But really, what's the truth? If you were on one of their watch lists and flew anywhere that could possibly be diverted into the USA, or Canada/etc who will hand suspects over to the USA, you're as good as their subject. Or if you live in a country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and they send in a team of commandos, again you're their subject.
But before you argue, or care, ask who you're saving yourself for. Who owns you? For certainly if you live anywhere the "authorities" would hand you over to the USA you can't be said to be free. Even if those authorities merely guarantee your relative disarmament such that you could easily be taken you can't really be said to be free.
So yeah, unless you're Russian or Chinese, you're American property, and you certainly aren't free in any case.
Nobody is suggesting stopping gambling, just non-state sponsored gambling where taxes aren't being paid. All your moralizing about gambling is totally irrelevant here because the US Gov would be really happy if the addicts would ruin their lives in approved casinos.
It's absolute theft to take this money. It belonged to one person, he gave it to another, they gave some back. Now the government decides that like the "house" in a crooked casino we can't leave, we owe a percentage of each transaction to them. For the favour of doing business in their turf.
Like all taxation it's theft.
But because we're all already screwed sixty-seven different ways from various taxes we're content to sit by for, no - we demand that, the government put the screws to someone else because we desperately believe the lie that it'll lighten our burden.
But it's just theft. Seizing evil gambling winnings to pay for orphanages (and the staggering collapse of the banking system) is a winning political move because it's nothing more than "See that shady-looking guy? Let's beat him up and take his money!" People are always willing to ignore the rights of others for a quick buck - or the promise of one.
(cough) See that Iraqi with that oil well... One quick little war...(/cough)
This zero-strikes policy is ridiculous and just because it's real doesn't mean you should live your life in fear of it. It can't be predicted because there's no end to made-up crimes or ways for things to coincidentally appear related to you.
Besides, if your job really was that tenuous one spam could end it. And in the end if it did we'd (collectively) be better off because you'd be free to work at a company focused on something other than petty censorship while your old company slowly tanked.
And yeah, this is assuming they don't fire your lazy ass for chatting.
Great. I generally dislike Visa and your action will force them to remove the machine or otherwise punish the merchant, thus encouraging adoption of other payment methods (or at least keeping cash viable). In the end it'll hurt only Visa, MC, etc.
Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.
Had you said "is not seen by the courts as being unreasonable" it would have been descriptive of the current legal situation.
You said "is not unreasonable". That's your view.
And yes, you certainly do seem to think forfeiture laws are reasonable. You argue for the necessity of them in some posts, and explain aspects of them in other posts with the apparent goal of showing how they're aren't unreasonable (the quoted sentence for example).
You point out trivial details of the law as if they matter without realizing that it's the mere existence of the law that everyone else finds objectionable. You're a lawyer (or act like one) and you're not (that I see) fighting some bastards like SCO or Scientology, or campaigning to simplify law, so you do seem to think it's peachy-keen. Job security I guess.
So you don't think courts should have power over property
So you don't think carebears should have power over the moon?
No, frankly it's ridiculous. Almost nonsensical.
where they don't have power over a known owner (such as when the owner is outside of the jurisdiction)?
Now you're getting crazy! There's no jurisdiction outside the USA's laws.
Seriously, if you've got property in my jurisdiction should I make up some crazy legal fiction about suing the property or just treat you like you're in my jurisdiction, to a maximum claim of seizing all your available assets (the property I've already got).
It might seem like a clueless nitpick to you, but while various legal maneuvers might make your job seem clearer they break the useful relation between the legal system, the real world, and just outcomes. To lawyers it seems to make no difference if the law makes sense as long as it spits out answers that keep the world running - which is largely independent to the fates of individuals.
But to everyone else the law is code to be followed/forced-into in daily life. Here the crazy legal shenanigans such as having your property sued in a drug case are mind-boggling and amount to nothing more in use than arbitrary 'lose your life savings' and 'lose your freedom' cards.
While you and yours may find a law less useful because it doesn't handily handle some tax-related corner cases, remember that you merely work in the law and we live in it.
