Probably the best thing you can do is to exercise your trunk muscles. Back pain is often caused by a person placing too much strain (sitting in a bad position, etc) on their lower back muscles. By developing them, you will tend to adjust your posture and improve their ability to handle abuse.
Why is that statement bad? If this was a true "moral" society, that would be a bad statement. People would, at work, perform work related activities. If surfing porn sites was connected to work, they would. If it wasn't, they wouldn't.
But I find it hard to consider ours a "moral" society. People act in self-centered ways without considering the impact on others. So now a person who needs to surf at work can, while someone who just wants to surf porn using the high-speed internet connection at work, making ME do more work because they're, uhhh, occupied (yeah, I'm reading this at work) can't. I don't see the problem with this.
How is this bad? Start counting, because I'm really interested to see your ways. I personally don't want to go to a co-worker's cube and see a picture of a guy shoving parts of his body in strange orfices. I personally don't like that. If they want to see that, I don't care. Just don't put it in a place where I can easily see it. That's rather rude (among other things) and disrespectful of the others at that job.
Depends on what you mean by 'owe'... legally, a verbal promise is a verbal contract... which is usually meaningless because it's 'your word against mine' but -this- promise was witnessed by an entire class. Thus, it's arguable in court (winnable being another thing) that money is due.
Unfortunately, this probably would be quickly tossed out of court, assuming that a lawyer could be found to take the case. I'm assuming that there is a relevant law forbidding his action. It doesn't matter if the teacher challenged him - that's a completely seperate issue (important, yes, but still seperate. See last paragraph.).
It is impossible for an agreement between two parties to be considered a contract if one of the acts under the contract is illegal. For example, if I have a signed, notarized contract where I offered to pay you $2,000,000 for killing Bill Gates, you could not go to court to force me to pay you if you did actually kill Bill Gates.
Where this could get tricky is the question of implied consent by the teacher (position of apparent authority) to the student to break into the system. This would probably be a fun legal case to follow.
Sorry - I should have put your point in there. Police offices are generally trusted by people becuase the vast majority of them across the US have repeated shown that they are deserving of that trust.
One of my best friends is a state trooper in Missouri. I can't think of a more difficult and stressful job. His first assignment was the night shift along one of the biggest Meth corridors in the country. Every time he stopped someone, there was the chance that this car was transporting and he was in over his head. He's now in St. Louis btw, much safer!
Likewise, is anyone REALLY surprised they DIDN'T take the word of the defendant?
Look at the groups the two people are from (police, Evil Hacker's magazine). In general, how do you think an average, minimally computer-literate person will view the words from a member of that group?
A police officer in general is given a high level of initial trust. As long as the officer does nothing to harm that level of trust, their word has a large impact on another person, especially a juror. Once they harm that level of trust though, they tend to fall MUCH farther than another, non-officer would.
This community is biased in the other direction, and would probably take the words from each party at the same weight, or tend to distrust the words from the police officer. It would be interesting to determine if any of the potential jurors were questions as to their knowledge/experience with 2600.
This election makes it look like your vote counts less, winning the popular vote but loosing the electoral vote.
I've got a problem when people say your vote counts less because of the "popular" vote.
The President is elected by the people of the states, not by the people. There's a key difference there. We tend to look at this election as being a national election, with results that should be national. But should they?
Under the Electoral College method, the number of Electors is the number of the members of Congress that state has. Each state is able to determine who they feel should be president. With every state having two Senators, the potential for a single state with large population to skew the results of an election are reduced to a reasonable level.
This system does NOT prevent the will of the people, it tends to balance the view out some. A small state now has some impact the election, but a large state doesn't have as much an impact. It's not perfect, but the United States was formed as a collection of States will all powers not granted to the Federal Goverment reserved for the states. This is a way that states are kept somewhat "in balance".
On many IPO's, there is an attempt to restrict the participants to people who have an understanding of the risk of the IPO.
The stock market is designed as a mechanism to efficiently allocate capital to companies, not for day traders. Our system (and most other stock markets for that matter) tends to run into problems with large, rapid orders (see the crash of '87 and the changes to program trading).
