If the lowly peon isn't held accountable for his direct actions, then the next time management asks him to do something wrong or illegal, there's one less reason for him to refuse. If he refuses, he can be assured of repercussions from management, but experience has shown him that threat of legal consequences is low if he complies; the path of least resistance is clear.
What you're advocating is that the IT puke be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, and punished for... working an anonymous hardware ticket in the IT task management tool.
No. He is advocating said puke be arrested for violating known data retention laws. The same way you and I are held responsible for violating any other law.
But while we're at it, let's imprison undertakers for destroying murder evidence in cases where the murder isn't uncovered until after the burial.
If there is a law requiring said undertaker to keep the body on ice for 3 years before burial, and an entire government agency dedicated to the sole purpose of ensuring that all bodies are preserved for 3 years before disposal according to a well-known, published policy that is disseminated to all undertakers, and he says "Durp, I got 10 bodies to dispose with that request so I just up and did it", and cremates the body before the 3 year period is up, then ya, arrest him too.
That is exactly what GM executives have said for the past 10 years about the ignition switches.
They are hiring and look for someone just like you.
They're looking for somebody that asks for proof? Neat. I regularly look for people that think things through as well. Be sure and let me know when you find some proof to back up your claims. Wouldn't want people thinking you're racist, believing Chinese work is sub-standard just because it is Chinese, and using nebulous "the internet says so" as "proof".
WE already have this problem. Many GM car failures are based on low end China parts. Bad castings on control arms, bad machning on wheel bearings, etc...
Anyone want to make any bets on how long they're being sold here in the U.S. before someone dies in an accident because it was made with sub-standard parts, or poor quality control?
Don't mod me down as a troll or flamebait, either, because it's not like there isn't a history of low-quality crap coming out of China.
I was going to make the joke that there will be no measurable difference, but Americans will still manage to notice the difference.
Thanks for the nice setup.
That's not the contentious derail part: the derail part is how negatively that reality reflects on the 2nd amendment and its support in the US.
Nah. The problem with the 2nd Amendment argument (for or against) is that nobody making the big arguments is considering the rest of the Constitution. Any one part of the Constitution can be used, by itself, in support or against that particular clause, to fuck people up. The entire document is supposed to be used in full.
The 2nd Amendment goes hand-in-hand with not having a standing army. But we have one, imho in violation of the Constitution, which has now warped the 2nd Amendment into one of personal self-defense. Criminals breaking into homes is not even hinted at in the 2nd Amendment. That argument is completely irrelevant. Overthrowing the government by force is also silly if the States have the power they are supposed to have, and the people have the power they're supposed to have, and the Federal government has to ask the people to form an army before they up and declare war.
In fact, the very same arguments against the 2nd Amendment rights (the availability of guns invites the proclivity to use them); are the exact same arguments made against a standing army. For Iraq, from vote to invasion, was less than 3 weeks. And every one of the hundreds of thousands of men & women that went in and out of there had already signed a contract, without even the slightest inkling that we'd be invading Iraq, who had not attacked us, and so had no choice as to whether or not to go.
Would Bush have even been able to raise an army to invade, considering the protests that filled every city on the planet at the time? I highly doubt it. Would he have been able to invade in just 3 weeks? Oh hell no.
So I will disagree with you strongly about how the Arab Spring reflects negatively on the support of the 2nd Amendment in the United States. It might reflect negatively on one weak argument, but not support entirely.
True, it's a "hack" but it's a pretty trivial hack.
They are the ultimate script kiddies. Kids, using a script published by the manufacturer.
Even putting "trivial" in front diminishes the glory of hacking.
but how complicated can one plow really be... when compared to a modern smart phone?
When we talk about phones and licenses, we also need to include trademarks. What is the shape of the plow. What color did you make the plow. What type of handles. What is the shape of the handles.
And obviously there is a difference between a human driven and an animal driven plow.
Oh and obviously if the plow is made after 1492, you can add 'for the potato' to each patent and copyright.
If the plow was invented today by a company, the patent, copyright and trademark lawers would have a field day and come up with way more then just the 5 you think are logical.
Oh and obviously you can not just go to the townsmith and ask for a plow or make parts yourself. That would be equal pirating.
With the speed at wihch technology progresses increasing as drastically as it has been, we need to rethink the we we grant patents. Software patents need to pass the CS201 stink test (if a CS201 student can figure it out, it ain't novel), and important hardware patents should have a shorter lifespan.
