Nope. The Supreme Court would have a job, even if they did nothing. They are appointed for life. Unless you think there'd be massive assassinations if a ruling was "wrong".
"shall hold their Offices during good Behavior".
Doing nothing, i.e., not doing their job, is not "good behavior". They would be removed, as has been done before, because they are not appointed for life.
But I guess actually understanding such language is the job of a pedant.
It is The People's job, or perhaps the State's, to decide if abridging our freedom of speech, including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is Constitutional.
Yes, but it's the Supreme Court's job to decide if the law about it is Constitutional.
There's a difference. One would think such a pedant would recognize that.
Ah yes of course. When you can't so much as provide a Constitutional reference to support your claim, just reiterate the claim and call people names. Dolt.
You're more than welcome to get emotional about whatever you like. But, you are in the minority of popular opinion on this matter. Even among those informed enough to have looked into the concept, they appreciate that it is an implied power of the court (all the courts, btw, not just the supreme), it is a reasonable implication, and consider it congruent with the intentions of the drafters of the constitution.
When the courts are deciding that the Constitution does not apply, then they are absolutely, 100%, NOT going with what the drafters of the Constitution intended. The basics of how things work is: The people have all the power; the people choose to give up some power that is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Very simple fact: Any power not delegated to the feds is reserved for the people & states. Nowhere in the Constitution does it so much as imply that sections can be deemed, by the Federal Government, to not apply. There is nothing ambiguous about "Congress shall make no law...". There is no question about the definition of the word "abridge". Hence the 10th Amendment specifically stating that any power not given to the Feds IS NEVER THEIRS. Nobody gave the Feds the power to decide which speech is protected and which is not, because such a distinction is not made in the Constitution. (I left the judge argument behind because it was a bad choice for my point. The judicial powers, as I understand them, do include adjudicating the constitutionality of laws & actions because of Article III, Section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."
I'm not sure I follow your claim about it only applying with the supreme rulers of the land decide it does. Not to say that various leaders didn't overstep their bounds. An easy example is Lincoln suspending habeus corpus, and then ignoring the judicial review against him on the matter. But this merely requires improved enforcement of the checks and balances in the system.
Freedom of Speech is a very simple, clear cut example. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." It is that simple. No law does not mean "some laws", "some times", or "some situations". It doesn't matter what Common Law says, or tradition, or the church, or your own moral code. If some other duty or requirement of Congress puts them in a position where they need to curb speech, then the only Constitutional course of action is something else. Anything that does not violate the 1st Amendment. Absolutely any argument used to ignore one section can be used to justify anything else. The most popular argument used is as presented by Justice Holmes, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". Sounds reasonable, right? Well, "The most stringent protection of due process would not protect a Japanese man walking free in 1942 and causing a panic" Now internment camps with no trial or crime committed are perfectly Constitutional as well. Oh, well, 50 years later we decided they're not, right? We paid reparations to them, so its all ok now, right? Except for the fact that it never would have happened if people didn't arbitrarily ignore other sections of the Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
If the constitution is the supreme law, and the judges must support its supremacy, the only way I can perceive of upholding this is by way of judicial review. It might not be explicit in the constitution, but this is a very strong implication.
<emotion>
Fuck your implication because
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It is The People's job, or perhaps the State's, to decide if abridging our freedom of speech, including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is Constitutional.
Since the 10th is being ignored, then who the fuck cares what the rest of the Constitution says? The Constitution says that no law can abridge the freedom of speech. But we now have definitions of what is "protected speech" and what is not. Some of it is covered by the Constitution, and some is not. Same with guns, and trials, and warrants, and everything else in there. The "Supreme Law of the Land" only applies when the Supreme Rulers of the Land decide it does... which means it, including the part you quoted, is as valueable as King George's pinky swear to not abuse the colonies.
</emotion>
I would love to have a Kinesis Advantage with durability and buckling springs of Model M.
