I've used thermal compound as recommended, never bent a pin or broke a chip with it myself and I don't have a clue how the proper use of thermal grease would cause that with any kind of appropriate care. It's a mess to deal with, but if you clean as you go and don't use too much to start with it's not that bad. Sure, you can just scrape it all off if you want, but you are going to run hotter without the stuff than with it. One thing I know as a EE with decades of experience, heat kills solid state devices. So the hotter they run, the shorter their lifespan. Given you are likely replacing your chips every couple of years anyway, you may not care you get half the design life doing what you do or that you suffer hardware failures more often than you should. Also, modern CPU designs roll back the CPU clocks when the heat goes up to lower the power dissipation. My guess is your performance suffers from the clocks getting rolled back just when your needs for more performance is greatest and that you'd be surprised about just how much this happens to you because you removed the grease.
My guess is that you DO have issues, but by the time the arise, you just throw out the whole thing, motherboard, cooler and all, just accepting that it wasn't supposed to last anyway when it was. Personally, I don't throw out good hardware just to bulk up the local landfill but usually keep shifting it down into less and less demanding jobs around the house. My current file server was a media center PC a few years ago and before that it was my primary desktop. I'm likely to get my full 8 years out of this hardware where you don't likely get nearly that much. But hey, I'm decidedly a cheap penny pincher when it comes to throwing away working hardware and I don't make a habit of moving my CPU's around on a whim...
Your mileage may vary, but you are likely condemning your stuff to an early landfill, but if you are rotating out into new hardware every year, you may not care about the performance you loose or the devices that die...
I don't know what you mean by removing the thermal compound and not using any. The purpose of thermal compound is to fill the voids between the heat sink and the CPU and allow heat to freely flow from the CPU. To that end, you need to use enough compound to fill the voids between the CPU and the heat sink, but as little as possible to accomplish that goal.
In order to do that effectively, one must always remove old compound and apply a small amount of new compound. It doesn't take much. The goal is to have it spread across the whole surface of the CPU (you should see a little around the CPU's heat plate edges, but not any more than that). I usually apply a very thin "X" of new compound with a bit more in the middle, then install the heat sink and inspect the edges. If I don't see compound around most of the heat plate, I will remove the heat sink, clean everything and try again using a bit more. Always clean and start fresh or you are likely to trap air bubbles.
If you are cracking chips or bending pins, you must have put thermal compound between the motherboard and the CPU, it doesn't belong there..... The only time I've seen thermal paste used on a connector was in a military aircraft in a vain attempt at keeping moisture out of a connector that was subject directly to bleed air cooling. It sort of works for that, but it was a total mess to clean up and we bent a lot of pins trying to replace cards. Don't do that...
Ryzen seems to be quite competitive as it stands looking at the glossy PR ads. The question is really about durability. AMD has a history of running things a bit hot and not achieving the same reliability as Intel. However, given that they are using a clean sheet design in a chip that is based on 14 nm process, there is the possibility of making some pretty good performance gains by going to a smaller process.
It does seems as though this chain has really exploded in the last several years. I seem to recall there only being a handful of them. Now there are over 2 dozen nationwide.
Kind of surprising that a brick-and-mortar store is expanding operations in this day and age. Especially with the old-school commission-based sales floor model.
I have one within driving distance. GREAT store for picking up clearance items at about %20 off the going retail on stuff. I've purchased 2 mother boards and CPU's there along with a couple of video cards, mostly on clearance there in the last year. Usually you can haggle a bit on the clearance prices if the item has been sitting there awhile. In fact, on big ticket items you can usually haggle a little on non-clearance items if you try and have similar prices online.
Watch their "price match" though. I hear the policy varies from store to store.
Well, that's how they make their money at theaters... Or did you think the box office was where they made the profit? For most first run movies, the box office is a pittance until you get into the third week. How many movies pack houses that long?
