If they extend their lives they can work and pay taxes for public goods like everyone else. If they extend their lives and also want social security extended accordingly or ANY government benefits, hell no.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'll speak to the legal angle and see if you can extrapolate from that.
Look up the definition of theft - as in, the statutory definition in your state.
In most states, theft is defined something like "taking something which doesn't belong to with the INTENTION of PERMANENTLY depriving the owner of said property."
Let's see how good my memory is on this using my state...
MN statute 609.52s2:
"intentionally and without claim of right takes, uses, transfers, conceals or retains possession of movable property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of the property"
Yea I did pretty good. Taking something temporarily is not theft because intent is key. I actually learned this when I was younger and my step dad took my shotgun claiming he was scared of my state of mind or something after a verbal dispute. I called the cops out and of course they didn't want to side with the 20 year old guy and said they wouldn't press charges because "he said he'll give it back to you when he's comfortable." Seriously. Of course I flipped and said that's ridiculous and made the cops get it from him and give it back to me within a day. But then I looked up the statute and learned that is what the statute said, and it makes sense... However I'm sure court precedents establish it must be a reasonable amount of time.
The more you know.
You obviously have no idea what AA is if you think it is a way to prevent discrimination.
We already had systems in place to do that.
AA took that 10 steps further by declaring it is illegal to have disproportionate populations/ outcomes, WHEN THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION. So minorities must be allowed jobs whites would not get, even if there was no discrimination, if there was a DISPARATE IMPACT.
I suggest you do a little disparate impact research.
And you are an idiot. Chas didn't say one racist sentence. I double checked.
Please cite which sentence he said includes hatred for minorities or claiming they are inferior.
Otherwise Shut Up.
Damn people nowadays don't even know the definition of racism anymore. Little hint: mentioning the word "black" is not racist. Neither is mentioning stereotypes about any race.
You'd think people in this forum would be able to ask dictionary.com about "racism" but they continue to toss the word around because it suits their agenda.
No they did not. They can question you all you want without informing you of your rights, and there is nothing wrong with that. Yes its correct that they can not use your answers in court, but if they don't try to (as they never try to) then there is no violation of due process.
I agreed with everything in your post until I got to the GED part. Its simply not true that every deadbeat loser gets his GED. I am qualified to tell you that is not even close.
When I was younger I knew a few people who couldn't get their GED based on lack of knowledge. Yes they were probably what you would call a deadbeat loser, and mostly hopeless.
But there is a reason for the program in certain situations. This was around 2000 but I'd had a family situation that resulted in me being independent from about my 16th birthday. I had to work to live. At 17 I got picked up for truancy and long story short after psych exams and tests the judge said basically not to worry about that last 2 years, get your GED and we'll forget about high school (I ended up skipping the last 3 years)
Yes this is a very unique circumstance because I wasn't a criminal (by choice) and am very smart. And with my extraordinary score I got into the univ of my choice and got my CS degree. 10 years later I was making 6figures. So the GED program basically saved my life.
On the other hand, for those less capable it is not easy to get a GED. Sure you need about a 10th grade education but many don't have that. In fact there was a guy I knew who failed it a couple times and I actually forged a GED for him based on mine, because he only needed it to get his fathers inheritance as a native american tribal issue. Its not easy for everyone.
Ahh I've said too much but that statue of limitations has passed...
I've read every comment and no one has said the obvious -
Why are they so intent on searching a laptop anyhow?
The way I see it, there are 3 possibilities
1) You're a normal person with a bunch of crap on your laptop that won't help the government
2) You are actually smuggling data you shouldn't be, in which case you are not stupid enough to carry it on your person (I.e. leave it in the cloud, simple)
3) You are the dumbest mofo in the history of smuggling or terrorism and you actually are carrying something incriminating. I doubt this has EVER happened, and assume the probability is 1 in a billion.
Seriously... What a fucking waste of time. Do they really think terrorists are going to be that stupid? No. This is all a ruse to look for other shit.
Last time I checked it is perfectly legal to breach a contract such as a terms of use if it it exposes the type of criminal activity we all suspect is occurring with these devices.
