If you had a gun, and it fires and kills someone whether you are guilty of murder or not is typically based on what the Court thinks your intentions were.
Um, yes it is. Murder 1 vs Murder 2 vs Manslaughter.
The prosecution mentioned that the images were saved on his hard drive via the browser cache. However the court ruled that this was not the same as having a saved image.
The court asserted that there must be some deliberate action to save/store said images, not just a transitory download via a browser.
Oh don't get me wrong. I agree it's ridiculous to let a layman jury decide anything at all about this. I was just arguing that the order of the decisions makes sense to avoid setting precedent needlessly. Regardless though, a jury should have no say. Get a pool of technical experts to say if Google infringed on Oracle's API. If they say no, then you're done. If they say yes, then let the judge determine the legality of API copyright. If you do it the other way around, then you could end up setting legal precedent on API copyright from a case that actually had nothing to do with API's (if it turned out that Google didn't even copy the API in the first place). But yes, technical experts, not laymen jurors. Please.
My iPhone doesn't cost me $2000, because I would be paying the exact same price for my data plan if I bought the phone outright. It's totally different from this situation, where you're paying up to $10 more a month for the subscription than you would be if you bought the xbox outright. This is effectively a payment plan (aka a loan), not a subscription subsidy; there's a huge difference between the two. And yes, payment plans can be useful, but in this case, I take offense at the method of hiding that fact behind the idea that it's a subscription subsidy.
But the point is, if the jury had decided that even if API's could be copyrighted, that Google still wouldn't have been in violation, then there would be no reason to decide whether or not API's can be copyrighted. In that case, the judge would say, we're done, Google's safe, and someone else can decide the broader ruling when it's truly necessary. As it is now, the broader ruling is in fact necessary for this case, so now the judge will decide that.
Courts are all about not setting precedent unless strictly necessary. So from that standpoint, it makes sense to rule on the most minimal set first. I.e. if there was a violation in this specific case. If that is successfully determined, then they're forced to decide on the much broader idea of whether or not such rulings are valid in the first place. If they didn't do it this way, then a court would have much more leeway to decide arbitrary things. Ultimately, I think it's better not to have a court system that makes many unnecessarily broad rulings.
I think the confusion is that usually you don't provide the proof yourself. You just fill out a background check form that requires you to list all years/degrees of education and past work history. Maybe certain small business don't do this, but every large company I've worked for certainly did. Usually it's after they've given (and you've accepted) an offer, and often they have a 3rd party company that specializes in background checks do it. Theoretically, they then call your schools and at least the last two places of employment to verify. This is separate from reference checking, which very few places actually do (in part because many companies actually have a no-reference-giving policy in the first place).
Personally, I find it incredibly hard to buy all the posters here who claim to be so amazingly honest that one lie is utterly unacceptable (and would actually make you question everything else the guy has or will do). I seriously doubt there's anyone here who hasn't lied ever in their adult life, probably even if you exclude basic white lies. Probably, a significant majority here has even lied about something work-related. So, frankly, I find it pretty hypocritical to be so down on this guy for even the hint of a lie (it's really not yet entirely clear where the claim came from).
I think it's the opposite . . . if he lied 30 years ago, who cares? Everyone makes some mistakes regarding work. He has since built up a strong record of hard work (presumably, I don't really know) that ultimately got him these CEO jobs. If he explicitly lied about his degree to get the job at yahoo, then absolutely he should be fired (but I doubt it).
Any other employee would be fired for lying on a resume. It's not about the fraudulent answer -- it's about the fact of the lie. It's about them being untrustworthy. It's about you having to question everything they say. It's about the deeper question of whether you can count on them at all.
I just don't think that's true. Any instance I've seen of someone being fired over something like this, it was due to it being a meaningful lie. If I say I love crosswords on my resume in the personal section, but actually I hate them, will I be fired for it? Extremely doubtful. Same goes for someone like Thompson and a 30+ year old degree.
Legally, that is an interesting point. Someone should mod parent up. I was primarily arguing from a moral/business ground. But legally, yes, it may ultimately fall on the CEO to verify statements to the SEC (especially if it's about his own background).
Well, I agree with that. If he has this in his resume, whoever hired him based on it should be mad. However, I don't believe someone should be punished retroactively for something 20 years ago. Nor is that any real indication of character; it's pretty hard to say someone who lied once (or a few times...) 20 years ago is a terrible person. I think you really have to know it was coming from a place of malice within relatively recent history to justify firing over it.
Honestly, I truly doubt his supposed CS degree from 1979 ever ONCE came up in the board's discussion to hire him. It's entirely irrelevant to the job at hand. In all likelihood it was either taken straight from his bio on e-bay (which may or may not have come from him) or the 5th page of his resume that hadn't been updated in 20 years. It's not about him being CEO, it's about whether a degree even matters for a 50+ year old employee with a strong employment background. It doesn't.