Think about what they sell at the concession stand. EVERYTHING they sell is cheap, nearly zero food cost with the containers being worth more than the food. Popcorn, Soda, candy? Likely the highest food cost thing they sell is nachos and hot dogs, but it's still under 5%. Their biggest cost is labor (and that fancy building with the uncomfortable seats).
HDMI capture card. Watermark is useless when payment was with a disposable/stolen card.
The guys who do these rips and releases have been doing it with other streaming services for years.
So who broke into HDMI? I thought they guarded the keys to the kingdom pretty well and unless you happened on some stolen keys your player wasn't going to talk to your display/Capture card for love or money. If you did find some stolen keys, all they have to do is invalidate them and sooner or later your capture card will go on the blink as your devices get new keys. You can bet the content owners would do their best to make sure all your HDMI devices got updated before they let you play anything.
Watermarking IS useful even if a burner credit card is used because like it or not, the IP you are is going to be pretty obvious, even if you go though a proxy, and the player software they are likely going to use is going to have lots of access to information about you that would make it easier to find you. It might take some time to track you down, but they have the tools and are not afraid to use them.
Heck, the MPAA isn't afraid to implicate the innocent, why do you think they'd be afraid to track you down? Personally, I don't do the piracy thing and feel that those who do are being unethical. Not to mention that it's not all that much cheaper to do that stuff when all the necessary equipment and legal liability you take on is figured in. But hey, up to you.
Same Sex marriage was always a right and a reality, long before the courts took up the case... What was at issue was government recognition of the union... It was about the legal institution of marriage, not the right to call yourself married, everybody had that already. You could go out and hire a hall, get a minister, send out invitations and have a wedding and nobody would stop you, nor would anybody stop you from believing your relationship was a marriage. Before the ruling, nobody's rights where infringed.
So what right was being abridged if the government didn't legally recognize what you considered a marriage? I haven't the faintest idea, but we now have invented *some* right to have your same sex union recognized by the government. Where is *THAT* in the list of things the government *must* or *should* do?
So, be precise here. If you want to claim to be married to your horse, government isn't going to stop you, you have the right to that belief. So is there now a case to create a right for this union to be recognized by the government? How about three people getting married? Four? I don't think anybody has a right to have the government legally recognize their specific definition of marriage is valid, yet that's what we have created now.
And one more thing on this specific subject. There was already a legal avenue for such relationships to have the legal status the proponents of same sex marriage claimed they lacked. It was called "Domestic Partnerships"/"Civil Unions". It afforded all the civil law protections of marriage. But even though there was really NOTHING being withheld, we went out and the courts created this new enumerated right anyway.
I personally think that the proponents of this where really after something totally different and that this really amounts to the establishment of a religious belief that takes precedence over another backed by the federal government and is such a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause. However, I would guess you find that a stretch...
My guess is that they are pitching a royal fit about this idea. They will not want to allow this, regardless of what it costs, unless the distribution companies make some kind of major concession. Theater chains fight hard to get exclusive rights to first run movies for a reason and they count on the suckers who feel they have to see the movie when it first comes out.
Distribution contracts for chains vary, but for the big movies, the distribution company gets a hefty percentage of the box office sales (as high as 100%) for first run films on opening weekend. After that, the percentage of the box office drops off as the film gets older and older. Where home viewers works for the distribution company (they get 100% of that take) it won't for the theater who losses out on concession sales and their percentage of the box office.
I wonder what the distribution companies are going to give up here? I also wonder what this actually says about the future of theaters? It is yet another nail in that long suffering industry's coffin, which started to die with the introduction of the VCR and video rental shops.
Think of it, now YOU can run a small theater business in your own home for $50 per showing.... If you have a small 12 seat media room, you can charge $20/seat, throw in $10 worth of drinks and popcorn and clear $170/showing. Two showings a night, two days a week and that's $680/week for 8 hours work. You'd only need to fill three seats to break even. Not bad money...