In other words, it would be completely legal for a prosecutor to disclose that info at trial, BUT two things would happen:
1) Knowing how the device works would result in the judge suppressing any evidence derived from it, effectively neutering the prosecution's entire case
2) Any LEO org using it would be sued for using it
Neither are what the prosecutor wants, so it is not to their advantage to do the right thing and LEGALLY breach the contract.
But there WILL come a time when a prosecutor needs another case dropped this way for some reason. All we can do is wait it out.
Nobody is claiming being a whistleblower is treason.
But the gov is claiming that in the process he provided aid to the enemy, which is treason.
Not saying I agree with that, but that is their justification for wanting to charge him.
The same crime that is committed if a cop performs an illegal search, violating your 4th amendment rights - its a civil rights violation. Deprivation of rights under color of law. And in this case, being more than 2 people, conspiracy against rights. 18 USC 241 if memory serves correctly.
Umm... Blatantly wrong. Cops never HAVE TO read you your rights. If the arrest was legal, they can question you all they want without Miranda. They can't use your answers at trial, that's it. No violation of your rights.
This happens all the time, in fact for this reason it is common practice in most PDs to not read you your rights if it is a misdemeanor charge, because they usually have enough evidence to convict by observation prior to the arrest, so it really doesn't matter that they can't use your later answers - they already have enough evidence, don't need your confession.
Do a google search. This is really a simple concept.
You say your assertion is logical, then end with the admission that it is circumstantial. Normally i would just end it there but I'm bored.
There isn't a "blend," FYI. The conclusion you present is not one which we could abstract, because it is not logical in itself, rather logical to you, given YOUR "logic" which is not presented here.
I will repeat, nothing in this "study" can logically be attributed to age discrimination.
"The fact that they have an artificially low Median (and presumably mean) age workforce, coupled with the fact that they are actively seeking H1B's (ostensibly because they cant find American talent) speaks for itself."
Yes, it speaks volumes - it is evidence that they hire competent people. It is not evidence that they are discriminating based on age. That simply isn't a logical conclusion. There is no evidence of that.
In fact bringing outsourcing into the convo helps show that. It is more evidence that they are targeting the most qualified people regardless of having to pay more for the sponsorship.
We can all be conspiracy theorists, but there is simply no way to logically deduce that they are discriminating based on age with the evidence at hand. Sure it may be circumstantial evidence that supports your pre-decided opinion, but it is not a logical conclusion.
Also, if the "assholes start dominating the discussion" then I would find out why instead of just calling them assholes. Its probable that they dominate the discussion because they are right, and just because your differing point of view is not the feature anymore does not mean the forum is useless, in fact that sounds like progress, learning by the community as a whole.
It sounds like you arent keen on freedom of speech. I know what happens. Its called freedom. Some people may get their feelings hurt, and they may choose not to express because of that. Choose. That is the nature of freedom. Not force.
There is no evidence of age discrimination. Period. It just so happens that younger people are more likely to be competent in newer languages, fads, etc.
Affirmative action is called for by whiners as an excuse to employ more people from their age/race/gender group, even when it [usually] means hiring less qualified people. Its the old "equal outcomes" plight. This is the land of equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. People vary in their competencies. The affirmative action whiners are really advocating for discriminating against the most qualified in order to get a selfish chance for themselves. Stop it.
The last couple sentences here are a perfect display of the liberal "you have to agree with me, or else!" Attitude we see so often.
"Freedom of expression means little as our underlying philosophy if we continue to allow voices to be silenced because they are afraid to speak up. We need to do a better job combating abuse"
Basically what that is saying is "my freedom of expression is more important than yours."
And yes I'll clarify. The part "IF we allow voices to be silenced because they are too afraid to speak up" is inherently insinuating that we should not "allow voices to be silenced" because people are afraid to speak up.
1) that's not being silenced. That is choosing not to speak up.
2) and your solution is to ACTUALLY silence those who disagree with you, so that you may be more likely to speak up by choice.
There is so much wrong and hypocritical with that thinking I'll leave it there. If you think you need to silence other voices by force so that they don't deter you from speaking by choice, then you are the root of everything which is wrong in the world today.
