When the writer refers to the "plaintiff" in a criminal case. If he's that clueless (the plaintiff is part of a civil case; there is no plaintff in a criminal case) one such a simple point, what else is he using words he doesn't know the meaning of about.
Yeah, Childs' manager was, apparently, an asshole and an idiot. What he was not, however, was in criminal violation of the law. He was, in fact, specifically entititled to demand the passwords from Childs, and Childs was specifically required to fork them over.
The sentence might have been a little harsh, but IIRC, the network in question was configured in such a way that if it lost power longer than the UPS's could handle, it couldn't boot back up without Childs' help, and didn't this network handle the 911 system for the city?
Re:Unethical is not the word
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
He is intetionally helping people to commit what looks to me like actionable civil fraud. That's dishonest. Not necessarily illegal, perhaps, but certainly dishonest.
During a remodel of one of my employer's stores, we have trouble with our RF gun (laser scans bar codes, then prints price labels, runs off of 802.11whatever). When I went to troubleshoot it, near as I could figure, the contractors working upstairs has something that was putting out so much RF interference, the gun wouldn't boot because it couldn't read the flash memory soldered to the circuit board. Once the contractors left, it was all back to normal.
I had exactly this happen. In the space of about two years, I went from doing phone support for Windows users and running a small LAN in the office to running (and building, from scratch) a multi-state VPN based WAN running mission critical functions (like cash registers). I was prepared, and it went smoothly. So smoothly, nobody noticed how difficult a task it was. Came annual review time, and I got a cost of living raise. I looked my boss right in the eye and told him, in no uncertain terms, that I deserved more, and why, and that I'd be updating my resume if I didn't get more. A few weeks later, I got more, the biggest percentage raise in the company's history.
Some important points:
Remain calm, polite and professional.
Explain your position in an objective manner, as in, "this is what I was hired for, and these are the specific duties that have been added since then."
Refer to any past performance reviews that have been positive, especially ones that reference the new, added duties.
And most important of all, and I cannot overemphasize this:
WORK FOR REASONABLE PEOPLE.
If you are concerned that your employer will respond negatively to you asking for a raise in a reasonable manner, with objective evidence to support your deserving it, you are probably right. And that means you are not working for reasonable people. And reasonable people will not take care of you.
Loyalty is a two way street, always. If it does not go in both directions, it's not loyalty, it's subsevience.
It is common, yes. The justification, in California, at least, is that a traffic ticket is an infraction, not a misdemeanor, and for an infraction, you cannot go to jail (though you can and will if you don't pay the fine, but that's for contempt of court), making it a civil matter, so there's no right to a jury trial.
Craig's List has no knowledge of what transactions actually take place, regardless of what section. They do not know if a car was sold through the dealer section, or for how much, or to whom, or, really, by whom in many cases.
I did read your link. The SJ case didn't seem to be a criminal investigation,
Those two statements do not belong together. It was, in point of fact, a criminal investigation in to, IIRC, the theft of information regarding the workings of the 911 system, or some such.
Additionally, the verdict in that case didn't seem to be related to any journalist rights over and above the fact the SS incompetently seized a bunch of necessary business tools from a company with insufficient evidence that a crime had been committed. IMO, the verdict would have been the same if the company was George's Car Repairs, or John's Ice Creamery.
In point of fact, if you bothered to read in any depth, the acknowledged errors in the warrant were dismissed as irrelevant and unimportant. The entire civil case - which the Secret Service lost - was over the "Private Protection Act", 42 U.S.C. 2000aa violations. These have not to do with being journalists, but with being publishers. The relevant law was quoted in the ruling, available in full at http://www.sjgames.com/SS/decision-text.html :
"The Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa, dictates: "Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation . . . of a criminal offense to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication . . .." _See_, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000aa(a)."
Gizmodo has the same protection, as a publisher, assuming that what was seized contined "work product materials," which seems likely (from the very small amount of information available in the news stories). It is entirely relevant.