Really? With a 4K TV and matching material, just move closer to the screen and volia! You have a larger screen... Well Up to a point you do. I mean having a large screen that's 200' away from you is kind of like having a somewhat big one 100' away. 60" at 5 feet is pretty darn big, when you consider how much of your visual field it covers.
Personally, the real reason is to get both the screen size, brightness and SOUND QUALITY. Although, all these can be approximated at home for less than you think if you don't mind getting close to the TV. It's also a lot more comfortable on my couch and the concession stand is MUCH cheaper.
One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay
And you don't figure that they won't water mark YOUR copy of the movie so they will know exactly who did this and come after you?
(Or, in reality, you don't think they will protect the content by using encryption, custom player software and other DRM techniques to make it necessary for you to break into the HDMI signals directly to capture the video? Or are you planning to record it using your video camera pointed at the TV?)
Oh boy.. Really? Like originalists don't know that. We fully understand that the constitution is intended to limit government, not enumerate all our human rights.
What I think is sadly forgotten is that the bill of rights sets out a framework of what government must NOT do, what they cannot regulate. Specifically what the federal government cannot do. The rest was left to the states and the people. So, for instance, Same Sex marriage. How's that a federally protected right from the constitution? Access to abortion on demand? Health Care? or more recently, the right of non-citizens to enter this country (as the 9th circuit just decided). How is ANY of that the purview of the federal courts? It's not. It's not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government, yet here we are where the federal courts have decided all those are rights. While on the other hand, the 2nd amendment gets infringed by background checks, licensing, and other restrictions at the federal, state and local levels without so much as a passing "we might be infringing" coming from the same judges who have invented all these new rights out of thin air.
Then you impugn the likes of Scalia because he didn't see the courts as the right place for all this creation of new rights nobody ever imagined where necessary to write down?
I'm not sure if the problem was reading comprehension or unclear writing.... But that's what I thought I said... Consult an attorney before answering (or refusing to answer) questions, when being questioned by law enforcement as part of an investigation...Take your lawyer's advice.
You say something along the lines of "I'd like to answer your questions, but I must consult my lawyer first." Which is not refusing to answer, nor answering.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Which is OK because it really was off topic.
I believe our courts have, in some cases, invented rights where none really exist and have ignored rights that ARE enumerated in our constitution. The 10th amendment is the most trampled with the 2nd, 4th and 5th often abridged as well. This should NOT be. Courts should be limited to interpreting the law, not MAKING law though their decisions. They will sometimes be called on to resolve conflicts in existing law and produce precedent, but that should not establish a de facto law or invent rights that here to fore didn't exist.
Unfortunately, that's not how most people see the courts. The courts are now a political tool. See any discussion of the Heller decision by Mrs. Clinton during the last debate or much of the "Citizen United" decision for examples of what I mean. This stuff should NOT be part of a political campaign and only is because the courts have allowed themselves to make decisions based on politics in the past. Which is my point. This should not be so.
Ah come on, you've seen this in all the crime investigation process dramas in the past decade. When the police ask you a question, YOU ask to consult your lawyer and according to your Miranda rights, you must be given access to your lawyer, end of questioning for the time being...
Now, I normally don't recommend you obtain legal knowledge watching TV shows, but in this case, there is enough truth here to be relevant.
I DO however recommend you shut up and consult your lawyer at any point you are not totally clear what your rights are, why the police are asking the questions or if you feel like they are looking to charge you for something you did or didn't do.
Yea, but they "must not abridge" that right you know...
Interesting how we have justified away our constitutional rights in the last few decades isn't it? For the "good of all" we now give up more and more freedom and the courts seem willing to help it happen in the name of social justice, political correctness or even the judge's personal feelings...
(Yes, I'm pointing at the 9th Circuit.... You folks need to swallow a huge does of "what does the law say" and stop with this "but it's mean if you do that" stuff.)
Ah that pesky 5th amendment (along with the 4th) and the limits it puts on law enforcement. Finally a judge that seems to understand the constitution.
I'm guessing though that if law enforcement wants to log into your device, there are other ways in. Didn't we just have a story about that today?