So kindly piss off with telling us in this condescending voice that the law needs to be complex for reasons beyond our simple understanding. Many of us here are computer programmers/etc, capable of abstract thought far more complex than anything you with your squishy legal decisions can imagine, and we understand the fundamental issues of information theory and complexity. While it IS hard to model complex situations, flawed models help nobody, especially backed by government fiat.
Where do you live? I want to be able to point the newly bankrupt gamblers there so that when they take out their frustration at insane property-seizure laws they can burn down the right things.
Why are people like you always looking for a class of people to rape? Pay your own goddamn tax.
Well if Airbus really took the blackbox for two weeks before returning it who knows what the real story was? They're the only ones (roughly) with tech for seamlessly faking BB recordings.
At that point you should just lock up everyone whose fingerprints are on the new blackbox, for conspiracy to commit perjury at a minimum. (Presenting false evidence at someone's trial should just give your life to them, as a slave, for what you're trying to do...)
Don't let the naysayers get you down, your idea is fundamentally right - you can't be held to a code you don't understand.
The simple law doesn't need to be full of exceptions (as people imagine) to cope with many circumstances.
People envision something like: "Thou shalt not kill, unless A, or B, but if C then B doesn't apply, and if you have a duty... [900 pages later]"
But really it's the interaction of: "Killing is bad." and "Breaking one law to avoid breaking a law of greater importance is allowed."
Fundamentally there'll always be problems with your simple law - corner cases it doesn't properly cover. But there are problems, largely the same ones, with our current system, and it's so freakishly complex it introduces a ton of its own problems.
At some point you simply need a meta-system for dealing with problems, like a jury-trial for instance. Once you admit your system can't be perfect you can live with a lot less.
Yeah, and they're all wrong, or lying to support their political agenda.
No other meaning passes the sniff-test. Had the 2nd amendment meant that some arms were regulated and some not they wouldn't have said anything - that's the usual condition. Similarly, if it doesn't mean "the people can/should be armed", what could they plausibly have meant?
There's legitimate debate over the reasonableness of following an ancient document instead of modern political science and sentiment, but there's no honest difference of opinion over the gist of the 2nd-amendment's meaning.
Yeah, I know. While I could easily open each page in a new tab I'd rather go to a site that caters to me and load an article in each tab.
I'm asking if he seriously thinks reading it like that is any good though. My guess is he reads their articles from the office mainly, and occasionally at that, and has no idea of the typical user experience.
What is this public record then that logging things to it makes those things mean anything?
How does any of this alter the actual deal? When their email gets subpoenaed there'll either be an email saying "We're letting RG go because TR sucks." or "Guys, RG just said he's leaving!"
Either way, some silly press release has no bearing on the real deal.
Or should the networks refuse to show those commercials?
That's what I was referring to. I don't think the networks (for example) should have to police this.
If you get a judgment it's between you, them, and the courts/etc to enforce it, not me and everyone else excepting indirectly via taxes, etc.
My point was that censorship is not a completely separate from supporting current libel laws
You mean that we think libel law is a good thing (in general), and it requires some amount of censorship, thus not all censorship is automatically bad?
I'd disagree. (With the requirement for censorship.)
The right to publish does not exclude the responsibility that then follows. - horza
Slander/libel laws ARE the solution that means we don't need censorship. Rather than putting tape over everyone's mouths we let them speak and merely punish those who defame others. Nobody needs to check anyone else's tape.
Are you kidding? Do you *really* want to wait 3-5 seconds for each page to load, after you spend 1-3 seconds interacting with the tiny little UI element in only a few spots on the page, or do you just want to hit Page-down again? Seriously, go to a nearby internet cafe and ask to watch someone pull up your site over the net without ad filters. Worse, read your article a page at a time, using the index to jump around. It's not the load speed that kills, even over cellular (help me!) but the latency between each couple of paragraphs.
I don't know who seriously thinks scrolling through a document confuses or annoys people. Word processor work that way and I've helped thousands of customers with problems and never did one have to ask how to get to the rest of the document when the scroll-bar, pgdn, and arrow keys all work.