Advantage got such a good layout, but the rubber function keys are just garbage!!!
Absolutely agreed. I had an Advantage before my Freestyle. I don't think mine had rubber function keys, but like the freestyle, if it just had slightly better klacking I think it would be perfect for me.
Better yet: two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.
Nah. Eric Holder has already stated that he has broad latitude in prosecuting criminals. She might win in civil court, but there's no way those apparent criminals are going to jail.
Of course not. I'm sure the DA will offer 6 months in federal prison & a felony record shortly before they hang themselves.
I think the agent in question & his bosses all hanging themselves in their bedroom would be acceptable to me as well.
I would rather we do the hanging in the town square so we can all enjoy the scene. When the worst criminals we have to deal with work for the government, we are all in trouble.
I would rather they see their world crumble around them. I want them to see there is no future for their kind. I want them to despair so fully and completely that they cannot handle the thought of continuing to exist being so out of place. I want them to want to kill themselves to relieve themselves of the shame of knowing the rest of the world will move on, better & brighter, regardless of what they've done or tried to do. I don't want them to know failure, for failure requires an understanding of success. I want them to know their presence was utterly and completely irrelevant.
Better yet: two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.
I think the agent in question & his bosses all hanging themselves in their bedroom would be acceptable to me as well.
They were jamming for two years in a convention center where thousands of people meet every weekend, and they were charging exorbitant fees, in some cases $1000 per device. If this looks too high to you, imagine you are giving a talk about the last 18 months of your research, and a prearranged setup stops working. Your tenure, your reputation, your tenure may depend on that talk. And that's just for researchers. A company that has gathered a thousand POS managers for a discussion of a new system will have millions on the line.
Captive customer base indeed.
Fines seldom come close to wiping out the profits from the con, when big businesses with lobbyists are involved. I have personally participated in a cleanup effort (mostly through volunteers) which used about $30,000 on top of our donated time and equipment. While we were working, the assholes released more detectable crap, and were fined $2,500. But hey, they are golfing with the local high scum.
Did you host an event there? Sue Marriott in civil court.
It would be interesting for lawyers to start calling the primary investigators to
the stand at every trial and asking the simple question "are you aware of any parallel construction?" Basically force investigators
to give up the practice, admit to it, or commit perjury.
Jack Ryan: Who authorized this? Ritter: I'm sure they'll ask you that. Jack Ryan: Who authorized it? Ritter: I have no recollection, Senator.
Sometimes the term "illegal" is used to mean "inadmissible as evidence in court." I thought one can record any audio anywhere, they just might not be able to use it in court.
For California at least, and no doubt the rest, the issue is that they are "Two party consent" states. That means everybody in the recording must give consent to being recorded prior to being recorded. In California, that applies to audio only. Video recordings are always legal. This is criminal as well as civil (again, in California; I didn't look up the other states). Meaning you will go to jail and be sued into oblivion.
You are off the rails. The FCC does not have the power to nullify the anti-wiretapping laws of states.
Fuck the state. Seriously. They work for the tax payer and should be representing the interests of tax payer rather than criminals be they individuals or corporations.
They do. That is why it is illegal to record you without your permission; such as when your friend loans you their car... When thinking about a law, try to imagine yourself in both positions.
The Gallery belonging to that Forbes article starts with "Bakers Women earn 104% more than men in this job." I'd think someone would have noticed if women rally earned more than twice as much as men.
There is a rally for women that earn more than twice as much as men?
That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
First, about this claim, you're just Wrong. Don't make claims you can't back. Construction workers & supervisors, painters, teachers, bakers, bartenders, servers... all jobs that women make more than men. Though "hooker" is not listed in Forbes, I'd guess female sex workers make more than men too.