I disagree. Gizmodo's people need to take it up with the cops, and the cops need to take it up with Apple. Filing a false police report is a crime in California, and initiation a bogus civil legal action can bring SLAPP sanctions that have gone well in to six figures at times. Push hard enough, and Apple's lawyers could face criminal charges for barratry, in theory.
In any event, legally, once a court issued a warrant, Apple is in the clear so far as Gizmodo is concerned. G's only recourse is against the cops and the courts, who in turn may or may not pass on the love to Apple as they see fit.
There is a legitimate point here, though. Gizmodo knew the prototype was, legally speaking, stolen goods. Legally, the issue isn't that Apple wants to be an ass about it - you certainly would sing a different tune if it were your phone that was stolen and sold for several thousand bucks, right? - the legal issue is that publisehrs have specific protections regarding the seizure of equipment used in their business. The cops should have copied hard drives, but left the equipment there. That's what the Steven Jackson case firmly established.
The Secret Service is a law enforcement agency, honest. They have badges and everything. They did the seizing in the Steve Jackson Games case (which you would know if you'd followed the link, but this is Slashdot, so actually having a clue what you're talking is obviously expecting too much).
There are specific laws regarding the seizing of publishing equipment (like computers) from publishers (which Gizmodo certainly is), even with a warrant. Precisely how they apply in this case, I don't know, but I'll bet Gizmodo's lawyers do.
Now claim that unpublished articles were on the seized computers and file a claim against Apple and have the police come in and seize their computers. That'll teach 'em.
Actually, the proper course is to sue the police for violating their rights as a publisher, like Steve Jackson did (and won, including legal fees).
Unless he qualified for salaried exempt (and damned few computer people do), asking him to do that without pay is a crime in most states. Firing him for refusing to do so is a crime that might actually get some attention, depending on what state.
(Home IT support for the owner of the company I work for is explicitly part of my job, but a) he's not an idiot when it comes to computers, and b) since he tried having his nephew "who knows a lot about computers" fix something, he's been very, very polite to me.)
Given that applying for a patent on something that you know someone else invented it blatant abuse of the patent system, I hope a lot of people learn something from this. Though I suspect not the same thing you're thinking of.
There are several points where the obvious, default choice - including one during the installation procedure - is to upgrade to a paid version. It's dishonest, IMO.
This proposal isn't to detect what malware is present, or to remove it. It is onl to detect that there is some malware present, which can then lean to more thorough scanning to detect and remove. Knowing that something is there is half the battle.
What he takes seriously is his paycheck. He figured out a few years ago that people will pay him big bucks to make an ass of himself, and he'll do anything if you offer him enough money. For a big enough paycheck, I suspect he'd eat live babies on national television.
I have occasionally gotten my users to call me before clearing out the error message on the screen. But these day, I don't bother, because most of my users literally cannot read the error message off the screen while on the phone with me. Because "that's computer stuff, and I don't know anything about that."
I'm not uncomfortable by people who are offended by my language. I simply don't care about them at all.
I am, however, very offended by people who believe they, and only they, have the right to tell me what words I am allowed to use, while I am not allowed to tell them what words they are allowed to use. Such people are not trying to make the world a better place, despite their politically correct lies. They are trying to make the world their place, and only theirs.
I hereby declare the first week of March to be Fuck Political Correctness In The Ass With A Spoon Week. Or Fuck The Politicaly Correct In The Ass With A Plasma Torch Week.
Slashdot Mirror
When the writer refers to the "plaintiff" in a criminal case. If he's that clueless (the plaintiff is part of a civil case; there is no plaintff in a criminal case) one such a simple point, what else is he using words he doesn't know the meaning of about.
Yeah, Childs' manager was, apparently, an asshole and an idiot. What he was not, however, was in criminal violation of the law. He was, in fact, specifically entititled to demand the passwords from Childs, and Childs was specifically required to fork them over.