However, be it known that the 5th and 4th amendments don't keep you from being compelled to provide evidence in some circumstances. Best you consult a criminal lawyer before providing or refusing to provide information you are asked. There are times you cannot refuse.
I believe it. Fingerprint scanning was once a really loosey goosey way of providing the illusion of security, but where easily fooled using some pretty low tech. Although a hotdog sure seems to be pretty low tech.. Even on a good day, finger print scanning is pretty bad, either giving you a really high false positive or really high reject rates, even today, when the horse power needed to sort though a pile of prospective fingerprints looking for a match is more readily available.
Think of it as a really bad padlock with one tumbler made of plastic... Easy to pick if you don't want anybody to know you broke in, or you can just yank it off with your bare hands if you don't care if they find out...
I've been sued by a former employer who I had felt it necessary to quit without notice with a wife that was 9 months pregnant and no job prospects in sight. I think I understand the implications of what I'm saying here. Try to get a job when your last employer is lying about you, basically accusing you of all sorts of unethical behavior and threatening to sue prospective employers if they hire you. It was a bad time, a new baby, medical bills and paying a lawyer, but staying would have been worse so I'm glad I quit. I had good reasons to quit and having stuff thrown at me one morning and being verbally threatened was the last straw so I was no longer their employee that afternoon.
NEVER abide a bad situation if you have *any* other options. If you are in a hostile environment like this one (or the one I was in) run, don't walk, away as fast as you can. I know I kept telling myself it would get better, just a little longer, they will eventually come around. Chances are they won't and what was once a daily ball of stress and abuse never got better. In the end for me, it was a mess of lawsuits, lawyers and legal fees, which resulted in me getting paid some lost wages and their dropping all their claims.
So, I do kind of understand what I'm advising folks to do... It's not easy and yes it affects your professional career in the short term, but long term, you have to deal with this garbage sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the worse it gets when you try to unwind all the garbage. So deal with it now.
Seriously, if garbage like described in the article is going on, they NEED to be sued, or at least threated with legal action. Sure, get yourself another job if you can stand it before hiring a lawyer, but don't delay. Do something, ASAP.
Really? So the laws of Physics just might be discovered wrong in the future?
Perhaps our understanding of Physics will change and interstellar space travel will be proven possible, but I'm not holding my breath on that. Einstein and Newton where bright guys and their explanation of Physics seems to be fairly well established. Until we have some major revision to these theories, it isn't happening.
Because our ancestors didn't have a choice did they? Or perhaps you think they did? Did somebody in the distant past decide for all future generations that they where stuck here?
Seriously... So unless you can claim somebody in the past made the moral decision to just dump us off here, we are not talking about the same thing.
Unless of course you do believe that was a choice made by some ancestor.... In which case we need to have a talk...
If this story is really true, there is a huge lawsuit in Uber's future... Given that there really hasn't been such a lawsuit yet, I'm a bit hesitant to just accept all this at face value.
ANY attorney who can pass the bar could win a civil judgment of epic proportions if there is *any* evidence to substantiate that this kind of harassment is a regular happening and the company isn't doing anything to curb it. Now I'm not saying that it's not happening, only that I'm a bit skeptical about such stories coming from people who are not availing themselves of the legal protections they have. Especially when it would literally cost them nothing to get a lawyer to take this on contingency. It's not like lawyers are hard to find... (Yes, honest ones are rare, but you don't need an honest one here..)
Lady, why does it matter what HR said? Call the police, report them, sooner rather than later. If not for yourself, for the next person. Then get yourself some help dealing with this.