How about a one-page solution with internal links? Like Wikipedia articles, etc. So you can jump where you want with the index, but the whole page loads and is usable in one piece.
But I imagine this is more an issue of ad revenue than user-friendliness.
Yeah... why assume they're asking for what they mentioned? Why not just assume they mean something other than what they said.
They're a customer(/human), assuming they mean exactly what they say seems like a stretch. You need to see what they want and interpret their questions appropriately.
They don't want any specific thing, a customer site of X, where they do Y. What they do want is examples of what they'd get and valid reasoning about why.
This customer wanted to know if a solution would work, and if they should use it. They suggested a piece of evidence they'd like to see (11k desktops, etc) but the consultant should understand more about what is required and help them find their answer - not the likely unimportant specific thing they asked for.
Doesn't have to be 11+k could be anywhere around that number. How about 5k? Can you find any Win/Office to Linux/OO.o migrations for regular government office workers at that time?
Yes, I'll look back in time here...
Seriously, if you weren't stuck on a site that migrated Win->Linux, MSOffice->OpenOffice, had thousands of machines, in 2005 Europe, there'd be adequate examples. The customer really just wants to know if it'll work or not.
I could point to failed 10-station MSOffice -> OpenOffice transitions that would prove they shouldn't do it - if they need certain macros, helper programs, exact layout compatibility, etc.
A Unix-alike OS will probably be easier to admin when you have 10k+ stations than Windows. This should be obvious far below 10k, but isn't culturally-dependent so hopefully the location of the customer wouldn't matter which would give me more to look through, etc.
The guy wasn't being hired as a consultant or analyst to create a detailed analysis to find answers to his question.
It wouldn't take a fourteen page study to say "I don't know of any one site but we'll find examples, positive and negative, of the services you're interested in."
[...] microsoft [...] conspiring to keep people away from linux
Well, Microsoft is. It's proven by countless leaked emails and such. But that's a separate issue.
maybe your handheld browser [...]
Just using the phone for the connection, speed's the only issue. PDFs are large.
tried to emphasis the part of the email that asked for migrations
No, I see it, and your bolding, but I don't see the focus of the question being one of a site that has specifically done a migration.
We definitely do not want to embark in a migration without having verified that others have done it
'It' can be read as a migration, the thing they just mentioned, or everything, as in run a different OS, run different apps, migrate clients from one to the other, etc.
Nobody has been able to name 2-3 sites that could satisfy this guy's request.
No, because people are interpreting that as one site that is 11k+ desktop computers, using OpenOffice, which all migrated from Window NT.
But I'm sure there were adequate examples (perhaps only to prove that they shouldn't attempt the switch) had they only looked properly.
For instance, you could examine sites with large deployments of Linux to evaluate the sysadmin issues, and other sites with OpenOffice on Windows to figure out how much of an issue that incompatibility is. Experience with 10k+ seat rollouts of any new product will be relevant, not just this specific combo.
Sure, the flat answer is no. But that's sort of lazy. The better answer is, here's a list of sites doing things that are like you'd have to do and a bit about what you could learn from examining each.
He protested without fighting the decision? What the fuck does that even mean?
It means he said he didn't like the decision, but did not mount any challenges against it.
Whatever it means though, is irrelevant. There's no standard of how much you need to protest. If you're told you're being let go, you're being let go.
He could have sat quietly, all the while thinking "YEAH!", and it wouldn't change that his boss approached him with the decision already made.
And Richard said ok to it. I don't care whose secretary actually wrote it, the fact is that it was presented to RC for his approval and he gave it.
The press release wasn't being sent to his boss as communication in a personnel matter, it was being sent to the public from Richard/NCSoft. They (the public) aren't parties in the issue of his employment and it wasn't written as a legal document.
Read in common language the letter is totally correct. Richard was leaving NCSoft, and looking forward to new things. He didn't say "I initiated, in a legal context, the process of leaving NCSoft". This is what I referred to as merely not airing dirty laundry. Being that there's no reason to see it as a legal document, it would be incorrect to try to extract specific legal meaning from it.
He was let go at the end of the conversation with his boss. Anything after that is misdirection.