It is true that women make less than men, but the OP very specifically stated opportunities, not outcomes. The salary rankings are outcomes. The Pew Research Center produced much different numbers (.84 up to.93 per 1.00;.93 is for younger women) than the white house (.77 per 1.00) just by ranking hourly wages instead of weekly wages. This brings in all the part-time workers and full-time workers that work 35+ hours into the same boat as those that work 40 hours+. Furthermore, what research like the white house study fails to account for is things like: 39% of women took a significant amount of time off work to care for their family, 42% have reduced their hours for the same, 27% have quit altogether; while only 24% of men have taken a significant amount of time off work for family. You don't even need the research that shows large breaks hurt your salary. Anybody that has taken a break from work knows that. Perhaps that is why the.93 cents per dollar for younger women; they haven't yet had the chance to drop work for family?
Obviously I have not proven the OP claim, that there are equal or more opportunities for women, the hopefully I have shown that the issue is not so open & shut as you think. Nobody, to my knowledge, is counting Opportunities. Nobody here has even defined them. But with 42% of women not taking full advantage of their opportunity to work full time once they have a job, compared to only 27% percent of men, the argument seems plausible enough to warrant some thought.
For those having trouble understanding what is going on here exactly, the way I understand things is:
The FCC is requiring anybody (specifically, state/local law enforcement) to sign an NDA with the FBI to purchase and/or use "Stingray"s (A proprietary name that is now being used as a catchall for the technology, like "Kleenex" for tissue). The NDA itself is classified & exempt from FOIA requests. The existence of the NDA is not, and was disclosed.
My analysis:
The FCC's NDA requirement, and the hiding of the details of that NDA, is possibly allowed by the FOIA's list of exemptions. I'm not sure which exemption they're claiming (perhaps I missed it in the article's documents), but personally I think it could be reasonable under: Exemption 4: Information that concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information.
or Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy.
But #6 is only because this involves technology created by a private corporation that has the ability to invade a person's privacy... But that logic would include pretty much any technology, like hearing aids. So I'd go with #4.
Government is fascinating. It is like they're playing "Cards Against Humanity", but instead of shits & giggles they're trying to skirt laws & stay in power.
"A ______ stopped the commie's FOIA request from freeing criminals."
Conferences do one thing: they ensure you are up to date on the technology (or whatever other topic) of the day. What is available, how best to use it, what is coming, and how best to plan for that.
What your employer is telling you is that they don't want to know all that. Or more likely if they imagine themselves quality business professionals, they do want to know that, but they don't want to pay for it. So there will come a time when they expect "their guy" to know what is going on, but you won't, because you didn't go, so they will lay you off and hire somebody that knows it already, because that somebody previously worked for a company that paid for him/her to go.
You are an asset to the company because of your skills and knowledge. Like any other asset that has some limit to its usefulness, the company has the option to upgrade or replace it. If they refuse to upgrade the CPU or RAM in their server, what is going to happen eventually? If they refuse to upgrade your knowledge, what are they going to do eventually? Eventually in both cases they'll be forced to replace or upgrade. However, if they don't upgrade preemptively, they will no doubt be faced with a failure situation: server crashed = lost customers; bad technology decision = lost customers.
But since servers today are not (yet) able to upgrade themselves the question is (that you're facing it seems): who's responsibility is it to upgrade you?
That is just an ROI analysis.
So, sell the conference as no different than a hardware or software upgrade for which they no doubt already acknowledge the value of over purchasing new systems. Of course they can go out and hire a replacement for you, and then pay to train them and bring them up to speed and hope they're as good as you; but that is a monumental waste of money. So make sure they understand that if they don't send you, they will have to replace you, at great expense to themselves. And in the meanwhile, you are not behaving optimally. Just because the server hasn't crashed yet, doesn't mean some disgruntled customers aren't leaving due to some spotty performance. Likewise if you're not fully informed, you may be making non-obvious decisions that are not the best for the company.