You might consider a civil suit too if the HR folks really had that attitude about it... Junk like this is unacceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used thermal compound as recommended, never bent a pin or broke a chip with it myself and I don't have a clue how the proper use of thermal grease would cause that with any kind of appropriate care. It's a mess to deal with, but if you clean as you go and don't use too much to start with it's not that bad. Sure, you can just scrape it all off if you want, but you are going to run hotter without the stuff than with it. One thing I know as a EE with decades of experience, heat kills solid state devices. So the hotter they run, the shorter their lifespan. Given you are likely replacing your chips every couple of years anyway, you may not care you get half the design life doing what you do or that you suffer hardware failures more often than you should. Also, modern CPU designs roll back the CPU clocks when the heat goes up to lower the power dissipation. My guess is your performance suffers from the clocks getting rolled back just when your needs for more performance is greatest and that you'd be surprised about just how much this happens to you because you removed the grease.
My guess is that you DO have issues, but by the time the arise, you just throw out the whole thing, motherboard, cooler and all, just accepting that it wasn't supposed to last anyway when it was. Personally, I don't throw out good hardware just to bulk up the local landfill but usually keep shifting it down into less and less demanding jobs around the house. My current file server was a media center PC a few years ago and before that it was my primary desktop. I'm likely to get my full 8 years out of this hardware where you don't likely get nearly that much. But hey, I'm decidedly a cheap penny pincher when it comes to throwing away working hardware and I don't make a habit of moving my CPU's around on a whim...
Your mileage may vary, but you are likely condemning your stuff to an early landfill, but if you are rotating out into new hardware every year, you may not care about the performance you loose or the devices that die...
I don't know what you mean by removing the thermal compound and not using any. The purpose of thermal compound is to fill the voids between the heat sink and the CPU and allow heat to freely flow from the CPU. To that end, you need to use enough compound to fill the voids between the CPU and the heat sink, but as little as possible to accomplish that goal.
In order to do that effectively, one must always remove old compound and apply a small amount of new compound. It doesn't take much. The goal is to have it spread across the whole surface of the CPU (you should see a little around the CPU's heat plate edges, but not any more than that). I usually apply a very thin "X" of new compound with a bit more in the middle, then install the heat sink and inspect the edges. If I don't see compound around most of the heat plate, I will remove the heat sink, clean everything and try again using a bit more. Always clean and start fresh or you are likely to trap air bubbles.
If you are cracking chips or bending pins, you must have put thermal compound between the motherboard and the CPU, it doesn't belong there..... The only time I've seen thermal paste used on a connector was in a military aircraft in a vain attempt at keeping moisture out of a connector that was subject directly to bleed air cooling. It sort of works for that, but it was a total mess to clean up and we bent a lot of pins trying to replace cards. Don't do that...
Ryzen seems to be quite competitive as it stands looking at the glossy PR ads. The question is really about durability. AMD has a history of running things a bit hot and not achieving the same reliability as Intel. However, given that they are using a clean sheet design in a chip that is based on 14 nm process, there is the possibility of making some pretty good performance gains by going to a smaller process.
Way to plug my favorite store!
It does seems as though this chain has really exploded in the last several years. I seem to recall there only being a handful of them. Now there are over 2 dozen nationwide.
Kind of surprising that a brick-and-mortar store is expanding operations in this day and age. Especially with the old-school commission-based sales floor model.
I have one within driving distance. GREAT store for picking up clearance items at about %20 off the going retail on stuff. I've purchased 2 mother boards and CPU's there along with a couple of video cards, mostly on clearance there in the last year. Usually you can haggle a bit on the clearance prices if the item has been sitting there awhile. In fact, on big ticket items you can usually haggle a little on non-clearance items if you try and have similar prices online.
Watch their "price match" though. I hear the policy varies from store to store.
Well, that's how they make their money at theaters... Or did you think the box office was where they made the profit? For most first run movies, the box office is a pittance until you get into the third week. How many movies pack houses that long?
Think about what they sell at the concession stand. EVERYTHING they sell is cheap, nearly zero food cost with the containers being worth more than the food. Popcorn, Soda, candy? Likely the highest food cost thing they sell is nachos and hot dogs, but it's still under 5%. Their biggest cost is labor (and that fancy building with the uncomfortable seats).
HDMI capture card. Watermark is useless when payment was with a disposable/stolen card.