People are more than willing to sue anyone, anytime they lose money. I used to work for a small brokerage firm (not as a broker though, so IANAB), and we had a client sue us over investment losses. Despite a signed statement that they understood they could lose money, even their principal. We won, but barely.
These arbitration boards don't always follow the law as you would expect. The arbitrators are taken from the business, academia and the legal profession. All it takes is 1 or 2 arbitrators with a fairly liberal viewpoint and the company is in trouble, even if they've done everything possible to explain to the client the risk.
- Ravensfire
Before people make a big deal out of this, realize that an e-mail is not a legal document. If you receive one, by all means get legal counsel, but do not reply to the letter as you can plausibly claim that you never received it.
I'd be careful about that. If you receive an e-mail, and someone asks you directly if you have received it (and asks you under oath), the best you can do is say something like "I don't recall." If you say "No", you have just perjured yourself. And that is both illegal AND unethical.
It's possible that the threshold for a felony IS only a hundred dollars or so. It doesn't take much before shoplifting becomes a fairly significant crime.
I do think that this IS a punishment that fits the crime. So you've got to put on your resume that you hacked into a site, caused damage to it (physical or financial) and then got caught. And this is a bad thing to have disclosed?
If I'm an employer, I'm looking not at just your techinical skills, but what kind of person you are. ESPECIALLY if you are going to be coding for me. If you've hacked into a site before, I want to know that. If I hire you, I might want to check your code a bit more carefully. You've already demostrated that you might not have the strictest set of morals when is comes to other peoples property. You've already willingly destroyed someone else's stuff once. What will stop you from doing it again, this time to me? This would be a critical discussion that I, as am employer, would want to have with you, a potential employee.
Be careful with the "plausible deniablity" stuff. It's usually used if there is a layer between you and the illegal/unethical activities.
If you are getting the C&D e-mails, you can't plausibly deny that you didn't get them or were unaware that they were sent to you without actually lying. Although it's become far too common (personal thought there - IANAL), lying while under oath is not just perjury, it's the surest way to undermine ANY legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the best thing you can do is to exercise your trunk muscles. Back pain is often caused by a person placing too much strain (sitting in a bad position, etc) on their lower back muscles. By developing them, you will tend to adjust your posture and improve their ability to handle abuse.
Why is that statement bad? If this was a true "moral" society, that would be a bad statement. People would, at work, perform work related activities. If surfing porn sites was connected to work, they would. If it wasn't, they wouldn't.
But I find it hard to consider ours a "moral" society. People act in self-centered ways without considering the impact on others. So now a person who needs to surf at work can, while someone who just wants to surf porn using the high-speed internet connection at work, making ME do more work because they're, uhhh, occupied (yeah, I'm reading this at work) can't. I don't see the problem with this.
How is this bad? Start counting, because I'm really interested to see your ways. I personally don't want to go to a co-worker's cube and see a picture of a guy shoving parts of his body in strange orfices. I personally don't like that. If they want to see that, I don't care. Just don't put it in a place where I can easily see it. That's rather rude (among other things) and disrespectful of the others at that job.
-- Ravensfire
Depends on what you mean by 'owe'... legally, a verbal promise is a verbal contract... which is usually meaningless because it's 'your word against mine' but -this- promise was witnessed by an entire class. Thus, it's arguable in court (winnable being another thing) that money is due.
Unfortunately, this probably would be quickly tossed out of court, assuming that a lawyer could be found to take the case. I'm assuming that there is a relevant law forbidding his action. It doesn't matter if the teacher challenged him - that's a completely seperate issue (important, yes, but still seperate. See last paragraph.).
It is impossible for an agreement between two parties to be considered a contract if one of the acts under the contract is illegal. For example, if I have a signed, notarized contract where I offered to pay you $2,000,000 for killing Bill Gates, you could not go to court to force me to pay you if you did actually kill Bill Gates.
Where this could get tricky is the question of implied consent by the teacher (position of apparent authority) to the student to break into the system. This would probably be a fun legal case to follow.
-- Ravensfire (IANAL)
Sorry - I should have put your point in there. Police offices are generally trusted by people becuase the vast majority of them across the US have repeated shown that they are deserving of that trust.