Exactly. And I wonder if the numbers were cherry picked. Of course they were. CA is a net importer, much of its electricity is generated out of state. So I guess if they want to improve this stat even more they can just shut down power plants next year, then say that 30% "generated" by solar because they cut down on other generation. Never mind how much is imported and consumed.
But what would you expect when you see their source is the solar industry.
Articles like this piss me off simply because of the amount of people who defend this shit using such ridiculous stats.
"The crime of unauthorized access to a computer system" usually isn't worded that way in law, differs by state, and usually includes several other requirements such as doing so maliciously or with intent to deprive the company of property, with the key word being intent, so the person can just say they didn't know their personal stuff on the company machine was assumed to be property of the company, and yes they would get away with it 99% of the time. Ignorance IS an excuse when the law requires intent as a factor, as most do.
I could go on but the bottom line is it is definitely not as clear cut as "log in, guilty of crime." Any half passed lawyer could defend most of those cases
My first job out of college was a small manufacturing company with about 30 in the front office.
A new CEO came on for "new direction" crap blah blah.
Anyhow the VP of Sales quit. It was on good terms but he'd had enough of the new direction. Owner, president, HR, everyone liked the guy.
I was notified first thing AM by HR & CEO, and I asked them if I needed to lock him out of systems and email. They both said "no no we're going to give him a few hours to clean up."
He brought contacts, and he deleted them and all emails from outlook and wiped his company iPhone.
I get back from lunch at 1:00 to the CEO screaming at me for letting him wipe the phone. I said, umm I asked you and you told me to give him a few hours, and his reply was obviously "you shouldn't have listened to me, your the expert!"
Moral of the story - even if the higher ups say don't worry about it, worry about it (assuming you could be blamed).
I honestly thought this was well settled, hence the reason every gps tracking operation I've heard of was sanctioned by a warrant.
Like others here I think this is just a distraction - maybe the entire reason they took the case up, because we all know the cops would rather use stingray devices to track your location and much more.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care what Janes book says. Assault weapon is not a real definition unless you prescribe to her language.
Assault rifle ... Is... Ok let's give you a break... Yes its 2 "real words" but together that phrase does not define any sort of firearm known to man.
If they extend their lives they can work and pay taxes for public goods like everyone else. If they extend their lives and also want social security extended accordingly or ANY government benefits, hell no.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'll speak to the legal angle and see if you can extrapolate from that. Look up the definition of theft - as in, the statutory definition in your state. In most states, theft is defined something like "taking something which doesn't belong to with the INTENTION of PERMANENTLY depriving the owner of said property." Let's see how good my memory is on this using my state... MN statute 609.52s2: "intentionally and without claim of right takes, uses, transfers, conceals or retains possession of movable property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of the property" Yea I did pretty good. Taking something temporarily is not theft because intent is key. I actually learned this when I was younger and my step dad took my shotgun claiming he was scared of my state of mind or something after a verbal dispute. I called the cops out and of course they didn't want to side with the 20 year old guy and said they wouldn't press charges because "he said he'll give it back to you when he's comfortable." Seriously. Of course I flipped and said that's ridiculous and made the cops get it from him and give it back to me within a day. But then I looked up the statute and learned that is what the statute said, and it makes sense... However I'm sure court precedents establish it must be a reasonable amount of time. The more you know.
You obviously have no idea what AA is if you think it is a way to prevent discrimination. We already had systems in place to do that. AA took that 10 steps further by declaring it is illegal to have disproportionate populations/ outcomes, WHEN THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION. So minorities must be allowed jobs whites would not get, even if there was no discrimination, if there was a DISPARATE IMPACT. I suggest you do a little disparate impact research.
And you are an idiot. Chas didn't say one racist sentence. I double checked. Please cite which sentence he said includes hatred for minorities or claiming they are inferior. Otherwise Shut Up. Damn people nowadays don't even know the definition of racism anymore. Little hint: mentioning the word "black" is not racist. Neither is mentioning stereotypes about any race. You'd think people in this forum would be able to ask dictionary.com about "racism" but they continue to toss the word around because it suits their agenda.
