My dad has been involved in that exact scenario, except on a much, much larger scale. He was in charge of a number of sea-going vessels that normally carried asphalt and oil-based products. On one voyage, a ship was brought in to carry grain for charity to Bangladesh. En route, some of the grain was contaminated by leaking fuel oil. The president of the company told my dad that he didn't want to pay the $130,000 to properly dispose of the contaminated grain and instructed my dad to just dump it in the ocean. My dad refused and was fired. Then they dumped it anyway. Fortunately, the Coast Guard found out about it and brought everyone involved (except my dad) up on federal charges. The president ended up going to prison for 18 months and being fined around $750,000 (IIRC) because they could link the decision all the way up to him. The others got off with much lighter punishment, because they testified against the president. All to save $130,000.
It's called arbitrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage) and I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's been going on for decades, so good luck with your patent.
I know this might not be a popular opinion, but why should a business "really care" about keeping the IT department happy over any other department? Yes, they could do a lot of damage, but so could ANY disgruntled employee who walks in with a gun and starts shooting. Companies should treat ALL employees with respect, not grudgingly cozy up to IT because they feel like IT has them backed into a corner.
The other sense that I get from your statement was that it seemed like you were blaming management here. It feels a bit like, "Well, they didn't keep their IT staff happy, so they brought it upon themselves!" We don't know what the disagreement was, nor who was at fault for that disagreement. People get in disagreements all the time about relatively minor issues. Perhaps Shionogi wanted him to do something one way and he wanted to do it a different way. That's certainly not worthy of revenge. Right now, we just don't know. The simple fact remains that Mr. Cornish committed an act that was unethical and illegal and did substantial damage to the business. Yes, poor management controls and practices allowed this to take place, but they weren't the ones who committed the act.
Unfortunately, stating the words 'jury nullification' will bring up a blank stare in a majority of the populace. In some cases, believing in it can get you booted off the jury (if asked during jury selection). Judges also word their instructions very carefully with the express purpose of minimizing the possibility of nullification taking place.
Ah, the Calvin and Hobbes (or more specifically Calvin's father's) method to living life. You go on a "vacation" that is far worse than your every day life so that every day seems like a vacation.
Agreed. If you walked into a business and they proudly proclaimed that they had the highest "job to widget produced" ratio, I would think that screams inefficiency. Wouldn't you rather have the lowest dollar per renewable megawatt hour produced?
Here's where I have a hard time trying to justify the insurance piece. Insurance companies will do anything and everything to get out of paying. In the security world, insuring against a breach just seems to be fraught with an insanely high standard to receive compensation from the insurance company. In this case, I'm imagining a scenario where you have to PROVE to the insurance company that you did all you could to avoid such a breach, including up-to-date patches, social engineering training, penetration tests, etc, etc etc. Most of us here know how difficult security can be, especially for a larger firm.
To continue your health insurance analogy, can you imagine if you asked your health insurance company to reimburse you for something and they ask you to prove the following:
- That you have exercised three times a week for the past 36 months
- That you have eaten a healthy diet, strictly following the food pyramid and abstained from drugs including caffeine, tobacco and all illegal drugs
- That you regularly visit the doctor, dentist and optometrist for checkups
If you failed to be able to show good faith in those criteria, they would refuse to pay for your health care.
The issue that keeps popping up in my mind isn't whether insurance is a good idea. The issue in my mind is why bother with it if you stand little-to-no chance of actually collecting any money from it?
When I hear about things like this, I think back to why insurance was created, namely to protect you in case of a loss that you cannot afford. Think about what you insure, your home, your liability in a car accident or your life (and income potential therein). It appears that in this case, Sony can afford this failure, they're just trying to use insurance as a cost offset. Given what would seem to me like the relative ease of the insurance company denying coverage ("Were you fully patched and protected in every reasonably manner against breach? Prove it"), why would you bother with insurance in this case? Is there possibly some fiduciary responsibility to shareholders that is the cause?
I beg to differ. A good friend of mine went to law school and is now in his third year as an associate at a major law firm. He works something like 60 hours a week on average to make sure that he hits his goal of 40 billable hours a week. During three years of law school, I saw him a grand total of about four times and when I DID see him, he was studying (at all hours, Saturday, Sunday, late at night, you name it). I feel sorry for the guy. He's very well paid, but he never has any time to spend it. He just recently told me that he'd gladly cut his salary in half to work a normal 40 hours.
Now, when he gets a few more years in, I'm sure he'll be raking in even MORE cash and working less, but I'll never say he didn't earn it.
I can see your line of thought, but they aren't really buying up the whole supply of something. They're buying the whole supply of a very specific part. They aren't buying all the LCD panels in existence, they're buying model X-13342A (or whatever it is). Moreover, they're a major investor in the construction of a new plant, which may give them the ability to argue that they're actually EXPANDING the market by adding capacity. Finally, anti-trust laws may simply not apply where they are doing business.