One of my best friends is a state trooper in Missouri. I can't think of a more difficult and stressful job. His first assignment was the night shift along one of the biggest Meth corridors in the country. Every time he stopped someone, there was the chance that this car was transporting and he was in over his head. He's now in St. Louis btw, much safer!
Thanks for pointing that out.
-- Ravensfire
Likewise, is anyone REALLY surprised they DIDN'T take the word of the defendant?
Look at the groups the two people are from (police, Evil Hacker's magazine). In general, how do you think an average, minimally computer-literate person will view the words from a member of that group?
A police officer in general is given a high level of initial trust. As long as the officer does nothing to harm that level of trust, their word has a large impact on another person, especially a juror. Once they harm that level of trust though, they tend to fall MUCH farther than another, non-officer would.
This community is biased in the other direction, and would probably take the words from each party at the same weight, or tend to distrust the words from the police officer. It would be interesting to determine if any of the potential jurors were questions as to their knowledge/experience with 2600.
-- Ravensfire
This election makes it look like your vote counts less, winning the popular vote but loosing the electoral vote.
I've got a problem when people say your vote counts less because of the "popular" vote.
The President is elected by the people of the states, not by the people. There's a key difference there. We tend to look at this election as being a national election, with results that should be national. But should they?
Under the Electoral College method, the number of Electors is the number of the members of Congress that state has. Each state is able to determine who they feel should be president. With every state having two Senators, the potential for a single state with large population to skew the results of an election are reduced to a reasonable level.
This system does NOT prevent the will of the people, it tends to balance the view out some. A small state now has some impact the election, but a large state doesn't have as much an impact. It's not perfect, but the United States was formed as a collection of States will all powers not granted to the Federal Goverment reserved for the states. This is a way that states are kept somewhat "in balance".
-- Ravensfire
I had to fill out EVERY line, even the second line of the address.
Worked just fine then! (US Address)
-- Ravensfire
On many IPO's, there is an attempt to restrict the participants to people who have an understanding of the risk of the IPO.
The stock market is designed as a mechanism to efficiently allocate capital to companies, not for day traders. Our system (and most other stock markets for that matter) tends to run into problems with large, rapid orders (see the crash of '87 and the changes to program trading).
People are more than willing to sue anyone, anytime they lose money. I used to work for a small brokerage firm (not as a broker though, so IANAB), and we had a client sue us over investment losses. Despite a signed statement that they understood they could lose money, even their principal. We won, but barely.
These arbitration boards don't always follow the law as you would expect. The arbitrators are taken from the business, academia and the legal profession. All it takes is 1 or 2 arbitrators with a fairly liberal viewpoint and the company is in trouble, even if they've done everything possible to explain to the client the risk. - Ravensfire
Before people make a big deal out of this, realize that an e-mail is not a legal document. If you receive one, by all means get legal counsel, but do not reply to the letter as you can plausibly claim that you never received it.
I'd be careful about that. If you receive an e-mail, and someone asks you directly if you have received it (and asks you under oath), the best you can do is say something like "I don't recall." If you say "No", you have just perjured yourself. And that is both illegal AND unethical.
It's possible that the threshold for a felony IS only a hundred dollars or so. It doesn't take much before shoplifting becomes a fairly significant crime.
I do think that this IS a punishment that fits the crime. So you've got to put on your resume that you hacked into a site, caused damage to it (physical or financial) and then got caught. And this is a bad thing to have disclosed?
If I'm an employer, I'm looking not at just your techinical skills, but what kind of person you are. ESPECIALLY if you are going to be coding for me. If you've hacked into a site before, I want to know that. If I hire you, I might want to check your code a bit more carefully. You've already demostrated that you might not have the strictest set of morals when is comes to other peoples property. You've already willingly destroyed someone else's stuff once. What will stop you from doing it again, this time to me? This would be a critical discussion that I, as am employer, would want to have with you, a potential employee.
-- Ravensfire
BTW - IANAE
Be careful with the "plausible deniablity" stuff. It's usually used if there is a layer between you and the illegal/unethical activities.
If you are getting the C&D e-mails, you can't plausibly deny that you didn't get them or were unaware that they were sent to you without actually lying. Although it's become far too common (personal thought there - IANAL), lying while under oath is not just perjury, it's the surest way to undermine ANY legal system.