... then get the info. Since those in possession of the dog are now aware the dog belongs to someone else, not handing the dog over to authorities means they are now keeping someone else's property. Hence, it is now theft.
The effects of EM fields can be significantly reduced by conductor pairing. When two currents of equal and opposite magnitude run side by side, the EM field is almost entirely confined to a space around those conductors. This can be achieved by creating cell pairs arranged so they are side by side, but turned in opposite directions. This allows the current of one to be in the opposite physical direction of the other, when the same operation is being performed on each. Since erase and read (but not write) can always be done at the same time, this reduces the number (in the case of read) and severity (in the case of erase) of EM fields, reducing the overall effect of EM fields on adjacent inactive cells.
There will always be thieves in the world. It is the nature of some people. The proper question you need to answer is why do the honest people need to suffer?
But there is also the fair use issue. And NO, this is NOT a case of fair use being lost because of the thieves. Fair use is lost because the content producers see taking it away as a form of increasing their revenues. They want to force you to buy more copies of the content. If I want to be able to listen to a good song on my computer while posting on Slashdot, and also listen to the same song on my portable player while jogging, they want me to buy it TWICE. Compare this to places like Magnatune
that, instead, play fair with consumers... and artists.
If your optical media is damaged, they don't want you to be able to play it from a backup source, even though you have paid for the music or movie. They want you to be forced to buy a new copy from them. A copy in which the artist gets less than 10% for music (it would not be good enough for them if you paid the artist directly for the cost of a replacement... they want you to buy their piece of media... again).
They also don't want you to resell their media to someone else just because you bought it to see if you might like it, and discover that you don't like it. If you don't like the content, they want you to be stuck with the full cost, regardless (and as such, they don't want you to even preview the content online, such it could mean lost sales because only people that like it would buy it).
I don't know about Australia, but in the USA, there is this concept of title insurance. A "sale" like that in the story is invalid because the title was stolen by fraudulent means. So the title is effectively no good. The title insurance (which is there to protecy the buyer with respect to defects in title) needs to pay out to the buyer for their loss and the owner keeps his home. There are already existing cases in the USA where home sales were voided due to improper or fraudulent title. In one of them, the "sale" was reversed 8 years after it was finalized, all because the seller's title was fraudulently obtained. And this was 30+ years ago, before email. The fact that email was involved should make it easier to void the sale.
.. in Australia? That is essentially what happened. They stole his house and sold it. What if it were a car or a computer? If thieves can steal things and "sell" them to someone else who gets to keep it, something is very seriously wrong with the legal system, there.
... not because I might look for a system administrator job (I have one), but because I want to be sure to not ever buy anything from a dishonest and evil company. Not all companies are evil. You have to figure it out by how they act (not what they say).
You will NEVER have a job there, now. You clearly have enemies, and they were not honest enough to say it to your face and say "this is employment at will and we don't will it anymore". Move on. And tell people where NOT to shop (because there is a risk they will get screwed by this company... they have already shown their colors).
... all the accounts for which they have not yet received the money from PayPal. Then let each of those people sort it out with PayPal. As long as they have another means to accept payment, then people who choose an unreliable company like PayPal for payment are the ones at risk.
Even a single carrier looks like white noise to a true spread spectrum receiver. Of course, a strong enough single carrier can look like strong enough white noise to obscure the information. Spreading wider reduces that effect. Smarter would be to have a system that detects such signals and applies active filtering, including modifying the transmission to not use frequencies around the interference (but maybe keep noise in there, anyway, to not let the interference operator know he was evaded). I'm sure a whole lot more can be done with really smart multi-frequency transmission systems.
They still should have fixed it with the first communication. Each and every person that failed to check this should be fired. There are plenty of smarter people that want jobs. There's no reason Microsoft should be hiring dumb people.
Let's see your requirements. I'd say there is a good chance something is wrong about it. And how much is the salary?