The guys who do these rips and releases have been doing it with other streaming services for years.
So who broke into HDMI? I thought they guarded the keys to the kingdom pretty well and unless you happened on some stolen keys your player wasn't going to talk to your display/Capture card for love or money. If you did find some stolen keys, all they have to do is invalidate them and sooner or later your capture card will go on the blink as your devices get new keys. You can bet the content owners would do their best to make sure all your HDMI devices got updated before they let you play anything.
Watermarking IS useful even if a burner credit card is used because like it or not, the IP you are is going to be pretty obvious, even if you go though a proxy, and the player software they are likely going to use is going to have lots of access to information about you that would make it easier to find you. It might take some time to track you down, but they have the tools and are not afraid to use them.
Heck, the MPAA isn't afraid to implicate the innocent, why do you think they'd be afraid to track you down? Personally, I don't do the piracy thing and feel that those who do are being unethical. Not to mention that it's not all that much cheaper to do that stuff when all the necessary equipment and legal liability you take on is figured in. But hey, up to you.
Same Sex marriage was always a right and a reality, long before the courts took up the case... What was at issue was government recognition of the union... It was about the legal institution of marriage, not the right to call yourself married, everybody had that already. You could go out and hire a hall, get a minister, send out invitations and have a wedding and nobody would stop you, nor would anybody stop you from believing your relationship was a marriage. Before the ruling, nobody's rights where infringed.
So what right was being abridged if the government didn't legally recognize what you considered a marriage? I haven't the faintest idea, but we now have invented *some* right to have your same sex union recognized by the government. Where is *THAT* in the list of things the government *must* or *should* do?
So, be precise here. If you want to claim to be married to your horse, government isn't going to stop you, you have the right to that belief. So is there now a case to create a right for this union to be recognized by the government? How about three people getting married? Four? I don't think anybody has a right to have the government legally recognize their specific definition of marriage is valid, yet that's what we have created now.
And one more thing on this specific subject. There was already a legal avenue for such relationships to have the legal status the proponents of same sex marriage claimed they lacked. It was called "Domestic Partnerships"/"Civil Unions". It afforded all the civil law protections of marriage. But even though there was really NOTHING being withheld, we went out and the courts created this new enumerated right anyway.
I personally think that the proponents of this where really after something totally different and that this really amounts to the establishment of a religious belief that takes precedence over another backed by the federal government and is such a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause. However, I would guess you find that a stretch...
My guess is that they are pitching a royal fit about this idea. They will not want to allow this, regardless of what it costs, unless the distribution companies make some kind of major concession. Theater chains fight hard to get exclusive rights to first run movies for a reason and they count on the suckers who feel they have to see the movie when it first comes out.
Distribution contracts for chains vary, but for the big movies, the distribution company gets a hefty percentage of the box office sales (as high as 100%) for first run films on opening weekend. After that, the percentage of the box office drops off as the film gets older and older. Where home viewers works for the distribution company (they get 100% of that take) it won't for the theater who losses out on concession sales and their percentage of the box office.
I wonder what the distribution companies are going to give up here? I also wonder what this actually says about the future of theaters? It is yet another nail in that long suffering industry's coffin, which started to die with the introduction of the VCR and video rental shops.
Think of it, now YOU can run a small theater business in your own home for $50 per showing.... If you have a small 12 seat media room, you can charge $20/seat, throw in $10 worth of drinks and popcorn and clear $170/showing. Two showings a night, two days a week and that's $680/week for 8 hours work. You'd only need to fill three seats to break even. Not bad money...
I can take my sweetie to a nice dinner and released movie for less than $50.
Dang man.. She's a cheap date and you must live in the middle of nowhere.. Hang on to that one.
I'd be into the better half of $100 to do dinner and a move for two round these parts.
Oh wait... You haven't done this in awhile have you? How long has it been? 2 Decades or so?