No they did not. They can question you all you want without informing you of your rights, and there is nothing wrong with that. Yes its correct that they can not use your answers in court, but if they don't try to (as they never try to) then there is no violation of due process.
I agreed with everything in your post until I got to the GED part. Its simply not true that every deadbeat loser gets his GED. I am qualified to tell you that is not even close. When I was younger I knew a few people who couldn't get their GED based on lack of knowledge. Yes they were probably what you would call a deadbeat loser, and mostly hopeless. But there is a reason for the program in certain situations. This was around 2000 but I'd had a family situation that resulted in me being independent from about my 16th birthday. I had to work to live. At 17 I got picked up for truancy and long story short after psych exams and tests the judge said basically not to worry about that last 2 years, get your GED and we'll forget about high school (I ended up skipping the last 3 years) Yes this is a very unique circumstance because I wasn't a criminal (by choice) and am very smart. And with my extraordinary score I got into the univ of my choice and got my CS degree. 10 years later I was making 6figures. So the GED program basically saved my life. On the other hand, for those less capable it is not easy to get a GED. Sure you need about a 10th grade education but many don't have that. In fact there was a guy I knew who failed it a couple times and I actually forged a GED for him based on mine, because he only needed it to get his fathers inheritance as a native american tribal issue. Its not easy for everyone. Ahh I've said too much but that statue of limitations has passed...
I've read every comment and no one has said the obvious - Why are they so intent on searching a laptop anyhow? The way I see it, there are 3 possibilities 1) You're a normal person with a bunch of crap on your laptop that won't help the government 2) You are actually smuggling data you shouldn't be, in which case you are not stupid enough to carry it on your person (I.e. leave it in the cloud, simple) 3) You are the dumbest mofo in the history of smuggling or terrorism and you actually are carrying something incriminating. I doubt this has EVER happened, and assume the probability is 1 in a billion. Seriously... What a fucking waste of time. Do they really think terrorists are going to be that stupid? No. This is all a ruse to look for other shit.
Last time I checked it is perfectly legal to breach a contract such as a terms of use if it it exposes the type of criminal activity we all suspect is occurring with these devices. In other words, it would be completely legal for a prosecutor to disclose that info at trial, BUT two things would happen: 1) Knowing how the device works would result in the judge suppressing any evidence derived from it, effectively neutering the prosecution's entire case 2) Any LEO org using it would be sued for using it Neither are what the prosecutor wants, so it is not to their advantage to do the right thing and LEGALLY breach the contract. But there WILL come a time when a prosecutor needs another case dropped this way for some reason. All we can do is wait it out.
Nobody is claiming being a whistleblower is treason. But the gov is claiming that in the process he provided aid to the enemy, which is treason. Not saying I agree with that, but that is their justification for wanting to charge him.
The same crime that is committed if a cop performs an illegal search, violating your 4th amendment rights - its a civil rights violation. Deprivation of rights under color of law. And in this case, being more than 2 people, conspiracy against rights. 18 USC 241 if memory serves correctly.
Umm... Blatantly wrong. Cops never HAVE TO read you your rights. If the arrest was legal, they can question you all they want without Miranda. They can't use your answers at trial, that's it. No violation of your rights. This happens all the time, in fact for this reason it is common practice in most PDs to not read you your rights if it is a misdemeanor charge, because they usually have enough evidence to convict by observation prior to the arrest, so it really doesn't matter that they can't use your later answers - they already have enough evidence, don't need your confession. Do a google search. This is really a simple concept.
You say your assertion is logical, then end with the admission that it is circumstantial. Normally i would just end it there but I'm bored. There isn't a "blend," FYI. The conclusion you present is not one which we could abstract, because it is not logical in itself, rather logical to you, given YOUR "logic" which is not presented here. I will repeat, nothing in this "study" can logically be attributed to age discrimination.