If they still refuse, then do your own ROI analysis. Is it going to help your career to go? Is that $2500 (or whatever amount) you're begging for going to help you that much, or more (not just cash, maybe your whole life is happier if you're on top of the technology; take your goals into account)? Can you instead just wait until your time at this company is done, and then go take some crash courses to catch up before job hunting some more?
Personally, I expect an employer to pay for a relevant conference not out of any sense of right or wrong or deserved or not deserved, but because of greed and competence. It is cheaper to upgrade than to replace. So either your employer plans ahead appropriately, or doesn't. There are obvious exceptions, especially for startups, but for any established business a refusal to train is a symptom of poor management.
This is the evil that Emanuel is describing from Bernard Shaw, a Fabian Socialist who defended the actions of the Nazi's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Did you not read, or not understand Shaw's writings on Eugenics? Do you even understand the context of that clip? Since neither clip you posted mentions it (and in fact the first seems to distort it), and neither do you, one can best assume that either you don't understand the context, or are purposefully omitting the context because you know it hurts your comparison "argument".
Shit, did you even bother to read Emanuel's article? He very specifically states
Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
and
I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75.
[emphasis his]. He even specifically states that he will not try to end his life. Not suicide, not euthanasia, not doctor assisted suicide. Nothing. He will simply not attempt to prolong it any longer.
He's probably also of the opinion that if you get Muscular Dystrophy in your 30's you should just check out.
This is the gem of your failure. Emanuel specifically OPPOSES exactly that. See the quote above.
Even with your distorted view of Shaw, Emanuel's piece is nothing like Shaw's writings on eugenics. It is merely a statement of how he is choosing to face his own end of life, and an explanation of the logic he used to reach that decision. I consider your analysis & comparison a complete failure.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. The Supreme Court would have a job, even if they did nothing. They are appointed for life. Unless you think there'd be massive assassinations if a ruling was "wrong".
"shall hold their Offices during good Behavior".
Doing nothing, i.e., not doing their job, is not "good behavior". They would be removed, as has been done before, because they are not appointed for life.
But I guess actually understanding such language is the job of a pedant.
It is The People's job, or perhaps the State's, to decide if abridging our freedom of speech, including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is Constitutional.
Yes, but it's the Supreme Court's job to decide if the law about it is Constitutional. There's a difference. One would think such a pedant would recognize that.
Ah yes of course. When you can't so much as provide a Constitutional reference to support your claim, just reiterate the claim and call people names. Dolt.
You're more than welcome to get emotional about whatever you like. But, you are in the minority of popular opinion on this matter. Even among those informed enough to have looked into the concept, they appreciate that it is an implied power of the court (all the courts, btw, not just the supreme), it is a reasonable implication, and consider it congruent with the intentions of the drafters of the constitution.
When the courts are deciding that the Constitution does not apply, then they are absolutely, 100%, NOT going with what the drafters of the Constitution intended. The basics of how things work is: The people have all the power; the people choose to give up some power that is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Very simple fact: Any power not delegated to the feds is reserved for the people & states. Nowhere in the Constitution does it so much as imply that sections can be deemed, by the Federal Government, to not apply. There is nothing ambiguous about "Congress shall make no law...". There is no question about the definition of the word "abridge". Hence the 10th Amendment specifically stating that any power not given to the Feds IS NEVER THEIRS. Nobody gave the Feds the power to decide which speech is protected and which is not, because such a distinction is not made in the Constitution. (I left the judge argument behind because it was a bad choice for my point. The judicial powers, as I understand them, do include adjudicating the constitutionality of laws & actions because of Article III, Section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution ..."
I'm not sure I follow your claim about it only applying with the supreme rulers of the land decide it does. Not to say that various leaders didn't overstep their bounds. An easy example is Lincoln suspending habeus corpus, and then ignoring the judicial review against him on the matter. But this merely requires improved enforcement of the checks and balances in the system.