Part of the problem is the complexity of the product being built, which naturally increases the number of technologies, and therefore the number of patents being included in the product.
Invent a plow today and you need... 1 patent. Its a sheet of metal for cutting the earth. Throw on a yoke and use a new alloy and may be a couple more for hooks and leather straps and you're still around 5 patents. Granted I'm not a plow engineer so I really don't know everything that goes into one, but how complicated can one plow really be... when compared to a modern smart phone?
We're no longer standing on the shoulders of giants, we're standing on the shoulders of giants who are standing on the shoulders of giants who are standing on the shoulders of giants... and every single one of them wants to get paid for holding us up. (Atlas shrugged cause he wasn't getting paid).
I'm having trouble linking royalty costs to "stifling innovation" though. Getting paid via royalty payments is a pretty good reason to innovate: invent something, get paid. Increases in the amount people are paying in royalties just increases the incentive to invent something and get paid. In fact, it is doing exactly that. Companies invent stuff, or buy inventions, just to use those inventions as collateral to get access to other inventions. That $120-$150 estimate they put on there is not cash payments, it is $120-$150 of something... such as their own inventions.
I don't particularly recall that many "Cant afford royalty payments so our product is cancelled" stories. I do see Apple's $160 billion bank balance though, which to me says there is no problem with royalties or lawsuits over royalties or profit margins. In fact that tells me the royalties have saved Apple quite a bit of money in R&D costs.
It is only ambiguous when there is not enough context to make the definition clear.
Yes, and if you are intelligent you may also be aware of the fact that text is often taken out of context, and each sentence should be a complete thought.
Nah. Being anal-retentive about such things when your audience understands the context is unnecessary elitist bullshit for those that confuse knowledge with intelligence while only truly possessing the former... and for language nerds.
America is a synonym for the US*, and it is also also a term for the combination of North and South America, but not at the same time.
Yes, it's in the dictionaries, but only idiots say it as it is ambiguous. The purpose of writing (or indeed, speaking) is communication.
It is only ambiguous when there is not enough context to make the definition clear. Idiots either don't provide enough context, don't understand the context provided, or think context doesn't matter.
Amelia Bedelia is funny because her ability to misunderstand things in spite of the provided context, is absurd.
No, the quote from the article did not contain the words "South America," so it's the submitter or editor that is poor at geography. And quoting.
I was wondering about that, too. What I assumed had happened was that someone at BBC noticed the error and it was corrected between the time that the article was quoted and the time that I read it.
I think the BBC correcting their mistake is far more likely.
First, the story lists a publish date (not time) of May 20, and a "Last updated at 19:18 ET" (Obviously not on the 22nd, but maybe on the 21st, or the 20th?). So, they corrected something... why not a geography error on page laughing at dumb Americans.
But more telling is: who submits a story by manually, retyping the story headers AND randomly adds a phrase like that? Nobody, that's who. Everybody just uses copy/paste. Complete with the British spelling of "maths".
Google strong-arming musicians like the worst of the music industry? I dunno, sounds pretty evil to me.
Yes, how dare Google dictate its own business terms! How dare they tell those making money off of their 100% completely free service (without even ads if they so chose not to have them) that the free ride won't last forever. Evil! Evil I say! Nay, Google... NAY!
Google should have no say over how they choose to do business. Instead, Google should be nationalized and operated by an independent board of poets, and every decision voted on by their users to make everyone happy. Their servers will then be converted to run on unicorn rainbow farts, and 99% of profits shall be given to EU newspapers to recoup all of the vast amounts of business they've lost by having Google link to their stories so that people can actually find them.
[/sarcasm]
You know, I was wondering if there were still people on/. that were totally opposed to the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit on the grounds that Microsoft did nothing wrong. I might agree with you that abusing your dominance in one area to gain a foothold in another is not evil per se, but I think doing so when the side-effect is reducing the amount of art that is available to people, just to spite those artists that refuse to bow to your bullying and give you their work for a lower price than said artists think is fair, is evil.
I just find it hard to believe anybody using the proverbial, "You'll never work in this town again!" line has altruistic, or even neutral motives.
It is harder then it seems.
There are a lot of Woman who just don't want to go into technology.
For many reasons.
1. Culturally: Woman should have jobs working directly with people, Men should have jobs avoiding people.
2. Geeky Culture: A lot of it is very male centrist, the idea of going to technology means you will need to interact with a culture many do not find appealing.