Yes, a junior programmer who explicitly lied about his degree should get fired, because that would be a critical part of the decision to hire him. But an older employee gets hired based on a solid work history and his degree may never come into question. In that case, CEO or not, the employee would probably not get fired just for having a lie 5 pages deep in his resume.
Now if there was a background check form that had him write in his education history anew and sign a "this is true to my knowledge" statement, and he still put the degree on there, perhaps there's some basis for termination just for the explicit lie. But it's not at all clear that that exists. Personally, I think it's just as likely that e-bay doctored the bio at some point to make itself feel better about him, and yahoo simply copied that without much thought.
That would be an incredibly interesting test case of prostitution vs TSA. In fact, there's nothing now that says that a private company can't do this for "security". I'd like to see someone try, and then cite the TSA's groping policy when called on it.
Actually, it turns out that Osama bin Laden was just a really really deep cover FBI agent, trying to entice people into committing terrorist acts in order to later arrest them.
Disagree. If you flood the market with fakes, and then arrest everyone who buys the fakes, you'll end up with fewer people willing or able to buy the real stuff.
If by cherry picking you mean prioritizing and optimizing the things that people are most likely to search for over junk that very few people care about...
.... such as what flights are physically above you at the moment? Yep, that's some serious prioritizing.
Not if they do a small float. For a company that doesn't really need the cash, there's no reason to give away a lot of shares. Facebook is far from a typical IPO. The only reason they're IPO-ing is to give employees (and founders) liquidity, and because they probably have to, according to SEC rules. Currently, it appears they plan roughly a 5% float, which isn't enough to dilute Zuckerberg out of the majority ownership. (They would need to sell off over 12% to get him under 50%.)
Thanks. I guess that sounds about right. Except for the fact that it assumes that the banks wouldn't come up with a way to essentially do the same thing anyway. The reason we have our current mortgage system at all is due to the ingenuity of the banks (well, of the employees they pay massive amounts of money to anyway). The concept of amortizing a loan evenly over 30 years was a huge break-thru and let many more people enter the housing market. And the concept of CMO's to breakup mortgages into more appealing investments was likewise a break-thru that pulled the interest rates way down from the double digits of the 80's. Like you said, a lot of times the banks are lending out money that almost immediately comes right back to them. They don't strictly need a government-run fiat currency for that, they can simply come up with their own "currency" of whatever form is allowed. So I bet you'd still need some pretty significant regulation to prevent this sort of thing in a gold-standard.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right.... Lol, but I guess many people misunderstood the same way, since I still got modded-up for it.
If you had a gun, and it fires and kills someone whether you are guilty of murder or not is typically based on what the Court thinks your intentions were.
Um, yes it is. Murder 1 vs Murder 2 vs Manslaughter.
Mine's worse! :(
The prosecution mentioned that the images were saved on his hard drive via the browser cache. However the court ruled that this was not the same as having a saved image.
The court asserted that there must be some deliberate action to save/store said images, not just a transitory download via a browser.
Or don't broadcast it at all....
Oh don't get me wrong. I agree it's ridiculous to let a layman jury decide anything at all about this. I was just arguing that the order of the decisions makes sense to avoid setting precedent needlessly. Regardless though, a jury should have no say. Get a pool of technical experts to say if Google infringed on Oracle's API. If they say no, then you're done. If they say yes, then let the judge determine the legality of API copyright. If you do it the other way around, then you could end up setting legal precedent on API copyright from a case that actually had nothing to do with API's (if it turned out that Google didn't even copy the API in the first place). But yes, technical experts, not laymen jurors. Please.
My iPhone doesn't cost me $2000, because I would be paying the exact same price for my data plan if I bought the phone outright. It's totally different from this situation, where you're paying up to $10 more a month for the subscription than you would be if you bought the xbox outright. This is effectively a payment plan (aka a loan), not a subscription subsidy; there's a huge difference between the two. And yes, payment plans can be useful, but in this case, I take offense at the method of hiding that fact behind the idea that it's a subscription subsidy.
But the point is, if the jury had decided that even if API's could be copyrighted, that Google still wouldn't have been in violation, then there would be no reason to decide whether or not API's can be copyrighted. In that case, the judge would say, we're done, Google's safe, and someone else can decide the broader ruling when it's truly necessary. As it is now, the broader ruling is in fact necessary for this case, so now the judge will decide that.
Courts are all about not setting precedent unless strictly necessary. So from that standpoint, it makes sense to rule on the most minimal set first. I.e. if there was a violation in this specific case. If that is successfully determined, then they're forced to decide on the much broader idea of whether or not such rulings are valid in the first place. If they didn't do it this way, then a court would have much more leeway to decide arbitrary things. Ultimately, I think it's better not to have a court system that makes many unnecessarily broad rulings.
I think the confusion is that usually you don't provide the proof yourself. You just fill out a background check form that requires you to list all years/degrees of education and past work history. Maybe certain small business don't do this, but every large company I've worked for certainly did. Usually it's after they've given (and you've accepted) an offer, and often they have a 3rd party company that specializes in background checks do it. Theoretically, they then call your schools and at least the last two places of employment to verify. This is separate from reference checking, which very few places actually do (in part because many companies actually have a no-reference-giving policy in the first place).