"The fact that they have an artificially low Median (and presumably mean) age workforce, coupled with the fact that they are actively seeking H1B's (ostensibly because they cant find American talent) speaks for itself." Yes, it speaks volumes - it is evidence that they hire competent people. It is not evidence that they are discriminating based on age. That simply isn't a logical conclusion. There is no evidence of that. In fact bringing outsourcing into the convo helps show that. It is more evidence that they are targeting the most qualified people regardless of having to pay more for the sponsorship. We can all be conspiracy theorists, but there is simply no way to logically deduce that they are discriminating based on age with the evidence at hand. Sure it may be circumstantial evidence that supports your pre-decided opinion, but it is not a logical conclusion.
Also, if the "assholes start dominating the discussion" then I would find out why instead of just calling them assholes. Its probable that they dominate the discussion because they are right, and just because your differing point of view is not the feature anymore does not mean the forum is useless, in fact that sounds like progress, learning by the community as a whole.
It sounds like you arent keen on freedom of speech. I know what happens. Its called freedom. Some people may get their feelings hurt, and they may choose not to express because of that. Choose. That is the nature of freedom. Not force.
There is no evidence of age discrimination. Period. It just so happens that younger people are more likely to be competent in newer languages, fads, etc. Affirmative action is called for by whiners as an excuse to employ more people from their age/race/gender group, even when it [usually] means hiring less qualified people. Its the old "equal outcomes" plight. This is the land of equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. People vary in their competencies. The affirmative action whiners are really advocating for discriminating against the most qualified in order to get a selfish chance for themselves. Stop it.
The last couple sentences here are a perfect display of the liberal "you have to agree with me, or else!" Attitude we see so often. "Freedom of expression means little as our underlying philosophy if we continue to allow voices to be silenced because they are afraid to speak up. We need to do a better job combating abuse" Basically what that is saying is "my freedom of expression is more important than yours." And yes I'll clarify. The part "IF we allow voices to be silenced because they are too afraid to speak up" is inherently insinuating that we should not "allow voices to be silenced" because people are afraid to speak up. 1) that's not being silenced. That is choosing not to speak up. 2) and your solution is to ACTUALLY silence those who disagree with you, so that you may be more likely to speak up by choice. There is so much wrong and hypocritical with that thinking I'll leave it there. If you think you need to silence other voices by force so that they don't deter you from speaking by choice, then you are the root of everything which is wrong in the world today.
Exactly. And I wonder if the numbers were cherry picked. Of course they were. CA is a net importer, much of its electricity is generated out of state. So I guess if they want to improve this stat even more they can just shut down power plants next year, then say that 30% "generated" by solar because they cut down on other generation. Never mind how much is imported and consumed. But what would you expect when you see their source is the solar industry. Articles like this piss me off simply because of the amount of people who defend this shit using such ridiculous stats.
"The crime of unauthorized access to a computer system" usually isn't worded that way in law, differs by state, and usually includes several other requirements such as doing so maliciously or with intent to deprive the company of property, with the key word being intent, so the person can just say they didn't know their personal stuff on the company machine was assumed to be property of the company, and yes they would get away with it 99% of the time. Ignorance IS an excuse when the law requires intent as a factor, as most do. I could go on but the bottom line is it is definitely not as clear cut as "log in, guilty of crime." Any half passed lawyer could defend most of those cases
My first job out of college was a small manufacturing company with about 30 in the front office. A new CEO came on for "new direction" crap blah blah. Anyhow the VP of Sales quit. It was on good terms but he'd had enough of the new direction. Owner, president, HR, everyone liked the guy. I was notified first thing AM by HR & CEO, and I asked them if I needed to lock him out of systems and email. They both said "no no we're going to give him a few hours to clean up." He brought contacts, and he deleted them and all emails from outlook and wiped his company iPhone. I get back from lunch at 1:00 to the CEO screaming at me for letting him wipe the phone. I said, umm I asked you and you told me to give him a few hours, and his reply was obviously "you shouldn't have listened to me, your the expert!" Moral of the story - even if the higher ups say don't worry about it, worry about it (assuming you could be blamed).
I honestly thought this was well settled, hence the reason every gps tracking operation I've heard of was sanctioned by a warrant. Like others here I think this is just a distraction - maybe the entire reason they took the case up, because we all know the cops would rather use stingray devices to track your location and much more.