3. Catch 22: Woman do not want to go into technology because their isn't enough women in technology.
4. Peer pressure: If a woman shows an interest going to technology, their friends will try to dissuade them.
Like, say, men who make random generalizations about women?
Reason 5.
Sexism: +3 insightful
Calling out said sexism: -1 Off Topic.
Your comment makes sense only if you think that what Apple, Google, etc. did was right, and that freedom is bad.
Or if you have an understanding of history, the market, resources, and human psychology.
With $150 billion in the bank, Apple can suck it up, wait it out, sue, issue propaganda, or do whatever else is necessary to break a union. There are enough people out there desperate for a job that Apple will win. The average plebeian, fresh out of college with $100k in student loans, or later on in life with a mortgage payment and a family to support, does not have that luxury.
An ant isn't concerned with freedom when the boot is coming down on its head. Even a colony of well-organized fire ants can't handle somebody that can afford an exterminator and a week's vacation while their house is under a tent.
Take a look at the pre-union activities of the Apple/Google contemporaries of the 19th century: Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc. They won. Every time. Until the government stepped in.
This post says it better than I can, with plenty of evidence supplied. Repubs have fought net neutrality tooth and nail from day 1.
So? That somehow justifies Obama's actions & lies, or Wheeler's obvious goals?
Wheeler's just crying uncle at this point. Quitter.
lol. He spends years as a lobbyist trying to get this kind of rule enacted, then takes a job that ostensibly should be opposed to it, and immediately "cries uncle" and gives in to his lobbying successor?
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha. Is that the Eastern Ukranian's plan too? Are they going to defect and then immediately surrender?
Perhaps we could confuse them by running away more!
Tom Wheeler, Chairman, appointed by: Obama; November 2013
Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2013 and June 2009
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2012
Ajit Pai, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2012
Michael O'Reilly, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; August 2013
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
Republican view? I'm confused.
Obama, a Democrat, said, “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over”.
Obama, a Democrat, appointed Tom Wheeler, former cable & wireless lobbyist, to chair the FCC.
A democrat controlled Senate confirmed Tom Wheeler as the FCC chairman.
Tom Wheeler proposes the fast lane.
If you're going to spew partisan demagoguery, at least post it on a story it applies to.
Slashdot Mirror
If the lowly peon isn't held accountable for his direct actions, then the next time management asks him to do something wrong or illegal, there's one less reason for him to refuse. If he refuses, he can be assured of repercussions from management, but experience has shown him that threat of legal consequences is low if he complies; the path of least resistance is clear.
What you're advocating is that the IT puke be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, and punished for... working an anonymous hardware ticket in the IT task management tool.
No. He is advocating said puke be arrested for violating known data retention laws. The same way you and I are held responsible for violating any other law.
But while we're at it, let's imprison undertakers for destroying murder evidence in cases where the murder isn't uncovered until after the burial.
If there is a law requiring said undertaker to keep the body on ice for 3 years before burial, and an entire government agency dedicated to the sole purpose of ensuring that all bodies are preserved for 3 years before disposal according to a well-known, published policy that is disseminated to all undertakers, and he says "Durp, I got 10 bodies to dispose with that request so I just up and did it", and cremates the body before the 3 year period is up, then ya, arrest him too.
That is exactly what GM executives have said for the past 10 years about the ignition switches.
They are hiring and look for someone just like you.
They're looking for somebody that asks for proof? Neat. I regularly look for people that think things through as well. Be sure and let me know when you find some proof to back up your claims. Wouldn't want people thinking you're racist, believing Chinese work is sub-standard just because it is Chinese, and using nebulous "the internet says so" as "proof".
The internet. feel free to peruse all the GM forums.
So the answer is: no.
hearsay is not a citation.
WE already have this problem. Many GM car failures are based on low end China parts. Bad castings on control arms, bad machning on wheel bearings, etc...
Citations?
Anyone want to make any bets on how long they're being sold here in the U.S. before someone dies in an accident because it was made with sub-standard parts, or poor quality control? Don't mod me down as a troll or flamebait, either, because it's not like there isn't a history of low-quality crap coming out of China.
I was going to make the joke that there will be no measurable difference, but Americans will still manage to notice the difference.
Thanks for the nice setup.
That's not the contentious derail part: the derail part is how negatively that reality reflects on the 2nd amendment and its support in the US.