The sentence might have been a little harsh, but IIRC, the network in question was configured in such a way that if it lost power longer than the UPS's could handle, it couldn't boot back up without Childs' help, and didn't this network handle the 911 system for the city?
If you don't own it, it's not yours.
He is intetionally helping people to commit what looks to me like actionable civil fraud. That's dishonest. Not necessarily illegal, perhaps, but certainly dishonest.
While strip clubs might well be unethical, from at least some points of view, the word for this is dishonest.
It's no surprise he conflates the two.
During a remodel of one of my employer's stores, we have trouble with our RF gun (laser scans bar codes, then prints price labels, runs off of 802.11whatever). When I went to troubleshoot it, near as I could figure, the contractors working upstairs has something that was putting out so much RF interference, the gun wouldn't boot because it couldn't read the flash memory soldered to the circuit board. Once the contractors left, it was all back to normal.
You don't get laid a lot, do you?
If what you say is true, it is proof that polygrahps are too unreliable to use for anything more than a party game.
I had exactly this happen. In the space of about two years, I went from doing phone support for Windows users and running a small LAN in the office to running (and building, from scratch) a multi-state VPN based WAN running mission critical functions (like cash registers). I was prepared, and it went smoothly. So smoothly, nobody noticed how difficult a task it was. Came annual review time, and I got a cost of living raise. I looked my boss right in the eye and told him, in no uncertain terms, that I deserved more, and why, and that I'd be updating my resume if I didn't get more. A few weeks later, I got more, the biggest percentage raise in the company's history.
Some important points:
Remain calm, polite and professional.
Explain your position in an objective manner, as in, "this is what I was hired for, and these are the specific duties that have been added since then."
Refer to any past performance reviews that have been positive, especially ones that reference the new, added duties.
And most important of all, and I cannot overemphasize this:
WORK FOR REASONABLE PEOPLE.
If you are concerned that your employer will respond negatively to you asking for a raise in a reasonable manner, with objective evidence to support your deserving it, you are probably right. And that means you are not working for reasonable people. And reasonable people will not take care of you.
Loyalty is a two way street, always. If it does not go in both directions, it's not loyalty, it's subsevience.
Penn & Teller taught a random woman who answered a Craig's List ad how to fake a polygraph response in less than 30 minutes.
It is common, yes. The justification, in California, at least, is that a traffic ticket is an infraction, not a misdemeanor, and for an infraction, you cannot go to jail (though you can and will if you don't pay the fine, but that's for contempt of court), making it a civil matter, so there's no right to a jury trial.
Craig's List has no knowledge of what transactions actually take place, regardless of what section. They do not know if a car was sold through the dealer section, or for how much, or to whom, or, really, by whom in many cases.
I did read your link. The SJ case didn't seem to be a criminal investigation,
Those two statements do not belong together. It was, in point of fact, a criminal investigation in to, IIRC, the theft of information regarding the workings of the 911 system, or some such.
Additionally, the verdict in that case didn't seem to be related to any journalist rights over and above the fact the SS incompetently seized a bunch of necessary business tools from a company with insufficient evidence that a crime had been committed. IMO, the verdict would have been the same if the company was George's Car Repairs, or John's Ice Creamery.
In point of fact, if you bothered to read in any depth, the acknowledged errors in the warrant were dismissed as irrelevant and unimportant. The entire civil case - which the Secret Service lost - was over the "Private Protection Act", 42 U.S.C. 2000aa violations. These have not to do with being journalists, but with being publishers. The relevant law was quoted in the ruling, available in full at http://www.sjgames.com/SS/decision-text.html :
"The Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa, dictates: "Notwithstanding ." _See_,
any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee,
in connection with the investigation . . . of a criminal offense to search
for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably
believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper,
broadcast, or other similar form of public communication . . .
42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000aa(a)."
Gizmodo has the same protection, as a publisher, assuming that what was seized contined "work product materials," which seems likely (from the very small amount of information available in the news stories). It is entirely relevant.