Really? With a 4K TV and matching material, just move closer to the screen and volia! You have a larger screen... Well Up to a point you do. I mean having a large screen that's 200' away from you is kind of like having a somewhat big one 100' away. 60" at 5 feet is pretty darn big, when you consider how much of your visual field it covers.
Personally, the real reason is to get both the screen size, brightness and SOUND QUALITY. Although, all these can be approximated at home for less than you think if you don't mind getting close to the TV. It's also a lot more comfortable on my couch and the concession stand is MUCH cheaper.
One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay
And you don't figure that they won't water mark YOUR copy of the movie so they will know exactly who did this and come after you?
(Or, in reality, you don't think they will protect the content by using encryption, custom player software and other DRM techniques to make it necessary for you to break into the HDMI signals directly to capture the video? Or are you planning to record it using your video camera pointed at the TV?)
Oh boy.. Really? Like originalists don't know that. We fully understand that the constitution is intended to limit government, not enumerate all our human rights.
What I think is sadly forgotten is that the bill of rights sets out a framework of what government must NOT do, what they cannot regulate. Specifically what the federal government cannot do. The rest was left to the states and the people. So, for instance, Same Sex marriage. How's that a federally protected right from the constitution? Access to abortion on demand? Health Care? or more recently, the right of non-citizens to enter this country (as the 9th circuit just decided). How is ANY of that the purview of the federal courts? It's not. It's not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government, yet here we are where the federal courts have decided all those are rights. While on the other hand, the 2nd amendment gets infringed by background checks, licensing, and other restrictions at the federal, state and local levels without so much as a passing "we might be infringing" coming from the same judges who have invented all these new rights out of thin air.
Then you impugn the likes of Scalia because he didn't see the courts as the right place for all this creation of new rights nobody ever imagined where necessary to write down?
I'm not sure if the problem was reading comprehension or unclear writing.... But that's what I thought I said... Consult an attorney before answering (or refusing to answer) questions, when being questioned by law enforcement as part of an investigation...Take your lawyer's advice.
You say something along the lines of "I'd like to answer your questions, but I must consult my lawyer first." Which is not refusing to answer, nor answering.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Which is OK because it really was off topic.
I believe our courts have, in some cases, invented rights where none really exist and have ignored rights that ARE enumerated in our constitution. The 10th amendment is the most trampled with the 2nd, 4th and 5th often abridged as well. This should NOT be. Courts should be limited to interpreting the law, not MAKING law though their decisions. They will sometimes be called on to resolve conflicts in existing law and produce precedent, but that should not establish a de facto law or invent rights that here to fore didn't exist.
Unfortunately, that's not how most people see the courts. The courts are now a political tool. See any discussion of the Heller decision by Mrs. Clinton during the last debate or much of the "Citizen United" decision for examples of what I mean. This stuff should NOT be part of a political campaign and only is because the courts have allowed themselves to make decisions based on politics in the past. Which is my point. This should not be so.
What a gas!
Ah come on, you've seen this in all the crime investigation process dramas in the past decade. When the police ask you a question, YOU ask to consult your lawyer and according to your Miranda rights, you must be given access to your lawyer, end of questioning for the time being...
Now, I normally don't recommend you obtain legal knowledge watching TV shows, but in this case, there is enough truth here to be relevant.
I DO however recommend you shut up and consult your lawyer at any point you are not totally clear what your rights are, why the police are asking the questions or if you feel like they are looking to charge you for something you did or didn't do.
Yea, but they "must not abridge" that right you know...
Interesting how we have justified away our constitutional rights in the last few decades isn't it? For the "good of all" we now give up more and more freedom and the courts seem willing to help it happen in the name of social justice, political correctness or even the judge's personal feelings...
(Yes, I'm pointing at the 9th Circuit.... You folks need to swallow a huge does of "what does the law say" and stop with this "but it's mean if you do that" stuff.)
Ah that pesky 5th amendment (along with the 4th) and the limits it puts on law enforcement. Finally a judge that seems to understand the constitution.