Freedom of Speech is a very simple, clear cut example. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It is that simple. No law does not mean "some laws", "some times", or "some situations". It doesn't matter what Common Law says, or tradition, or the church, or your own moral code. If some other duty or requirement of Congress puts them in a position where they need to curb speech, then the only Constitutional course of action is something else. Anything that does not violate the 1st Amendment. Absolutely any argument used to ignore one section can be used to justify anything else. The most popular argument used is as presented by Justice Holmes, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". Sounds reasonable, right? Well, "The most stringent protection of due process would not protect a Japanese man walking free in 1942 and causing a panic" Now internment camps with no trial or crime committed are perfectly Constitutional as well. Oh, well, 50 years later we decided they're not, right? We paid reparations to them, so its all ok now, right? Except for the fact that it never would have happened if people didn't arbitrarily ignore other sections of the Constitution.
Way to not make a point.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." If the constitution is the supreme law, and the judges must support its supremacy, the only way I can perceive of upholding this is by way of judicial review. It might not be explicit in the constitution, but this is a very strong implication.
<emotion>
Fuck your implication because
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It is The People's job, or perhaps the State's, to decide if abridging our freedom of speech, including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is Constitutional.
Since the 10th is being ignored, then who the fuck cares what the rest of the Constitution says? The Constitution says that no law can abridge the freedom of speech. But we now have definitions of what is "protected speech" and what is not. Some of it is covered by the Constitution, and some is not. Same with guns, and trials, and warrants, and everything else in there. The "Supreme Law of the Land" only applies when the Supreme Rulers of the Land decide it does... which means it, including the part you quoted, is as valueable as King George's pinky swear to not abuse the colonies.
</emotion>
Welcome to earth, citizen.
The standards are pretty low... you may as well.
The explanation was modded +1 Funny... I think the nobel prize committee is already here, modding slashdot.
I would love to have a Kinesis Advantage with durability and buckling springs of Model M.
Advantage got such a good layout, but the rubber function keys are just garbage!!!
Absolutely agreed. I had an Advantage before my Freestyle. I don't think mine had rubber function keys, but like the freestyle, if it just had slightly better klacking I think it would be perfect for me.
And since my tendinitis isn't anymore... it is a trade up. Sorry M. :(
Nah. Eric Holder has already stated that he has broad latitude in prosecuting criminals. She might win in civil court, but there's no way those apparent criminals are going to jail.
Of course not. I'm sure the DA will offer 6 months in federal prison & a felony record shortly before they hang themselves.
I think the agent in question & his bosses all hanging themselves in their bedroom would be acceptable to me as well.
I would rather we do the hanging in the town square so we can all enjoy the scene. When the worst criminals we have to deal with work for the government, we are all in trouble.
I would rather they see their world crumble around them. I want them to see there is no future for their kind. I want them to despair so fully and completely that they cannot handle the thought of continuing to exist being so out of place. I want them to want to kill themselves to relieve themselves of the shame of knowing the rest of the world will move on, better & brighter, regardless of what they've done or tried to do. I don't want them to know failure, for failure requires an understanding of success. I want them to know their presence was utterly and completely irrelevant.
R'lyeh is Rising!!!
Better yet: Identity Theft.
Better yet: two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.
I think the agent in question & his bosses all hanging themselves in their bedroom would be acceptable to me as well.
Are you kidding?
They were jamming for two years in a convention center where thousands of people meet every weekend, and they were charging exorbitant fees, in some cases $1000 per device. If this looks too high to you, imagine you are giving a talk about the last 18 months of your research, and a prearranged setup stops working. Your tenure, your reputation, your tenure may depend on that talk. And that's just for researchers. A company that has gathered a thousand POS managers for a discussion of a new system will have millions on the line.
Captive customer base indeed.
Fines seldom come close to wiping out the profits from the con, when big businesses with lobbyists are involved. I have personally participated in a cleanup effort (mostly through volunteers) which used about $30,000 on top of our donated time and equipment. While we were working, the assholes released more detectable crap, and were fined $2,500. But hey, they are golfing with the local high scum.