Nah. The problem with the 2nd Amendment argument (for or against) is that nobody making the big arguments is considering the rest of the Constitution. Any one part of the Constitution can be used, by itself, in support or against that particular clause, to fuck people up. The entire document is supposed to be used in full.
The 2nd Amendment goes hand-in-hand with not having a standing army. But we have one, imho in violation of the Constitution, which has now warped the 2nd Amendment into one of personal self-defense. Criminals breaking into homes is not even hinted at in the 2nd Amendment. That argument is completely irrelevant. Overthrowing the government by force is also silly if the States have the power they are supposed to have, and the people have the power they're supposed to have, and the Federal government has to ask the people to form an army before they up and declare war.
In fact, the very same arguments against the 2nd Amendment rights (the availability of guns invites the proclivity to use them); are the exact same arguments made against a standing army. For Iraq, from vote to invasion, was less than 3 weeks. And every one of the hundreds of thousands of men & women that went in and out of there had already signed a contract, without even the slightest inkling that we'd be invading Iraq, who had not attacked us, and so had no choice as to whether or not to go.
Would Bush have even been able to raise an army to invade, considering the protests that filled every city on the planet at the time? I highly doubt it. Would he have been able to invade in just 3 weeks? Oh hell no.
So I will disagree with you strongly about how the Arab Spring reflects negatively on the support of the 2nd Amendment in the United States. It might reflect negatively on one weak argument, but not support entirely.
True, it's a "hack" but it's a pretty trivial hack.
They are the ultimate script kiddies. Kids, using a script published by the manufacturer.
Even putting "trivial" in front diminishes the glory of hacking.
So.... they had the manual with passwords....
this is hacked.... how?
Same way I hacked my VCR so it doesn't flash 12:00 anymore!
Ok, You got that 3 lind lttr.
I'll tak thu rst and numbrs.
When we talk about phones and licenses, we also need to include trademarks. What is the shape of the plow. What color did you make the plow. What type of handles. What is the shape of the handles. And obviously there is a difference between a human driven and an animal driven plow.
Oh and obviously if the plow is made after 1492, you can add 'for the potato' to each patent and copyright.
If the plow was invented today by a company, the patent, copyright and trademark lawers would have a field day and come up with way more then just the 5 you think are logical.
Oh and obviously you can not just go to the townsmith and ask for a plow or make parts yourself. That would be equal pirating.
That's it? So you agree.
With the speed at wihch technology progresses increasing as drastically as it has been, we need to rethink the we we grant patents. Software patents need to pass the CS201 stink test (if a CS201 student can figure it out, it ain't novel), and important hardware patents should have a shorter lifespan.
Part of the problem is the complexity of the product being built, which naturally increases the number of technologies, and therefore the number of patents being included in the product.
Invent a plow today and you need... 1 patent. Its a sheet of metal for cutting the earth. Throw on a yoke and use a new alloy and may be a couple more for hooks and leather straps and you're still around 5 patents. Granted I'm not a plow engineer so I really don't know everything that goes into one, but how complicated can one plow really be... when compared to a modern smart phone?
We're no longer standing on the shoulders of giants, we're standing on the shoulders of giants who are standing on the shoulders of giants who are standing on the shoulders of giants... and every single one of them wants to get paid for holding us up. (Atlas shrugged cause he wasn't getting paid).
I'm having trouble linking royalty costs to "stifling innovation" though. Getting paid via royalty payments is a pretty good reason to innovate: invent something, get paid. Increases in the amount people are paying in royalties just increases the incentive to invent something and get paid. In fact, it is doing exactly that. Companies invent stuff, or buy inventions, just to use those inventions as collateral to get access to other inventions. That $120-$150 estimate they put on there is not cash payments, it is $120-$150 of something... such as their own inventions.
I don't particularly recall that many "Cant afford royalty payments so our product is cancelled" stories. I do see Apple's $160 billion bank balance though, which to me says there is no problem with royalties or lawsuits over royalties or profit margins. In fact that tells me the royalties have saved Apple quite a bit of money in R&D costs.
No, I'm just disagreeing with you. You need to not assume everybody thinks like you, took the same logic train, and simply got off at the wrong stop.
It is only ambiguous when there is not enough context to make the definition clear.
Yes, and if you are intelligent you may also be aware of the fact that text is often taken out of context, and each sentence should be a complete thought.
Nah. Being anal-retentive about such things when your audience understands the context is unnecessary elitist bullshit for those that confuse knowledge with intelligence while only truly possessing the former... and for language nerds.