I disagree. Gizmodo's people need to take it up with the cops, and the cops need to take it up with Apple. Filing a false police report is a crime in California, and initiation a bogus civil legal action can bring SLAPP sanctions that have gone well in to six figures at times. Push hard enough, and Apple's lawyers could face criminal charges for barratry, in theory.
In any event, legally, once a court issued a warrant, Apple is in the clear so far as Gizmodo is concerned. G's only recourse is against the cops and the courts, who in turn may or may not pass on the love to Apple as they see fit.
There is a legitimate point here, though. Gizmodo knew the prototype was, legally speaking, stolen goods. Legally, the issue isn't that Apple wants to be an ass about it - you certainly would sing a different tune if it were your phone that was stolen and sold for several thousand bucks, right? - the legal issue is that publisehrs have specific protections regarding the seizure of equipment used in their business. The cops should have copied hard drives, but left the equipment there. That's what the Steven Jackson case firmly established.
The Secret Service is a law enforcement agency, honest. They have badges and everything. They did the seizing in the Steve Jackson Games case (which you would know if you'd followed the link, but this is Slashdot, so actually having a clue what you're talking is obviously expecting too much).
There are specific laws regarding the seizing of publishing equipment (like computers) from publishers (which Gizmodo certainly is), even with a warrant. Precisely how they apply in this case, I don't know, but I'll bet Gizmodo's lawyers do.
Now claim that unpublished articles were on the seized computers and file a claim against Apple and have the police come in and seize their computers. That'll teach 'em.
Actually, the proper course is to sue the police for violating their rights as a publisher, like Steve Jackson did (and won, including legal fees).
"Computers don't make mistakes!"
"Then why is there a multi-billion dollar a year industry to fix them?"
Unless he qualified for salaried exempt (and damned few computer people do), asking him to do that without pay is a crime in most states. Firing him for refusing to do so is a crime that might actually get some attention, depending on what state.
(Home IT support for the owner of the company I work for is explicitly part of my job, but a) he's not an idiot when it comes to computers, and b) since he tried having his nephew "who knows a lot about computers" fix something, he's been very, very polite to me.)
I hope the iCP team learns something from this.
Given that applying for a patent on something that you know someone else invented it blatant abuse of the patent system, I hope a lot of people learn something from this. Though I suspect not the same thing you're thinking of.
It would take you that long to duct tape an electric alarm clock to a generator and plug it in?
I guarantee shipment within 24 hours of the check clearing the bank.
There are several points where the obvious, default choice - including one during the installation procedure - is to upgrade to a paid version. It's dishonest, IMO.
This proposal isn't to detect what malware is present, or to remove it. It is onl to detect that there is some malware present, which can then lean to more thorough scanning to detect and remove. Knowing that something is there is half the battle.
What he takes seriously is his paycheck. He figured out a few years ago that people will pay him big bucks to make an ass of himself, and he'll do anything if you offer him enough money. For a big enough paycheck, I suspect he'd eat live babies on national television.
I have occasionally gotten my users to call me before clearing out the error message on the screen. But these day, I don't bother, because most of my users literally cannot read the error message off the screen while on the phone with me. Because "that's computer stuff, and I don't know anything about that."
Lord, how I wish I were exaggerating.
Typical, predictable, expected passive/aggressive response, right down to invoking Godwin's Law.
Fuck you, too, you passive/aggressive little pussy.
I'm not uncomfortable by people who are offended by my language. I simply don't care about them at all.
I am, however, very offended by people who believe they, and only they, have the right to tell me what words I am allowed to use, while I am not allowed to tell them what words they are allowed to use. Such people are not trying to make the world a better place, despite their politically correct lies. They are trying to make the world their place, and only theirs.
I hereby declare the first week of March to be Fuck Political Correctness In The Ass With A Spoon Week. Or Fuck The Politicaly Correct In The Ass With A Plasma Torch Week.