Based on the article summary, if Apple is fronting the cash to BUILD factories in exchange for exclusive rights on the items the factory produces, I think it's fair to say that a lot of groundbreaking is going on.
Oh, I don't doubt that one bit. I've seen more than my fair share of idiots on the road (here in Atlanta as well as when I used to live in South Florida). I'm inclined to agree that the reasons you stated above point to why flying cars just won't happen (outside of complete AI control) and that pilots will tend to avoid mediocre hybrids.
I still want to buy a gyrocopter though. Commuting was going to be my ticket to justify it, but alas, it shall have to wait.
I can't say I'm surprised by the windshield exemption. That's an aircraft vs. car issue. The two are designed completely differently (maintaining visibility vs. maintaining integrity).
I am intrigued at the idea of commuting by air though. My employer often brings in people to discuss commuting options (as traffic is somewhat fickle here in Atlanta) and none of them would even discuss the potential of commuting via gyrocopter with me.
That's why I always thought it was hypocritical that China was criticizing the United States for not signing the treaty. It's easy to try to shame others into living by these rules while being exempt yourself.
I'd imagine that their meetings are quite short. Hell, anyone who has sat through an inane PowerPoint presentation (which is likely all of us) can sympathize, however I think it's a matter of using PowerPoint effectively and using good public speaking skills that is the core issue, not PowerPoint itself.
Didn't China sign on to the Kyoto Protocol? Of course China is categorized as a "developing nation" which means that they aren't subject to as stringent a reduction in emissions as an "industrialized" nation such as the US would be.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone else think that it was going to involve a bunch of Russians sitting around in camouflage with vodka and firearms?
I didn't know that Samuel L. Jackson was on Slashdot.
My dad has been involved in that exact scenario, except on a much, much larger scale. He was in charge of a number of sea-going vessels that normally carried asphalt and oil-based products. On one voyage, a ship was brought in to carry grain for charity to Bangladesh. En route, some of the grain was contaminated by leaking fuel oil. The president of the company told my dad that he didn't want to pay the $130,000 to properly dispose of the contaminated grain and instructed my dad to just dump it in the ocean. My dad refused and was fired. Then they dumped it anyway. Fortunately, the Coast Guard found out about it and brought everyone involved (except my dad) up on federal charges. The president ended up going to prison for 18 months and being fined around $750,000 (IIRC) because they could link the decision all the way up to him. The others got off with much lighter punishment, because they testified against the president. All to save $130,000.
It's called arbitrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage) and I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's been going on for decades, so good luck with your patent.
In this case, I was speaking more to the OP's summary of:
1) Find a an exploitable employee
2) Seduce them with hopes of seeing their child again this century
3) Collect incriminating evidence
4) Profit!
Again, as I also said in my original post, it doesn't matter, as he has pleaded guilty. Case over.
Wouldn't that be the definition of entrapment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
We also don't know the details of exactly how the offer was made. Of course, not that it matters now, as he's pleaded guilty.
How about "The Earth's Life Giving Goo could land on Europa's Face"
I know this might not be a popular opinion, but why should a business "really care" about keeping the IT department happy over any other department? Yes, they could do a lot of damage, but so could ANY disgruntled employee who walks in with a gun and starts shooting. Companies should treat ALL employees with respect, not grudgingly cozy up to IT because they feel like IT has them backed into a corner.
The other sense that I get from your statement was that it seemed like you were blaming management here. It feels a bit like, "Well, they didn't keep their IT staff happy, so they brought it upon themselves!" We don't know what the disagreement was, nor who was at fault for that disagreement. People get in disagreements all the time about relatively minor issues. Perhaps Shionogi wanted him to do something one way and he wanted to do it a different way. That's certainly not worthy of revenge. Right now, we just don't know. The simple fact remains that Mr. Cornish committed an act that was unethical and illegal and did substantial damage to the business. Yes, poor management controls and practices allowed this to take place, but they weren't the ones who committed the act.
Unfortunately, stating the words 'jury nullification' will bring up a blank stare in a majority of the populace. In some cases, believing in it can get you booted off the jury (if asked during jury selection). Judges also word their instructions very carefully with the express purpose of minimizing the possibility of nullification taking place.
I put it down more to the fact that he now has an AWESOME nickname.
I can see it now:
Previously
Spokesman: "Hey guys, Oscar Pistorius wants permission to race in the Olympics, do we let him in?"
Olympic Committee: "Meh."
Now
Spokesman: "Hey guys, The Blade Runner wants permission to race in the World Championships."
World Athletic Committee: "Oh hell yeah!"