Personally, I find it incredibly hard to buy all the posters here who claim to be so amazingly honest that one lie is utterly unacceptable (and would actually make you question everything else the guy has or will do). I seriously doubt there's anyone here who hasn't lied ever in their adult life, probably even if you exclude basic white lies. Probably, a significant majority here has even lied about something work-related. So, frankly, I find it pretty hypocritical to be so down on this guy for even the hint of a lie (it's really not yet entirely clear where the claim came from).
I think it's the opposite . . . if he lied 30 years ago, who cares? Everyone makes some mistakes regarding work. He has since built up a strong record of hard work (presumably, I don't really know) that ultimately got him these CEO jobs. If he explicitly lied about his degree to get the job at yahoo, then absolutely he should be fired (but I doubt it).
Any other employee would be fired for lying on a resume. It's not about the fraudulent answer -- it's about the fact of the lie. It's about them being untrustworthy. It's about you having to question everything they say. It's about the deeper question of whether you can count on them at all.
I just don't think that's true. Any instance I've seen of someone being fired over something like this, it was due to it being a meaningful lie. If I say I love crosswords on my resume in the personal section, but actually I hate them, will I be fired for it? Extremely doubtful. Same goes for someone like Thompson and a 30+ year old degree.
Legally, that is an interesting point. Someone should mod parent up. I was primarily arguing from a moral/business ground. But legally, yes, it may ultimately fall on the CEO to verify statements to the SEC (especially if it's about his own background).
Well, I agree with that. If he has this in his resume, whoever hired him based on it should be mad. However, I don't believe someone should be punished retroactively for something 20 years ago. Nor is that any real indication of character; it's pretty hard to say someone who lied once (or a few times...) 20 years ago is a terrible person. I think you really have to know it was coming from a place of malice within relatively recent history to justify firing over it.
Honestly, I truly doubt his supposed CS degree from 1979 ever ONCE came up in the board's discussion to hire him. It's entirely irrelevant to the job at hand. In all likelihood it was either taken straight from his bio on e-bay (which may or may not have come from him) or the 5th page of his resume that hadn't been updated in 20 years. It's not about him being CEO, it's about whether a degree even matters for a 50+ year old employee with a strong employment background. It doesn't.
Yes, a junior programmer who explicitly lied about his degree should get fired, because that would be a critical part of the decision to hire him. But an older employee gets hired based on a solid work history and his degree may never come into question. In that case, CEO or not, the employee would probably not get fired just for having a lie 5 pages deep in his resume.
Now if there was a background check form that had him write in his education history anew and sign a "this is true to my knowledge" statement, and he still put the degree on there, perhaps there's some basis for termination just for the explicit lie. But it's not at all clear that that exists. Personally, I think it's just as likely that e-bay doctored the bio at some point to make itself feel better about him, and yahoo simply copied that without much thought.
That would be an incredibly interesting test case of prostitution vs TSA. In fact, there's nothing now that says that a private company can't do this for "security". I'd like to see someone try, and then cite the TSA's groping policy when called on it.
Actually, it turns out that Osama bin Laden was just a really really deep cover FBI agent, trying to entice people into committing terrorist acts in order to later arrest them.
Let's have a major UI refresh every quarter!
Disagree. If you flood the market with fakes, and then arrest everyone who buys the fakes, you'll end up with fewer people willing or able to buy the real stuff.
If by cherry picking you mean prioritizing and optimizing the things that people are most likely to search for over junk that very few people care about ...
.... such as what flights are physically above you at the moment? Yep, that's some serious prioritizing.
Google "Cherry picking"
Not if they do a small float. For a company that doesn't really need the cash, there's no reason to give away a lot of shares. Facebook is far from a typical IPO. The only reason they're IPO-ing is to give employees (and founders) liquidity, and because they probably have to, according to SEC rules. Currently, it appears they plan roughly a 5% float, which isn't enough to dilute Zuckerberg out of the majority ownership. (They would need to sell off over 12% to get him under 50%.)
Interesting. Possibly. Except it's more likely related to the capital gains tax being so low, not the marginal rate.
Thanks. I guess that sounds about right. Except for the fact that it assumes that the banks wouldn't come up with a way to essentially do the same thing anyway. The reason we have our current mortgage system at all is due to the ingenuity of the banks (well, of the employees they pay massive amounts of money to anyway). The concept of amortizing a loan evenly over 30 years was a huge break-thru and let many more people enter the housing market. And the concept of CMO's to breakup mortgages into more appealing investments was likewise a break-thru that pulled the interest rates way down from the double digits of the 80's. Like you said, a lot of times the banks are lending out money that almost immediately comes right back to them. They don't strictly need a government-run fiat currency for that, they can simply come up with their own "currency" of whatever form is allowed. So I bet you'd still need some pretty significant regulation to prevent this sort of thing in a gold-standard.