Did you host an event there? Sue Marriott in civil court.
It would be interesting for lawyers to start calling the primary investigators to the stand at every trial and asking the simple question "are you aware of any parallel construction?" Basically force investigators to give up the practice, admit to it, or commit perjury.
Jack Ryan: Who authorized this?
Ritter: I'm sure they'll ask you that.
Jack Ryan: Who authorized it?
Ritter: I have no recollection, Senator.
with every j.
I want to hate you! Stop being so fucking reasonable!
Sometimes the term "illegal" is used to mean "inadmissible as evidence in court." I thought one can record any audio anywhere, they just might not be able to use it in court.
Can someone with legal knowledge of this clarify?
There is a link in the story to a useful site that will tell you about the local laws: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid....
For California at least, and no doubt the rest, the issue is that they are "Two party consent" states. That means everybody in the recording must give consent to being recorded prior to being recorded. In California, that applies to audio only. Video recordings are always legal. This is criminal as well as civil (again, in California; I didn't look up the other states). Meaning you will go to jail and be sued into oblivion.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law
If you need to read in Braille, what the fuck are you doing at the wheel of a goddamm car???
Why would they put Braille on the drive-up ATMs if they didn't expect me to drive there?
You are off the rails. The FCC does not have the power to nullify the anti-wiretapping laws of states.
Fuck the state. Seriously. They work for the tax payer and should be representing the interests of tax payer rather than criminals be they individuals or corporations.
They do. That is why it is illegal to record you without your permission; such as when your friend loans you their car... When thinking about a law, try to imagine yourself in both positions.
The Gallery belonging to that Forbes article starts with "Bakers Women earn 104% more than men in this job." I'd think someone would have noticed if women rally earned more than twice as much as men.
There is a rally for women that earn more than twice as much as men?
That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
First, about this claim, you're just Wrong. Don't make claims you can't back. Construction workers & supervisors, painters, teachers, bakers, bartenders, servers... all jobs that women make more than men. Though "hooker" is not listed in Forbes, I'd guess female sex workers make more than men too.
It is true that women make less than men, but the OP very specifically stated opportunities, not outcomes. The salary rankings are outcomes. The Pew Research Center produced much different numbers (.84 up to .93 per 1.00; .93 is for younger women) than the white house (.77 per 1.00) just by ranking hourly wages instead of weekly wages. This brings in all the part-time workers and full-time workers that work 35+ hours into the same boat as those that work 40 hours+. Furthermore, what research like the white house study fails to account for is things like: 39% of women took a significant amount of time off work to care for their family, 42% have reduced their hours for the same, 27% have quit altogether; while only 24% of men have taken a significant amount of time off work for family. You don't even need the research that shows large breaks hurt your salary. Anybody that has taken a break from work knows that. Perhaps that is why the .93 cents per dollar for younger women; they haven't yet had the chance to drop work for family?
Obviously I have not proven the OP claim, that there are equal or more opportunities for women, the hopefully I have shown that the issue is not so open & shut as you think. Nobody, to my knowledge, is counting Opportunities. Nobody here has even defined them. But with 42% of women not taking full advantage of their opportunity to work full time once they have a job, compared to only 27% percent of men, the argument seems plausible enough to warrant some thought.
The FCC is requiring anybody (specifically, state/local law enforcement) to sign an NDA with the FBI to purchase and/or use "Stingray"s (A proprietary name that is now being used as a catchall for the technology, like "Kleenex" for tissue). The NDA itself is classified & exempt from FOIA requests. The existence of the NDA is not, and was disclosed.
My analysis:
The FCC's NDA requirement, and the hiding of the details of that NDA, is possibly allowed by the FOIA's list of exemptions. I'm not sure which exemption they're claiming (perhaps I missed it in the article's documents), but personally I think it could be reasonable under:
Exemption 4: Information that concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information.
or
Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy.