While I didn't read the PDF (browsing over cellular) I did read a bit more than just the summary. I didn't get the emphasis on the 'do the migration', to me it appeared they wanted to see any significant OSS site. I'm still not sure that he meant to see one that had migrated, or merely didn't want to migrate until he knew there was something worth doing.
I'd also read that as being a bit vague the exact size/nature, not specifically 11,000 NT desktops, and not necessarily to Linux/OpenOffice and merely being any significant alternative to Windows/MS Office. Being that doing something like that in one giant migration seems needless (if you can talk to your customers you should be able to talk to the guys across the hall on the old system) it doesn't seem that a site of 11k is required to be a good example.
It does seem like there should have been SOME medium-to-large scale OSS sites in Europe in 2005. To say there was nothing worth looking at does seem dismissive. As if saying that anything smaller, or anything that didn't directly migrate from Windows to Linux, doesn't count.
If you help free the wrongly imprisoned not only are you making tangible progress, but you're helping free an infinite number of future wrongly imprisoned people.
If you make up some excuse for why doing nothing is better because some potential action is always slightly better in retrospect you're not helping anyone.
And the scarier the label the less proof they need.
If they sentenced you for "saying something so dangerous an adult shouldn't be allowed to hear it for fear of how they'd react to the government" your neighbors would be curious as to what you could possibly have said, and will resent being treated like children.
Should the rest of the world be tasked as enforcers of your civil judgment?
How about you report it to the court? I imagine you'd get an injunction against that action this time, sue for further damages, etc. If they kept going they'd be in violation of a few court orders and risking criminal charges.
The claim was that there were no examples of people using open alternatives, which was false. That those may not have been directly equivalent - well that's life and that's why you compare your situation to that of the example before making decisions...
Slashdot Mirror
Clue: My use of the word 'Seriously'.
Hint: I'm not from the USA.
What everyone else got: Sarcasm!
But really, what's the truth? If you were on one of their watch lists and flew anywhere that could possibly be diverted into the USA, or Canada/etc who will hand suspects over to the USA, you're as good as their subject. Or if you live in a country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and they send in a team of commandos, again you're their subject.
But before you argue, or care, ask who you're saving yourself for. Who owns you? For certainly if you live anywhere the "authorities" would hand you over to the USA you can't be said to be free. Even if those authorities merely guarantee your relative disarmament such that you could easily be taken you can't really be said to be free.
So yeah, unless you're Russian or Chinese, you're American property, and you certainly aren't free in any case.
Nobody is suggesting stopping gambling, just non-state sponsored gambling where taxes aren't being paid. All your moralizing about gambling is totally irrelevant here because the US Gov would be really happy if the addicts would ruin their lives in approved casinos.
It's absolute theft to take this money. It belonged to one person, he gave it to another, they gave some back. Now the government decides that like the "house" in a crooked casino we can't leave, we owe a percentage of each transaction to them. For the favour of doing business in their turf.
Like all taxation it's theft.
But because we're all already screwed sixty-seven different ways from various taxes we're content to sit by for, no - we demand that, the government put the screws to someone else because we desperately believe the lie that it'll lighten our burden.
But it's just theft. Seizing evil gambling winnings to pay for orphanages (and the staggering collapse of the banking system) is a winning political move because it's nothing more than "See that shady-looking guy? Let's beat him up and take his money!" People are always willing to ignore the rights of others for a quick buck - or the promise of one.
(cough) See that Iraqi with that oil well... One quick little war...(/cough)
No, it'll show you NOT surfing for porn.
This zero-strikes policy is ridiculous and just because it's real doesn't mean you should live your life in fear of it. It can't be predicted because there's no end to made-up crimes or ways for things to coincidentally appear related to you.
Besides, if your job really was that tenuous one spam could end it. And in the end if it did we'd (collectively) be better off because you'd be free to work at a company focused on something other than petty censorship while your old company slowly tanked.
And yeah, this is assuming they don't fire your lazy ass for chatting.
Great. I generally dislike Visa and your action will force them to remove the machine or otherwise punish the merchant, thus encouraging adoption of other payment methods (or at least keeping cash viable). In the end it'll hurt only Visa, MC, etc.
Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.
Had you said "is not seen by the courts as being unreasonable" it would have been descriptive of the current legal situation.
You said "is not unreasonable". That's your view.
And yes, you certainly do seem to think forfeiture laws are reasonable. You argue for the necessity of them in some posts, and explain aspects of them in other posts with the apparent goal of showing how they're aren't unreasonable (the quoted sentence for example).
You point out trivial details of the law as if they matter without realizing that it's the mere existence of the law that everyone else finds objectionable. You're a lawyer (or act like one) and you're not (that I see) fighting some bastards like SCO or Scientology, or campaigning to simplify law, so you do seem to think it's peachy-keen. Job security I guess.
So you don't think courts should have power over property
So you don't think carebears should have power over the moon?
No, frankly it's ridiculous. Almost nonsensical.
where they don't have power over a known owner (such as when the owner is outside of the jurisdiction)?
Now you're getting crazy! There's no jurisdiction outside the USA's laws.
Seriously, if you've got property in my jurisdiction should I make up some crazy legal fiction about suing the property or just treat you like you're in my jurisdiction, to a maximum claim of seizing all your available assets (the property I've already got).
It might seem like a clueless nitpick to you, but while various legal maneuvers might make your job seem clearer they break the useful relation between the legal system, the real world, and just outcomes. To lawyers it seems to make no difference if the law makes sense as long as it spits out answers that keep the world running - which is largely independent to the fates of individuals.
But to everyone else the law is code to be followed/forced-into in daily life. Here the crazy legal shenanigans such as having your property sued in a drug case are mind-boggling and amount to nothing more in use than arbitrary 'lose your life savings' and 'lose your freedom' cards.
While you and yours may find a law less useful because it doesn't handily handle some tax-related corner cases, remember that you merely work in the law and we live in it.
So kindly piss off with telling us in this condescending voice that the law needs to be complex for reasons beyond our simple understanding. Many of us here are computer programmers/etc, capable of abstract thought far more complex than anything you with your squishy legal decisions can imagine, and we understand the fundamental issues of information theory and complexity. While it IS hard to model complex situations, flawed models help nobody, especially backed by government fiat.
Where do you live? I want to be able to point the newly bankrupt gamblers there so that when they take out their frustration at insane property-seizure laws they can burn down the right things.
Why are people like you always looking for a class of people to rape? Pay your own goddamn tax.
The AF296 flight data recorders had been taken and tampered with meantime. Nobody knows if that's all that happened.
Well if Airbus really took the blackbox for two weeks before returning it who knows what the real story was? They're the only ones (roughly) with tech for seamlessly faking BB recordings.
At that point you should just lock up everyone whose fingerprints are on the new blackbox, for conspiracy to commit perjury at a minimum. (Presenting false evidence at someone's trial should just give your life to them, as a slave, for what you're trying to do...)
Don't let the naysayers get you down, your idea is fundamentally right - you can't be held to a code you don't understand.
The simple law doesn't need to be full of exceptions (as people imagine) to cope with many circumstances.
People envision something like: "Thou shalt not kill, unless A, or B, but if C then B doesn't apply, and if you have a duty ... [900 pages later]"
But really it's the interaction of: "Killing is bad." and "Breaking one law to avoid breaking a law of greater importance is allowed."
Fundamentally there'll always be problems with your simple law - corner cases it doesn't properly cover. But there are problems, largely the same ones, with our current system, and it's so freakishly complex it introduces a ton of its own problems.
At some point you simply need a meta-system for dealing with problems, like a jury-trial for instance. Once you admit your system can't be perfect you can live with a lot less.
Everything you say is probably true, but totally irrelevant.
Anyone who has the power to search you without a warrant is dangerous, not because of what they do do, but what they could do.
Many people disagree with your interpretation.
Yeah, and they're all wrong, or lying to support their political agenda.
No other meaning passes the sniff-test. Had the 2nd amendment meant that some arms were regulated and some not they wouldn't have said anything - that's the usual condition. Similarly, if it doesn't mean "the people can/should be armed", what could they plausibly have meant?
