people they fire for one or another petty infraction of the rules.
Do we really think that this is a) moral and b) effective? As attractive as it is to force unwanted costs on the law firm, responding to an unfair verdict with fraud relinquishes the moral high ground. Besides, they are likely to close whatever payment processing account becomes inundated with these payments.
In the U.S., sending people money then reversing it without justifiable cause can be prosecuted as wire fraud, and there are prison terms for first offenses. I doubt if other countries' laws are much different. Anyone want to be a test case?
I purchased a Lenovo X301 with a 120 GB flash drive last September and have been nothing but pleased with the performance of the drive. I boot Vista and also run openSUSE in a vm. The drive speed is high and consistent. The drive in the X301 is supposed to have better controllers than some, and it certainly does better than a USB stick.
Any theoretical problems with write speed don't appear to me to affect typical real world use.
TFA contains some of the most gratuitous and blatant lies I've seen in print since the 2008 U.S. elections ended.
So, Microsoft goes to great pains to refuse to patch software that it thinks might be pirated. Then, someone finds and exploits a bug in Microsoft's code. Malware problems affect everyone because the distribution of the patch is restricted. As a result, customers should be more careful to be sure that their software is genuine, and Microsoft is going to help them do this so that their systems can be properly patched for everyone's protection.
The mind reels.
I could almost understand Microsoft's point if they didn't consider installation of an OEM version of Windows on another machine after the original one has failed to be "piracy."
Great if you don't want to go more than a few feet. The problems with walls, floors, and roofs, bad enough for WiFi at 2.4Ghz, are far more serious in the higher bands.
Practical in-home, wireless HDTV video distribution will remain elusive for years. It's not just a matter of bandwidth. The performance of the network has to be consistent regardless of whether someone opens a door or stands in the hallway or you drop frames. And it has to be able to actually achieve HDTV rates consistently in most homes or buyers will get frustrated from bringing home stuff that doesn't work for them.
Welcome to the courts. It's the same way with a DUI prosecution or an eviction proceeding or Walmart throwing the book at some store clerk for theft by conversion of a 99-cent tube of Chap Stick. In the RIAA cases as in every other there are ample opportunities for the defendant to do and say stupid things that create trouble for them later. That's why people need attorneys. Yes, it's expensive. Tough. And so it has always been, read through Moll Flanders (public domain edition available for free at Project Gutenberg) to get the idea.
With the RIAA cases, the other side of the coin is that, as long as the cases are handled fairly, they are too expensive for the plaintiffs to pursue. Last time I checked, the pockets of the corporate sponsors behind the RIAA not exactly of limitless depth. Absent the ability to bully people into $5000 out-of-court settlements with an hours' work by a nickel-ante paralegal and a penny-ante "investigator," a fair case with the court costs and attorney's fees will far exceed any civil penalties that the RIAA is likely, on the average, to collect. And absent the threat of an unwinnable case with six-figure damages, the PR battle moves from Pyrrhic to simply pointless.
The best news here is that this shows that the court system and the judges understand what computers are and how they are used and are at least making an effort to deal with the case in a balanced way. Sure, computer forensic evidence has become routine in the last few years but there have still been plenty of RIAA cases where the handling of the defendant's property is remarkably cavalier.
The RIAA, despite their myriad flaws, are entitled to their day in court. If procedures are balanced and remedies are fair, then I believe that the RIAA's corporate sponsors will quickly decide that the game isn't worth the candle.
The copyright statutes and the discovery procedures are the law of the land whether we like them or not. The injustice and unfairness early in the RIAA campaign came from the lack of due process, the flimsy evidence and weak cases, and the threats of draconian penalties. It's getting better, and every positive step brings us that much closer to closing this dark era in the history of the legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
While that is the traditional use of the polygraph, IT people recruited for sensitive jobs are also questioned about any dirty tricks they may have pulled for fun or profit. Downloading pr0n on the corporate backbone while waiting for an upgrade to complete is enough to do it. Divorced IT people are effectively unclearable because almost all of them have guessed or otherwise obtained their ex's passwords for email, facebook, etc., and used these for nefarious purposes, minor or otherwise.
Um, so what happens? I am feeling a bit peckish...
The same thing that happens if you try to ssh to whitehouse.gov. Which is to say, nothing, if the system under test was properly designed and constructed.
