I think you need to read my post again. I'm "loyal", in that I'll stay around until the second that something better comes along and I'm outtie.
Where I come from that's not loyalty, it's idiocy combined with opportunism. Why idiocy? Read on...
I don't know what "enlightened" country you live in but in USA if you voluntarily leave a job you don't get jobless benefits.
Like money, for example? So you know, even if you don't leave voluntarily there's a good chance your benefits will be denied, especially if your former employer is a piece of shit; Happened to me twice.
so you're not going to be paid either way.
Ah, see, now that's where you're mistaken - instead of plugging away for free (praying the whole time that when the company you're volunteering for does finally go tits-up, they don't file for bankruptcy and screw you out of the money they never paid you), you could be working day-labor at the very least, to keep your household afloat until you find more gainful work.
You've got to get out of this "work here or don't work at all" mentality, because it's hurting you, man.
Yea, as you've probably already noticed from another response I made, I've decided the wisest course of action is that of least privilege, at least when our government is concerned.
To be honest, I'm kind of up in the air on this one; on the one hand, I hate the fact that rich people and corporations use national borders to commit crimes (like hiding assets from taxation); On the other hand, I know that if the precedent is set, our government will abuse the holy living shit out of the privilege.
I suppose the wise decision would be to err on the side of caution and limit the government's ability to access information. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer, right?
No, its a bad precedent, and you can now look forward to China / Russia / India issuing subpoenas for things like email inboxes and documents stored on the cloud for US citizens.
Now, now. This isn't PRISM we're talking about, it's a specific, 4th Amendment sound warrant for information regarding a US company's actions in the US, the evidence for which they've hidden on a foreign server. There's no need for hyperbole
Ive never really gotten how slashdot has so many people with apparent astigmatism, only able to see the close up things and always missing the bigger picture.
Our government has jurisdiction over its citizens, and businesses that operate within its borders.
Basically, what you're saying is that you think that if someone on US soil does something illegal, and hides the evidence offshore, the government shouldn't be able to get to said evidence without jumping through a crapton of legal hoops?
Then I would say, if China has evidence that the Chinese Google office has done illegal things in their country, and hidden the evidence on US servers, then yea, they should be able to get a warrant for that information, and vice versa.
This is like if you to go to a country border to talk with a friend you have at the other side. Each one will stay in their corresponding country without breaking any immigration law, but you can talk through the fences (the air is not restricted to one particular country.. yet). Then, your country authorities could demand the person, at the other side of the fences, to said them what you were talking about when you left the place. But this person has all the right to say nothing, because he/she is living in "another" country, with different rules and laws.
No, it's like if you take a bunch of information to a country border and hand it off to someone on the other side.
Now, say that information you passed to the foreign national was stolen nuclear launch codes, or a list of where you hid the bodies. Do you really think the government should not be able to get a warrant for that information, just because it's not on US soil anymore?
- You've hidden bombs on public transit all over the country, and the list of where you hid them is stored on a server in the UK; should the government be able to get a warrant for that information?
And a not so appropriate, yet still thought provoking one:
- You're a serial killer in the US, but every time you murder someone you drive to your Canadian cabin in the woods to hide the body; should the US be able to get search warrants for said cabin?
Like if I'm arrested for smoking pot in the USA and USA prosecutors want to search my bedroom back home in Amsterdam to collect proof of my drug habit, you think its ok for USA police to force my parents to let them search my bedroom back home (or enter their home by force)? Even if my "crime" is only a crime in the USA?
I'm having trouble determining whether this is a really good analogy, or a really bad one... Leaning towards the former.
On the other hand, it's only becoming precedent in an era where the common person actually has the ability to move things(specifically data) overseas with ease.
The "common person" who can afford that crap.
When your application of justice become predicated on the income level of the accused, it's not justice anymore.
Now what if this worked the other way. Some muslim country gets to search people's US computers even if they know they can't store their Porn on their Muslim country computer. Now they can say that storing that data in the USA isn't enough reason to avoid getting thrown in jail.
If said accused person is a citizen of the aforementioned Muslim country, and even moreso if they are operating a business there, then yes, all their shit very well should be accessible to their government with a legal warrant, no matter where they try to hide it.
Otherwise, you start having the issue of, "if you're rich enough, you can skirt the law."
That's good news, since it's one step closer towards closing the gap between the haves and have-nots.
Being rich enough to shuttle assets to other countries shouldn't mean you get away with breaking the law, because that's an inequal application of justice, and therefore unconstitutional.
One thing I can tell you as a former smoker is, when you're hooked on cigarettes, there's no escaping it. You can't avoid being with other smokers, because the smell of cigarette is everywhere. When I quit smoking, it'd only take some random guy who had just smoked outside, walking past me, reeking of cold cigarette smoke, to send me craving like there was no tomorrow.
Random guys who smell of tobacco are everywhere. You just can't escape the smell. You're constantly bombarded with reminders that, yes, you'd really REALLY want to smoke one just right now.
FTFY.