There's legitimate debate over the reasonableness of following an ancient document instead of modern political science and sentiment, but there's no honest difference of opinion over the gist of the 2nd-amendment's meaning.
Yeah, I know. While I could easily open each page in a new tab I'd rather go to a site that caters to me and load an article in each tab.
I'm asking if he seriously thinks reading it like that is any good though. My guess is he reads their articles from the office mainly, and occasionally at that, and has no idea of the typical user experience.
What is this public record then that logging things to it makes those things mean anything?
How does any of this alter the actual deal? When their email gets subpoenaed there'll either be an email saying "We're letting RG go because TR sucks." or "Guys, RG just said he's leaving!"
Either way, some silly press release has no bearing on the real deal.
Or should the networks refuse to show those commercials?
That's what I was referring to. I don't think the networks (for example) should have to police this.
If you get a judgment it's between you, them, and the courts/etc to enforce it, not me and everyone else excepting indirectly via taxes, etc.
My point was that censorship is not a completely separate from supporting current libel laws
You mean that we think libel law is a good thing (in general), and it requires some amount of censorship, thus not all censorship is automatically bad?
I'd disagree. (With the requirement for censorship.)
The right to publish does not exclude the responsibility that then follows. - horza
Slander/libel laws ARE the solution that means we don't need censorship. Rather than putting tape over everyone's mouths we let them speak and merely punish those who defame others. Nobody needs to check anyone else's tape.
Are you kidding? Do you *really* want to wait 3-5 seconds for each page to load, after you spend 1-3 seconds interacting with the tiny little UI element in only a few spots on the page, or do you just want to hit Page-down again? Seriously, go to a nearby internet cafe and ask to watch someone pull up your site over the net without ad filters. Worse, read your article a page at a time, using the index to jump around. It's not the load speed that kills, even over cellular (help me!) but the latency between each couple of paragraphs.
I don't know who seriously thinks scrolling through a document confuses or annoys people. Word processor work that way and I've helped thousands of customers with problems and never did one have to ask how to get to the rest of the document when the scroll-bar, pgdn, and arrow keys all work.
How about a one-page solution with internal links? Like Wikipedia articles, etc. So you can jump where you want with the index, but the whole page loads and is usable in one piece.
But I imagine this is more an issue of ad revenue than user-friendliness.
Yeah... why assume they're asking for what they mentioned? Why not just assume they mean something other than what they said.
They're a customer(/human), assuming they mean exactly what they say seems like a stretch. You need to see what they want and interpret their questions appropriately.
They don't want any specific thing, a customer site of X, where they do Y. What they do want is examples of what they'd get and valid reasoning about why.
This customer wanted to know if a solution would work, and if they should use it. They suggested a piece of evidence they'd like to see (11k desktops, etc) but the consultant should understand more about what is required and help them find their answer - not the likely unimportant specific thing they asked for.
Doesn't have to be 11+k could be anywhere around that number. How about 5k? Can you find any Win/Office to Linux/OO.o migrations for regular government office workers at that time?
Yes, I'll look back in time here...
Seriously, if you weren't stuck on a site that migrated Win->Linux, MSOffice->OpenOffice, had thousands of machines, in 2005 Europe, there'd be adequate examples. The customer really just wants to know if it'll work or not.
I could point to failed 10-station MSOffice -> OpenOffice transitions that would prove they shouldn't do it - if they need certain macros, helper programs, exact layout compatibility, etc.
A Unix-alike OS will probably be easier to admin when you have 10k+ stations than Windows. This should be obvious far below 10k, but isn't culturally-dependent so hopefully the location of the customer wouldn't matter which would give me more to look through, etc.
The guy wasn't being hired as a consultant or analyst to create a detailed analysis to find answers to his question.
It wouldn't take a fourteen page study to say "I don't know of any one site but we'll find examples, positive and negative, of the services you're interested in."
Meh, whatever.
[...] microsoft [...] conspiring to keep people away from linux
Well, Microsoft is. It's proven by countless leaked emails and such. But that's a separate issue.
maybe your handheld browser [...]