I'm guessing though that if law enforcement wants to log into your device, there are other ways in. Didn't we just have a story about that today?
However, be it known that the 5th and 4th amendments don't keep you from being compelled to provide evidence in some circumstances. Best you consult a criminal lawyer before providing or refusing to provide information you are asked. There are times you cannot refuse.
I believe it. Fingerprint scanning was once a really loosey goosey way of providing the illusion of security, but where easily fooled using some pretty low tech. Although a hotdog sure seems to be pretty low tech.. Even on a good day, finger print scanning is pretty bad, either giving you a really high false positive or really high reject rates, even today, when the horse power needed to sort though a pile of prospective fingerprints looking for a match is more readily available.
Think of it as a really bad padlock with one tumbler made of plastic... Easy to pick if you don't want anybody to know you broke in, or you can just yank it off with your bare hands if you don't care if they find out...
I've been sued by a former employer who I had felt it necessary to quit without notice with a wife that was 9 months pregnant and no job prospects in sight. I think I understand the implications of what I'm saying here. Try to get a job when your last employer is lying about you, basically accusing you of all sorts of unethical behavior and threatening to sue prospective employers if they hire you. It was a bad time, a new baby, medical bills and paying a lawyer, but staying would have been worse so I'm glad I quit. I had good reasons to quit and having stuff thrown at me one morning and being verbally threatened was the last straw so I was no longer their employee that afternoon.
NEVER abide a bad situation if you have *any* other options. If you are in a hostile environment like this one (or the one I was in) run, don't walk, away as fast as you can. I know I kept telling myself it would get better, just a little longer, they will eventually come around. Chances are they won't and what was once a daily ball of stress and abuse never got better. In the end for me, it was a mess of lawsuits, lawyers and legal fees, which resulted in me getting paid some lost wages and their dropping all their claims.
So, I do kind of understand what I'm advising folks to do... It's not easy and yes it affects your professional career in the short term, but long term, you have to deal with this garbage sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the worse it gets when you try to unwind all the garbage. So deal with it now.
Seriously, if garbage like described in the article is going on, they NEED to be sued, or at least threated with legal action. Sure, get yourself another job if you can stand it before hiring a lawyer, but don't delay. Do something, ASAP.
Really? So the laws of Physics just might be discovered wrong in the future?
Perhaps our understanding of Physics will change and interstellar space travel will be proven possible, but I'm not holding my breath on that. Einstein and Newton where bright guys and their explanation of Physics seems to be fairly well established. Until we have some major revision to these theories, it isn't happening.
Because our ancestors didn't have a choice did they? Or perhaps you think they did? Did somebody in the distant past decide for all future generations that they where stuck here?
Seriously... So unless you can claim somebody in the past made the moral decision to just dump us off here, we are not talking about the same thing.
Unless of course you do believe that was a choice made by some ancestor.... In which case we need to have a talk...
If this story is really true, there is a huge lawsuit in Uber's future... Given that there really hasn't been such a lawsuit yet, I'm a bit hesitant to just accept all this at face value.
ANY attorney who can pass the bar could win a civil judgment of epic proportions if there is *any* evidence to substantiate that this kind of harassment is a regular happening and the company isn't doing anything to curb it. Now I'm not saying that it's not happening, only that I'm a bit skeptical about such stories coming from people who are not availing themselves of the legal protections they have. Especially when it would literally cost them nothing to get a lawyer to take this on contingency. It's not like lawyers are hard to find... (Yes, honest ones are rare, but you don't need an honest one here..)
Lady, why does it matter what HR said? Call the police, report them, sooner rather than later. If not for yourself, for the next person. Then get yourself some help dealing with this.
You might consider a civil suit too if the HR folks really had that attitude about it... Junk like this is unacceptable.
Seriously? Very sorry I wasn't precise enough for you...
These are the closest possibly habitable planets they have found to date and likely none will be closer. What part of this did you not get?
It's not like there are *that* many stars within 30 light years or so..