I switched from cigarettes to a pipe about 2.5 years ago, and now I can't stand the chemical reek of coffin nails. "random guy who smells like cigarettes" grosses me out just as much as he does a non-smoker, maybe even more so. Conversely, I get complements about the smell of pipe smoke all the time, and people actually tell me, "it's cool, you can smoke in here, I like the way that smells." I still won't smoke indoors out of principle, though.
Sounds like the words of someone who's never found themselves suddenly unemployed. Of course, from the sound of it you're content to lose everything you owe money on (house, car, etc) just to exercise some odd brand of "loyalty" to people who aren't holding up their end of the bargain, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Oh, and it's "job," with a j, not an h. The first time I thought it was a typo, but you did it again, which leads me to believe that you think that's how the word is spelled/pronounced.
If company pulls through you'll be paid arrears,
Well, I'm sure your mortgage company will accept IOUs until then, huh?
hint: even if you leave, they still owe you for past pay
Yea, no shit, Sherlock. Did you think this was some clever quip, rather than a statement of the obvious?
If you're looking for a new hob anyway, better to hedge your bets at your current job (even if it suxxx) than sit on your ass athome
If you're looking for a new [j]ob, you wouldn't be "sit[ting] on your ass at home," because finding a job is a full time job in itself.
What you could be doing, rather than sacrificing your time volunteering for a for-profit company, would be working a part-time job that actually pays you, so you can afford to pay at least some of your bills while you search for more gainful employment.
Honestly, the fact that you present "work for free or sit on your ass at home doing nothing" as the only two options makes me wonder...
This continues to show China is a pay for play game, in that you are well connected enough in the communist party and laws and environmental rules just don't apply and it doesn't matter if it kills the little people.
Lol, yea, they make great capitalists, don't they?
Then he should offer to sell that bit of property to them for market value (taking into consideration a lifetime of lost revenue, mwa ha ha), and if they refuse, well, they gave up their only bargaining chip.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget about the nasty chemicals and processes (and apparently, politics) involved in making computer components.
I think you need to read my post again. I'm "loyal", in that I'll stay around until the second that something better comes along and I'm outtie.
Where I come from that's not loyalty, it's idiocy combined with opportunism. Why idiocy? Read on...
I don't know what "enlightened" country you live in but in USA if you voluntarily leave a job you don't get jobless benefits.
Like money, for example? So you know, even if you don't leave voluntarily there's a good chance your benefits will be denied, especially if your former employer is a piece of shit; Happened to me twice.
so you're not going to be paid either way.
Ah, see, now that's where you're mistaken - instead of plugging away for free (praying the whole time that when the company you're volunteering for does finally go tits-up, they don't file for bankruptcy and screw you out of the money they never paid you), you could be working day-labor at the very least, to keep your household afloat until you find more gainful work.
You've got to get out of this "work here or don't work at all" mentality, because it's hurting you, man.
Also, not sure if this was a typo:
Most defiantly yes
But I dig it.
Yea, as you've probably already noticed from another response I made, I've decided the wisest course of action is that of least privilege, at least when our government is concerned.
To be honest, I'm kind of up in the air on this one; on the one hand, I hate the fact that rich people and corporations use national borders to commit crimes (like hiding assets from taxation); On the other hand, I know that if the precedent is set, our government will abuse the holy living shit out of the privilege.
I suppose the wise decision would be to err on the side of caution and limit the government's ability to access information. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer, right?
No, its a bad precedent, and you can now look forward to China / Russia / India issuing subpoenas for things like email inboxes and documents stored on the cloud for US citizens.
Now, now. This isn't PRISM we're talking about, it's a specific, 4th Amendment sound warrant for information regarding a US company's actions in the US, the evidence for which they've hidden on a foreign server. There's no need for hyperbole
Ive never really gotten how slashdot has so many people with apparent astigmatism, only able to see the close up things and always missing the bigger picture.
The irony of this statement is not lost on me.
How? Details, please.
You know, just in case I commit some heinous crime and need somewhere to stash the evidence.
Our government has jurisdiction over its citizens, and businesses that operate within its borders.
Basically, what you're saying is that you think that if someone on US soil does something illegal, and hides the evidence offshore, the government shouldn't be able to get to said evidence without jumping through a crapton of legal hoops?
Then I would say, if China has evidence that the Chinese Google office has done illegal things in their country, and hidden the evidence on US servers, then yea, they should be able to get a warrant for that information, and vice versa.
This is like if you to go to a country border to talk with a friend you have at the other side. Each one will stay in their corresponding country without breaking any immigration law, but you can talk through the fences (the air is not restricted to one particular country .. yet). Then, your country authorities could demand the person, at the other side of the fences, to said them what you were talking about when you left the place. But this person has all the right to say nothing, because he/she is living in "another" country, with different rules and laws.
No, it's like if you take a bunch of information to a country border and hand it off to someone on the other side.