But #6 is only because this involves technology created by a private corporation that has the ability to invade a person's privacy... But that logic would include pretty much any technology, like hearing aids. So I'd go with #4.
Government is fascinating. It is like they're playing "Cards Against Humanity", but instead of shits & giggles they're trying to skirt laws & stay in power.
"A ______ stopped the commie's FOIA request from freeing criminals."
What your employer is telling you is that they don't want to know all that. Or more likely if they imagine themselves quality business professionals, they do want to know that, but they don't want to pay for it. So there will come a time when they expect "their guy" to know what is going on, but you won't, because you didn't go, so they will lay you off and hire somebody that knows it already, because that somebody previously worked for a company that paid for him/her to go.
You are an asset to the company because of your skills and knowledge. Like any other asset that has some limit to its usefulness, the company has the option to upgrade or replace it. If they refuse to upgrade the CPU or RAM in their server, what is going to happen eventually? If they refuse to upgrade your knowledge, what are they going to do eventually? Eventually in both cases they'll be forced to replace or upgrade. However, if they don't upgrade preemptively, they will no doubt be faced with a failure situation: server crashed = lost customers; bad technology decision = lost customers.
But since servers today are not (yet) able to upgrade themselves the question is (that you're facing it seems): who's responsibility is it to upgrade you?
That is just an ROI analysis.
So, sell the conference as no different than a hardware or software upgrade for which they no doubt already acknowledge the value of over purchasing new systems. Of course they can go out and hire a replacement for you, and then pay to train them and bring them up to speed and hope they're as good as you; but that is a monumental waste of money. So make sure they understand that if they don't send you, they will have to replace you, at great expense to themselves. And in the meanwhile, you are not behaving optimally. Just because the server hasn't crashed yet, doesn't mean some disgruntled customers aren't leaving due to some spotty performance. Likewise if you're not fully informed, you may be making non-obvious decisions that are not the best for the company.
If they still refuse, then do your own ROI analysis. Is it going to help your career to go? Is that $2500 (or whatever amount) you're begging for going to help you that much, or more (not just cash, maybe your whole life is happier if you're on top of the technology; take your goals into account)? Can you instead just wait until your time at this company is done, and then go take some crash courses to catch up before job hunting some more?
Personally, I expect an employer to pay for a relevant conference not out of any sense of right or wrong or deserved or not deserved, but because of greed and competence. It is cheaper to upgrade than to replace. So either your employer plans ahead appropriately, or doesn't. There are obvious exceptions, especially for startups, but for any established business a refusal to train is a symptom of poor management.
This is the evil that Emanuel is describing from Bernard Shaw, a Fabian Socialist who defended the actions of the Nazi's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Did you not read, or not understand Shaw's writings on Eugenics? Do you even understand the context of that clip? Since neither clip you posted mentions it (and in fact the first seems to distort it), and neither do you, one can best assume that either you don't understand the context, or are purposefully omitting the context because you know it hurts your comparison "argument".
Shit, did you even bother to read Emanuel's article? He very specifically states
Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
and
I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75.
[emphasis his]. He even specifically states that he will not try to end his life. Not suicide, not euthanasia, not doctor assisted suicide. Nothing. He will simply not attempt to prolong it any longer.
He's probably also of the opinion that if you get Muscular Dystrophy in your 30's you should just check out.
This is the gem of your failure. Emanuel specifically OPPOSES exactly that. See the quote above.
Even with your distorted view of Shaw, Emanuel's piece is nothing like Shaw's writings on eugenics. It is merely a statement of how he is choosing to face his own end of life, and an explanation of the logic he used to reach that decision. I consider your analysis & comparison a complete failure.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but.....
Terrorists that aren't engineers don't last.
I don't think there's much support in the evidence for this idea.
Engineers build the bombs
The plebs wear them.
The next generation will be too dumb to fight anybody.