Do keep in mind that "migrant programmers"... those who moved from home to go to the big city, have in large numbers moved back home. You won't get them back so easily because they have experienced that it is too expensive to live there, especially considering that your company may close up shop in 6 months (can you prove it won't?) leaving them stranded. And you need to offer a pay that covers that high cost of living if you are located in places like San Francisco (and many others). What is the rent on a nice modern two bedroom apartment within 5 miles of the border of the industrial or business section you are in? Multiply that by 4 and that's what the take-home pay AFTER taxes should be.
I'm not sure what cases you are referring to. Maybe the medical/accident injury cases that you see lawyer ads on TV for so much (classical "ambulance chaser")? In many of these cases, the other party might well be a victim of an overly aggressive lawyer that cheats the system... them having to pay up front for a defense attorney who won't be able to win excessive awards. Lawyers on the plaintiff side of these kinds of cases can take the risk of some cases not winning or not being collectible (defendant declares bankruptcy after losing) because they take so much from the cases that do win and collect from.
BTW, these lawyers rarely touch a case where the defendant is not either wealthy or has big insurance coverage (because they can't collect a $4M award from someone making $40k a year).
I'm advocating for something closer to the inquisitional system, but not exactly that. I'm thinking something somewhat like the forum system used by the Romans. That system was abused (no surprise). But a fully open one could be more protected. That, and give the judge(s) power to inquire, too. Also, these days, we can adjudicate by means of electronic exchange.
Even if Israel did do murders in UAE, which I do not disbelieve, that just makes it easier (at step 2) to carry out their goals (at step 3). Israel isn't the cause; it just makes it easier.
But you still had to have the money to pay the attorney's fees up front to begin with. Tell me how a person with $5000 handy can defense themselves in a case like Simon Singh had without getting lucky and finding an attorney who will do it without money? Anti-SLAPP is good. But it doesn't go far enough and doesn't cover all the kinds of cases that ordinary people lose in court all the time because they can't afford premium legal representation.
For cases like the one that is the subject of this article, and for anything going to appeals, the chance of success by someone going pro se is less than nil. The UK and US legal systems are "adversarial" (as opposed to "inquisitional"). The judge only works with what is presented. The average person won't know if something the other side presents is valid. They won't know how to cross examine. It is only in small claims court where pro se is often seen and can readily work. The judge does not seek out evidence.
Requiring money from plaintiffs does not solve the real problem, which is that court systems like those in UK, US, and AU, are fundamentally biased toward people with money, and hence to the positions more of those people hold.
A truly just system would not require anyone to expend any money whatsoever, to carry out a complete and thorough adjudication of the issues. Since people have to do work to carry that out, someone has to pay for it, and that leaves the state. Of course those anti-big-government people, who generally benefit from the unjust and biased legal systems we do have now, would never go for such a change. I can also understand the concerns, because a state paid system really gets opened up for so much abuse in the economic sense (excessive numbers of cases, too).
One thing that would help for lots of little cases is for thing otherwise treated as civil now should be treated as criminal (especially if there is a pattern). The state needs to bring cases against banks and big businesses for things that would otherwise require their customers to sue. If the violations are excessive, there needs to be jail time for the perpetrators, and even "death" for the "corporate person" if it keeps on happening. These cases also need to "pierce the veil of incorporation" in the extreme cases and go after those who voted in the bad guys to the board.
My big point is, that a judicial system where people must pay up front for justice just isn't a just system for those that don't have that financial means, and at best is unfair to those that do, but have to incur that to get justice. Justice should be about setting things straight (including money to those who are were losers by result of the violation, and taking from those who unfairly gained by result of the violation... after the adjudication properly determine who and what).
Slashdot Mirror
... then get the info. Since those in possession of the dog are now aware the dog belongs to someone else, not handing the dog over to authorities means they are now keeping someone else's property. Hence, it is now theft.