When you consider that only a lily-white goody twoshoes can pass the lifestyle polygraph it's no wonder they can't find enough people. They figure if you've ever tried to access any system without the Proper Authority, ever, you're a bad risk. So if you've ever held down two buttons at once on a vending machine to see what happens, you need not apply.
That makes about as much sense as refusing to recruit people into the army because they were in a fight, once.
There is no shortage of people with black hat skills. The problem is that the government does not want all but a handful of those few who are willing to work a job where a routine fuckup can be prosecuted as a felony.
Like any other vegetable oil, the oil derived from Copiaba has to be processed using Transesterification to be useful as a fuel. Though the process is not difficult or costly, there's more to it than just dumping the raw oil in your fuel tank.
The process described is about two years old and was published last month.
Untold millions of dollars have been spent in search of a cost effective process to produce ethanol from cellulose for use as a fuel, leading me to wonder exactly what the catch is.
Of course, converting much of the world's cropland to pulpwood production isn't exactly an environmental panacea.
It is difficult to imagine how the text-only English translation of the Kama Sutra could be considered porn by anyone who has not spent the last 20 years in a Skinner box. Today, it is probably best understood as an interesting piece of history, since its contents are neither especially informative or titillating.
Of course, if some of the reviewers at Apple have spent the last 20 years in a Skinner box, that would explain a number of the bogus rejections.
The GPL is a license, not a contract. Failure to comply with the GPL cannot result in having to give out source code that you wrote. On the other hand, it may result in a suit for infringement. In contrast, most commercial products are covered by contractual agreements that don't have that safety valve.
Licenses for closed-source commercial products are no better, just different. There are all kinds of restrictions on what and how you can distribute from the Microsoft Visual Studio tools. There are termination clauses in the contract. And despite all the M$ bashing, that contract is relatively liberal and lightly enforced compared to most commercial software tools, particularly those for phones and embedded devices.
I used to work for a Fortune 100 company that allowed us to use GPL code with less red tape than certain commercial products. The difference? The commercial products had an enforceable indemnification provision that could have cost millions of dollars had things gone badly.
And how can she can prove it's her ex in a court of law? Even with Yahoo's cooperation it may not be possible, especially if the ex has more than the least bit of understanding about internet anonymity.
Ultimately, there is no substitute for having an actual human being review the complaints and make a judgment call on whether they are actionable.
The federally-imposed system for uniform handling of credit card and charge card complaints might be an ideal model to use. It requires the customer to choose one of about a dozen specific complaints, supply supporting information and evidence depending on the nature of the complaint, and submit a signed statement. If the form is filled out properly and the story is plausible, the bank issues a chargeback and it is then up to the merchant to fight it if they wish. While the system has flaws affecting both sides, it works reasonably well and costs are minimal.
The structure of the safe-harbor provisions in the DMCA is similar but simplified.
Pushing individual cases out to the courts doesn't work because the anonymity of the person posting the libelous content is not known and often can't be determined with certainty.
Yahoo, like eBay, is trying to claim that customer service is too expensive to fit their business model. So abuses flourish because of their arrogance. Some sort of judicial or legislative backlash is inevitable if this continues. Even Wikipedia will take down clearly libelous material if you ask.
Wikibooks has texts covering most of these areas. Quality varies, not unlike Wikipedia in the early days.
I expect that Bloomsbury will indeed make a small profit.
There are many books that are sold profitably even though their contents is available in its entirety online and is redistributable. Project Gutenberg has the complete works of Shakespeare online, a text in the public domain that anyone can print. Yet thousands of print copies of these works are sold through bookstores every month. The same can be said of other classic works now in the public domain, as well as some editions of the Bible, and most classical music scores.
I believe this situation is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Unlike audio and video recordings, which by their nature require some type of playback device, books are self-contained and offer certain advantages over even the most advanced and unrestricted reading device.
Nobody makes a living writing textbooks. Few textbooks ever pay out royalties beyond the initial advance. Piracy has not changed this.
There are still small ISPs left where you live?
When you stop and consider that the typical author's royalty is less than 10% of the cover price, you realize how inefficient the distribution model is. If that doesn't do it for you, take a look at the price of classics that have long since been in the public domain, as they're not cheap either. What exactly is the value add of the publishers, distributors, and retailers? For today, it's the inherent complexity in forecasting demand and then printing, warehousing, distributing, and selling books.
People still buy books and newspapers because the portability and physical experience is better than a notebook or even a Kindle. That's the opposite of the situation with CDs and DVDs, where the physical media just adds to the nuisance.