Ah, the Calvin and Hobbes (or more specifically Calvin's father's) method to living life. You go on a "vacation" that is far worse than your every day life so that every day seems like a vacation.
Agreed. If you walked into a business and they proudly proclaimed that they had the highest "job to widget produced" ratio, I would think that screams inefficiency. Wouldn't you rather have the lowest dollar per renewable megawatt hour produced?
Here's where I have a hard time trying to justify the insurance piece. Insurance companies will do anything and everything to get out of paying. In the security world, insuring against a breach just seems to be fraught with an insanely high standard to receive compensation from the insurance company. In this case, I'm imagining a scenario where you have to PROVE to the insurance company that you did all you could to avoid such a breach, including up-to-date patches, social engineering training, penetration tests, etc, etc etc. Most of us here know how difficult security can be, especially for a larger firm.
To continue your health insurance analogy, can you imagine if you asked your health insurance company to reimburse you for something and they ask you to prove the following:
- That you have exercised three times a week for the past 36 months
- That you have eaten a healthy diet, strictly following the food pyramid and abstained from drugs including caffeine, tobacco and all illegal drugs
- That you regularly visit the doctor, dentist and optometrist for checkups
If you failed to be able to show good faith in those criteria, they would refuse to pay for your health care.
The issue that keeps popping up in my mind isn't whether insurance is a good idea. The issue in my mind is why bother with it if you stand little-to-no chance of actually collecting any money from it?
When I hear about things like this, I think back to why insurance was created, namely to protect you in case of a loss that you cannot afford. Think about what you insure, your home, your liability in a car accident or your life (and income potential therein). It appears that in this case, Sony can afford this failure, they're just trying to use insurance as a cost offset. Given what would seem to me like the relative ease of the insurance company denying coverage ("Were you fully patched and protected in every reasonably manner against breach? Prove it"), why would you bother with insurance in this case? Is there possibly some fiduciary responsibility to shareholders that is the cause?
I beg to differ. A good friend of mine went to law school and is now in his third year as an associate at a major law firm. He works something like 60 hours a week on average to make sure that he hits his goal of 40 billable hours a week. During three years of law school, I saw him a grand total of about four times and when I DID see him, he was studying (at all hours, Saturday, Sunday, late at night, you name it). I feel sorry for the guy. He's very well paid, but he never has any time to spend it. He just recently told me that he'd gladly cut his salary in half to work a normal 40 hours.
Now, when he gets a few more years in, I'm sure he'll be raking in even MORE cash and working less, but I'll never say he didn't earn it.
Yes. It's called a "Director of Marketing."
That kind of text tends to happen when there are meetings between marketing and legal (what an unholy union that must be).
It really should be "don't be evil*"
* Google's definition of evil may differ from your and/or commonly held definitions of evil.
I can see your line of thought, but they aren't really buying up the whole supply of something. They're buying the whole supply of a very specific part. They aren't buying all the LCD panels in existence, they're buying model X-13342A (or whatever it is). Moreover, they're a major investor in the construction of a new plant, which may give them the ability to argue that they're actually EXPANDING the market by adding capacity. Finally, anti-trust laws may simply not apply where they are doing business.
Based on the article summary, if Apple is fronting the cash to BUILD factories in exchange for exclusive rights on the items the factory produces, I think it's fair to say that a lot of groundbreaking is going on.
Oh, I don't doubt that one bit. I've seen more than my fair share of idiots on the road (here in Atlanta as well as when I used to live in South Florida). I'm inclined to agree that the reasons you stated above point to why flying cars just won't happen (outside of complete AI control) and that pilots will tend to avoid mediocre hybrids. I still want to buy a gyrocopter though. Commuting was going to be my ticket to justify it, but alas, it shall have to wait.
I can't say I'm surprised by the windshield exemption. That's an aircraft vs. car issue. The two are designed completely differently (maintaining visibility vs. maintaining integrity).
I am intrigued at the idea of commuting by air though. My employer often brings in people to discuss commuting options (as traffic is somewhat fickle here in Atlanta) and none of them would even discuss the potential of commuting via gyrocopter with me.
That's why I always thought it was hypocritical that China was criticizing the United States for not signing the treaty. It's easy to try to shame others into living by these rules while being exempt yourself.
I'd imagine that their meetings are quite short. Hell, anyone who has sat through an inane PowerPoint presentation (which is likely all of us) can sympathize, however I think it's a matter of using PowerPoint effectively and using good public speaking skills that is the core issue, not PowerPoint itself.
Didn't China sign on to the Kyoto Protocol? Of course China is categorized as a "developing nation" which means that they aren't subject to as stringent a reduction in emissions as an "industrialized" nation such as the US would be.
Hrm... incompetent, robotic and groping. That sounds an awful lot like the TSA!