The effects of EM fields can be significantly reduced by conductor pairing. When two currents of equal and opposite magnitude run side by side, the EM field is almost entirely confined to a space around those conductors. This can be achieved by creating cell pairs arranged so they are side by side, but turned in opposite directions. This allows the current of one to be in the opposite physical direction of the other, when the same operation is being performed on each. Since erase and read (but not write) can always be done at the same time, this reduces the number (in the case of read) and severity (in the case of erase) of EM fields, reducing the overall effect of EM fields on adjacent inactive cells.
There will always be thieves in the world. It is the nature of some people. The proper question you need to answer is why do the honest people need to suffer?
But there is also the fair use issue. And NO, this is NOT a case of fair use being lost because of the thieves. Fair use is lost because the content producers see taking it away as a form of increasing their revenues. They want to force you to buy more copies of the content. If I want to be able to listen to a good song on my computer while posting on Slashdot, and also listen to the same song on my portable player while jogging, they want me to buy it TWICE. Compare this to places like Magnatune
that, instead, play fair with consumers ... and artists.
If your optical media is damaged, they don't want you to be able to play it from a backup source, even though you have paid for the music or movie. They want you to be forced to buy a new copy from them. A copy in which the artist gets less than 10% for music (it would not be good enough for them if you paid the artist directly for the cost of a replacement ... they want you to buy their piece of media ... again).
They also don't want you to resell their media to someone else just because you bought it to see if you might like it, and discover that you don't like it. If you don't like the content, they want you to be stuck with the full cost, regardless (and as such, they don't want you to even preview the content online, such it could mean lost sales because only people that like it would buy it).
(Unless, of course, their claims of connections between piracy and revenue are all lies, but I would never suggest anything like that...)
Please don't. We hate dupes, here.
The real reason is that Anonymous Coward is not ready to use a Desktop.
Just buy a cheap player sold in India for all those cheap DVDs and BluRays you buy in India. Done!
... to prove they aren't using any gizmos or gadgets.
I don't know about Australia, but in the USA, there is this concept of title insurance. A "sale" like that in the story is invalid because the title was stolen by fraudulent means. So the title is effectively no good. The title insurance (which is there to protecy the buyer with respect to defects in title) needs to pay out to the buyer for their loss and the owner keeps his home. There are already existing cases in the USA where home sales were voided due to improper or fraudulent title. In one of them, the "sale" was reversed 8 years after it was finalized, all because the seller's title was fraudulently obtained. And this was 30+ years ago, before email. The fact that email was involved should make it easier to void the sale.
.. in Australia? That is essentially what happened. They stole his house and sold it. What if it were a car or a computer? If thieves can steal things and "sell" them to someone else who gets to keep it, something is very seriously wrong with the legal system, there.
... need to do the same. Oh wait, they already have.
... not because I might look for a system administrator job (I have one), but because I want to be sure to not ever buy anything from a dishonest and evil company. Not all companies are evil. You have to figure it out by how they act (not what they say).
You will NEVER have a job there, now. You clearly have enemies, and they were not honest enough to say it to your face and say "this is employment at will and we don't will it anymore". Move on. And tell people where NOT to shop (because there is a risk they will get screwed by this company ... they have already shown their colors).
Most likely a fellow disgruntled (at the sysadmin) employee, or his boss looking for a way to get rid of him.
This is just SOP for corporations.
... all the accounts for which they have not yet received the money from PayPal. Then let each of those people sort it out with PayPal. As long as they have another means to accept payment, then people who choose an unreliable company like PayPal for payment are the ones at risk.
Even a single carrier looks like white noise to a true spread spectrum receiver. Of course, a strong enough single carrier can look like strong enough white noise to obscure the information. Spreading wider reduces that effect. Smarter would be to have a system that detects such signals and applies active filtering, including modifying the transmission to not use frequencies around the interference (but maybe keep noise in there, anyway, to not let the interference operator know he was evaded). I'm sure a whole lot more can be done with really smart multi-frequency transmission systems.