While the book publishing industry has nothing approaching the expense structure the record labels had during the glory days, I'd still be looking for a new career if I were a junior editor or sales assistant at Doubleday.
The trouble is that many people participate in social networking sites where the use of real names is expected. Opting out of social networking entirely is like opting out of the banking system -- possible, but not worth it for most people.
I believe they have increased boldness because the high unemployment makes them less concerned about how they will replace people they fire for one or another petty infraction of the rules.
No, the private sector jobs won't let me upload my pr0n either.
But if you end up doing stupid shit at one time or another and get called out on it, you just get fired, instead of being sent to the federal pen.
This is why I will never take a government IT job.
Do we really think that this is a) moral and b) effective? As attractive as it is to force unwanted costs on the law firm, responding to an unfair verdict with fraud relinquishes the moral high ground. Besides, they are likely to close whatever payment processing account becomes inundated with these payments. In the U.S., sending people money then reversing it without justifiable cause can be prosecuted as wire fraud, and there are prison terms for first offenses. I doubt if other countries' laws are much different. Anyone want to be a test case?
I purchased a Lenovo X301 with a 120 GB flash drive last September and have been nothing but pleased with the performance of the drive. I boot Vista and also run openSUSE in a vm. The drive speed is high and consistent. The drive in the X301 is supposed to have better controllers than some, and it certainly does better than a USB stick. Any theoretical problems with write speed don't appear to me to affect typical real world use.
TFA contains some of the most gratuitous and blatant lies I've seen in print since the 2008 U.S. elections ended.
So, Microsoft goes to great pains to refuse to patch software that it thinks might be pirated. Then, someone finds and exploits a bug in Microsoft's code. Malware problems affect everyone because the distribution of the patch is restricted. As a result, customers should be more careful to be sure that their software is genuine, and Microsoft is going to help them do this so that their systems can be properly patched for everyone's protection.
The mind reels.
I could almost understand Microsoft's point if they didn't consider installation of an OEM version of Windows on another machine after the original one has failed to be "piracy."
Great if you don't want to go more than a few feet. The problems with walls, floors, and roofs, bad enough for WiFi at 2.4Ghz, are far more serious in the higher bands. Practical in-home, wireless HDTV video distribution will remain elusive for years. It's not just a matter of bandwidth. The performance of the network has to be consistent regardless of whether someone opens a door or stands in the hallway or you drop frames. And it has to be able to actually achieve HDTV rates consistently in most homes or buyers will get frustrated from bringing home stuff that doesn't work for them.
Welcome to the courts. It's the same way with a DUI prosecution or an eviction proceeding or Walmart throwing the book at some store clerk for theft by conversion of a 99-cent tube of Chap Stick. In the RIAA cases as in every other there are ample opportunities for the defendant to do and say stupid things that create trouble for them later. That's why people need attorneys. Yes, it's expensive. Tough. And so it has always been, read through Moll Flanders (public domain edition available for free at Project Gutenberg) to get the idea.
With the RIAA cases, the other side of the coin is that, as long as the cases are handled fairly, they are too expensive for the plaintiffs to pursue. Last time I checked, the pockets of the corporate sponsors behind the RIAA not exactly of limitless depth. Absent the ability to bully people into $5000 out-of-court settlements with an hours' work by a nickel-ante paralegal and a penny-ante "investigator," a fair case with the court costs and attorney's fees will far exceed any civil penalties that the RIAA is likely, on the average, to collect. And absent the threat of an unwinnable case with six-figure damages, the PR battle moves from Pyrrhic to simply pointless.
I see this as good news.
The best news here is that this shows that the court system and the judges understand what computers are and how they are used and are at least making an effort to deal with the case in a balanced way. Sure, computer forensic evidence has become routine in the last few years but there have still been plenty of RIAA cases where the handling of the defendant's property is remarkably cavalier.
The RIAA, despite their myriad flaws, are entitled to their day in court. If procedures are balanced and remedies are fair, then I believe that the RIAA's corporate sponsors will quickly decide that the game isn't worth the candle.
The copyright statutes and the discovery procedures are the law of the land whether we like them or not. The injustice and unfairness early in the RIAA campaign came from the lack of due process, the flimsy evidence and weak cases, and the threats of draconian penalties. It's getting better, and every positive step brings us that much closer to closing this dark era in the history of the legal system.
Devices like MP3 players, set top boxes, and mobile phones account for far more GLIBC deployments than desktops and servers.