Just using the phone for the connection, speed's the only issue. PDFs are large.
tried to emphasis the part of the email that asked for migrations
No, I see it, and your bolding, but I don't see the focus of the question being one of a site that has specifically done a migration.
We definitely do not want to embark in a migration without having verified that others have done it
'It' can be read as a migration, the thing they just mentioned, or everything, as in run a different OS, run different apps, migrate clients from one to the other, etc.
Nobody has been able to name 2-3 sites that could satisfy this guy's request.
No, because people are interpreting that as one site that is 11k+ desktop computers, using OpenOffice, which all migrated from Window NT.
But I'm sure there were adequate examples (perhaps only to prove that they shouldn't attempt the switch) had they only looked properly.
For instance, you could examine sites with large deployments of Linux to evaluate the sysadmin issues, and other sites with OpenOffice on Windows to figure out how much of an issue that incompatibility is. Experience with 10k+ seat rollouts of any new product will be relevant, not just this specific combo.
Sure, the flat answer is no. But that's sort of lazy. The better answer is, here's a list of sites doing things that are like you'd have to do and a bit about what you could learn from examining each.
And what do the public perceptions change?
This is that A and B tell C whatever they want because it doesn't change anything, thing.
He protested without fighting the decision? What the fuck does that even mean?
It means he said he didn't like the decision, but did not mount any challenges against it.
Whatever it means though, is irrelevant. There's no standard of how much you need to protest. If you're told you're being let go, you're being let go.
He could have sat quietly, all the while thinking "YEAH!", and it wouldn't change that his boss approached him with the decision already made.
And Richard said ok to it. I don't care whose secretary actually wrote it, the fact is that it was presented to RC for his approval and he gave it.
The press release wasn't being sent to his boss as communication in a personnel matter, it was being sent to the public from Richard/NCSoft. They (the public) aren't parties in the issue of his employment and it wasn't written as a legal document.
Read in common language the letter is totally correct. Richard was leaving NCSoft, and looking forward to new things. He didn't say "I initiated, in a legal context, the process of leaving NCSoft". This is what I referred to as merely not airing dirty laundry. Being that there's no reason to see it as a legal document, it would be incorrect to try to extract specific legal meaning from it.
He was let go at the end of the conversation with his boss. Anything after that is misdirection.
While I didn't read the PDF (browsing over cellular) I did read a bit more than just the summary. I didn't get the emphasis on the 'do the migration', to me it appeared they wanted to see any significant OSS site. I'm still not sure that he meant to see one that had migrated, or merely didn't want to migrate until he knew there was something worth doing.
I'd also read that as being a bit vague the exact size/nature, not specifically 11,000 NT desktops, and not necessarily to Linux/OpenOffice and merely being any significant alternative to Windows/MS Office. Being that doing something like that in one giant migration seems needless (if you can talk to your customers you should be able to talk to the guys across the hall on the old system) it doesn't seem that a site of 11k is required to be a good example.
It does seem like there should have been SOME medium-to-large scale OSS sites in Europe in 2005. To say there was nothing worth looking at does seem dismissive. As if saying that anything smaller, or anything that didn't directly migrate from Windows to Linux, doesn't count.
If you help free the wrongly imprisoned not only are you making tangible progress, but you're helping free an infinite number of future wrongly imprisoned people.
If you make up some excuse for why doing nothing is better because some potential action is always slightly better in retrospect you're not helping anyone.
And the scarier the label the less proof they need.
If they sentenced you for "saying something so dangerous an adult shouldn't be allowed to hear it for fear of how they'd react to the government" your neighbors would be curious as to what you could possibly have said, and will resent being treated like children.
But if they call you a terrorist...
Should the rest of the world be tasked as enforcers of your civil judgment?
How about you report it to the court? I imagine you'd get an injunction against that action this time, sue for further damages, etc. If they kept going they'd be in violation of a few court orders and risking criminal charges.
The claim was that there were no examples of people using open alternatives, which was false. That those may not have been directly equivalent - well that's life and that's why you compare your situation to that of the example before making decisions...