They still should have fixed it with the first communication. Each and every person that failed to check this should be fired. There are plenty of smarter people that want jobs. There's no reason Microsoft should be hiring dumb people.
Let's see your requirements. I'd say there is a good chance something is wrong about it. And how much is the salary?
Do keep in mind that "migrant programmers" ... those who moved from home to go to the big city, have in large numbers moved back home. You won't get them back so easily because they have experienced that it is too expensive to live there, especially considering that your company may close up shop in 6 months (can you prove it won't?) leaving them stranded. And you need to offer a pay that covers that high cost of living if you are located in places like San Francisco (and many others). What is the rent on a nice modern two bedroom apartment within 5 miles of the border of the industrial or business section you are in? Multiply that by 4 and that's what the take-home pay AFTER taxes should be.
... we spill enough of this stuff into the ocean?
I'm not sure what cases you are referring to. Maybe the medical/accident injury cases that you see lawyer ads on TV for so much (classical "ambulance chaser")? In many of these cases, the other party might well be a victim of an overly aggressive lawyer that cheats the system ... them having to pay up front for a defense attorney who won't be able to win excessive awards. Lawyers on the plaintiff side of these kinds of cases can take the risk of some cases not winning or not being collectible (defendant declares bankruptcy after losing) because they take so much from the cases that do win and collect from.
BTW, these lawyers rarely touch a case where the defendant is not either wealthy or has big insurance coverage (because they can't collect a $4M award from someone making $40k a year).
I'm advocating for something closer to the inquisitional system, but not exactly that. I'm thinking something somewhat like the forum system used by the Romans. That system was abused (no surprise). But a fully open one could be more protected. That, and give the judge(s) power to inquire, too. Also, these days, we can adjudicate by means of electronic exchange.
Even if Israel did do murders in UAE, which I do not disbelieve, that just makes it easier (at step 2) to carry out their goals (at step 3). Israel isn't the cause; it just makes it easier.
But you still had to have the money to pay the attorney's fees up front to begin with. Tell me how a person with $5000 handy can defense themselves in a case like Simon Singh had without getting lucky and finding an attorney who will do it without money? Anti-SLAPP is good. But it doesn't go far enough and doesn't cover all the kinds of cases that ordinary people lose in court all the time because they can't afford premium legal representation.
For cases like the one that is the subject of this article, and for anything going to appeals, the chance of success by someone going pro se is less than nil. The UK and US legal systems are "adversarial" (as opposed to "inquisitional"). The judge only works with what is presented. The average person won't know if something the other side presents is valid. They won't know how to cross examine. It is only in small claims court where pro se is often seen and can readily work. The judge does not seek out evidence.
Requiring money from plaintiffs does not solve the real problem, which is that court systems like those in UK, US, and AU, are fundamentally biased toward people with money, and hence to the positions more of those people hold.
A truly just system would not require anyone to expend any money whatsoever, to carry out a complete and thorough adjudication of the issues. Since people have to do work to carry that out, someone has to pay for it, and that leaves the state. Of course those anti-big-government people, who generally benefit from the unjust and biased legal systems we do have now, would never go for such a change. I can also understand the concerns, because a state paid system really gets opened up for so much abuse in the economic sense (excessive numbers of cases, too).
One thing that would help for lots of little cases is for thing otherwise treated as civil now should be treated as criminal (especially if there is a pattern). The state needs to bring cases against banks and big businesses for things that would otherwise require their customers to sue. If the violations are excessive, there needs to be jail time for the perpetrators, and even "death" for the "corporate person" if it keeps on happening. These cases also need to "pierce the veil of incorporation" in the extreme cases and go after those who voted in the bad guys to the board.
My big point is, that a judicial system where people must pay up front for justice just isn't a just system for those that don't have that financial means, and at best is unfair to those that do, but have to incur that to get justice. Justice should be about setting things straight (including money to those who are were losers by result of the violation, and taking from those who unfairly gained by result of the violation ... after the adjudication properly determine who and what).