Now, say that information you passed to the foreign national was stolen nuclear launch codes, or a list of where you hid the bodies. Do you really think the government should not be able to get a warrant for that information, just because it's not on US soil anymore?
OK, thought of a good counter analogy:
- You've hidden bombs on public transit all over the country, and the list of where you hid them is stored on a server in the UK; should the government be able to get a warrant for that information?
And a not so appropriate, yet still thought provoking one:
- You're a serial killer in the US, but every time you murder someone you drive to your Canadian cabin in the woods to hide the body; should the US be able to get search warrants for said cabin?
Is Google a Chinese company?
Like if I'm arrested for smoking pot in the USA and USA prosecutors want to search my bedroom back home in Amsterdam to collect proof of my drug habit, you think its ok for USA police to force my parents to let them search my bedroom back home (or enter their home by force)? Even if my "crime" is only a crime in the USA?
I'm having trouble determining whether this is a really good analogy, or a really bad one... Leaning towards the former.
On the other hand, it's only becoming precedent in an era where the common person actually has the ability to move things(specifically data) overseas with ease.
The "common person" who can afford that crap.
When your application of justice become predicated on the income level of the accused, it's not justice anymore.
Now what if this worked the other way. Some muslim country gets to search people's US computers even if they know they can't store their Porn on their Muslim country computer. Now they can say that storing that data in the USA isn't enough reason to avoid getting thrown in jail.
If said accused person is a citizen of the aforementioned Muslim country, and even moreso if they are operating a business there, then yes, all their shit very well should be accessible to their government with a legal warrant, no matter where they try to hide it.
Otherwise, you start having the issue of, "if you're rich enough, you can skirt the law."
That's good news, since it's one step closer towards closing the gap between the haves and have-nots.
Being rich enough to shuttle assets to other countries shouldn't mean you get away with breaking the law, because that's an inequal application of justice, and therefore unconstitutional.
One thing I can tell you as a former smoker is, when you're hooked on cigarettes, there's no escaping it. You can't avoid being with other smokers, because the smell of cigarette is everywhere. When I quit smoking, it'd only take some random guy who had just smoked outside, walking past me, reeking of cold cigarette smoke, to send me craving like there was no tomorrow.
Random guys who smell of tobacco are everywhere. You just can't escape the smell. You're constantly bombarded with reminders that, yes, you'd really REALLY want to smoke one just right now.
FTFY.
I switched from cigarettes to a pipe about 2.5 years ago, and now I can't stand the chemical reek of coffin nails. "random guy who smells like cigarettes" grosses me out just as much as he does a non-smoker, maybe even more so. Conversely, I get complements about the smell of pipe smoke all the time, and people actually tell me, "it's cool, you can smoke in here, I like the way that smells." I still won't smoke indoors out of principle, though.
finding a hob is not full time.
Sounds like the words of someone who's never found themselves suddenly unemployed. Of course, from the sound of it you're content to lose everything you owe money on (house, car, etc) just to exercise some odd brand of "loyalty" to people who aren't holding up their end of the bargain, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Oh, and it's "job," with a j, not an h. The first time I thought it was a typo, but you did it again, which leads me to believe that you think that's how the word is spelled/pronounced.
If company pulls through you'll be paid arrears,
Well, I'm sure your mortgage company will accept IOUs until then, huh?
hint: even if you leave, they still owe you for past pay
Yea, no shit, Sherlock. Did you think this was some clever quip, rather than a statement of the obvious?
If you're looking for a new hob anyway, better to hedge your bets at your current job (even if it suxxx) than sit on your ass athome
If you're looking for a new [j]ob, you wouldn't be "sit[ting] on your ass at home," because finding a job is a full time job in itself.
What you could be doing, rather than sacrificing your time volunteering for a for-profit company, would be working a part-time job that actually pays you, so you can afford to pay at least some of your bills while you search for more gainful employment.
Honestly, the fact that you present "work for free or sit on your ass at home doing nothing" as the only two options makes me wonder...
This continues to show China is a pay for play game, in that you are well connected enough in the communist party and laws and environmental rules just don't apply and it doesn't matter if it kills the little people.
Lol, yea, they make great capitalists, don't they?
Hermes Conrad: I order you to dispose of that toxic waste properly, or bribe me. Either way, it'll cost you $500.
Bender: 500 real dollars? That's an outrage! Professor, I can take care of that waste for only $499 and one hundred cents.
Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: Hmm, I know that's a rip, but I'll pay for the convenience.
Then he should offer to sell that bit of property to them for market value (taking into consideration a lifetime of lost revenue, mwa ha ha), and if they refuse, well, they gave up their only bargaining chip.
Hence my caveat.
Most generalizations are false, including this one.
Which is why I always try and throw a caveat in there.
i would stick around because i'm a loyal employee.
P.T. Barnum would be mis-attributed as calling you a sucker.
But, to be fair, I have to ask - what makes you loyal to someone who fails to fulfill their contractual obligation to pay you for your work?
Also, do the people you owe money to (utility company, mortgage company, etc) accept loyalty as payment?