America is a synonym for the US*, and it is also also a term for the combination of North and South America, but not at the same time.
Yes, it's in the dictionaries, but only idiots say it as it is ambiguous. The purpose of writing (or indeed, speaking) is communication.
It is only ambiguous when there is not enough context to make the definition clear. Idiots either don't provide enough context, don't understand the context provided, or think context doesn't matter.
Amelia Bedelia is funny because her ability to misunderstand things in spite of the provided context, is absurd.
No, the quote from the article did not contain the words "South America," so it's the submitter or editor that is poor at geography. And quoting.
I was wondering about that, too. What I assumed had happened was that someone at BBC noticed the error and it was corrected between the time that the article was quoted and the time that I read it.
I think the BBC correcting their mistake is far more likely.
First, the story lists a publish date (not time) of May 20, and a "Last updated at 19:18 ET" (Obviously not on the 22nd, but maybe on the 21st, or the 20th?). So, they corrected something... why not a geography error on page laughing at dumb Americans.
But more telling is: who submits a story by manually, retyping the story headers AND randomly adds a phrase like that? Nobody, that's who. Everybody just uses copy/paste. Complete with the British spelling of "maths".
I expect the union to derive a set of values, so it can function effectively.
Google strong-arming musicians like the worst of the music industry? I dunno, sounds pretty evil to me.
Yes, how dare Google dictate its own business terms! How dare they tell those making money off of their 100% completely free service (without even ads if they so chose not to have them) that the free ride won't last forever. Evil! Evil I say! Nay, Google... NAY!
Google should have no say over how they choose to do business. Instead, Google should be nationalized and operated by an independent board of poets, and every decision voted on by their users to make everyone happy. Their servers will then be converted to run on unicorn rainbow farts, and 99% of profits shall be given to EU newspapers to recoup all of the vast amounts of business they've lost by having Google link to their stories so that people can actually find them.
[/sarcasm]
You know, I was wondering if there were still people on /. that were totally opposed to the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit on the grounds that Microsoft did nothing wrong. I might agree with you that abusing your dominance in one area to gain a foothold in another is not evil per se, but I think doing so when the side-effect is reducing the amount of art that is available to people, just to spite those artists that refuse to bow to your bullying and give you their work for a lower price than said artists think is fair, is evil.
I just find it hard to believe anybody using the proverbial, "You'll never work in this town again!" line has altruistic, or even neutral motives.
It is harder then it seems.
There are a lot of Woman who just don't want to go into technology.
For many reasons.
1. Culturally: Woman should have jobs working directly with people, Men should have jobs avoiding people.
2. Geeky Culture: A lot of it is very male centrist, the idea of going to technology means you will need to interact with a culture many do not find appealing.
3. Catch 22: Woman do not want to go into technology because their isn't enough women in technology.
4. Peer pressure: If a woman shows an interest going to technology, their friends will try to dissuade them.
Like, say, men who make random generalizations about women?
Reason 5.
Sexism: +3 insightful
Calling out said sexism: -1 Off Topic.
Your comment makes sense only if you think that what Apple, Google, etc. did was right, and that freedom is bad.
Or if you have an understanding of history, the market, resources, and human psychology.
With $150 billion in the bank, Apple can suck it up, wait it out, sue, issue propaganda, or do whatever else is necessary to break a union. There are enough people out there desperate for a job that Apple will win. The average plebeian, fresh out of college with $100k in student loans, or later on in life with a mortgage payment and a family to support, does not have that luxury.
An ant isn't concerned with freedom when the boot is coming down on its head. Even a colony of well-organized fire ants can't handle somebody that can afford an exterminator and a week's vacation while their house is under a tent.
Take a look at the pre-union activities of the Apple/Google contemporaries of the 19th century: Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc. They won. Every time. Until the government stepped in.
This post says it better than I can, with plenty of evidence supplied. Repubs have fought net neutrality tooth and nail from day 1.
So? That somehow justifies Obama's actions & lies, or Wheeler's obvious goals?
Wheeler's just crying uncle at this point. Quitter.
lol. He spends years as a lobbyist trying to get this kind of rule enacted, then takes a job that ostensibly should be opposed to it, and immediately "cries uncle" and gives in to his lobbying successor?
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha. Is that the Eastern Ukranian's plan too? Are they going to defect and then immediately surrender?
Perhaps we could confuse them by running away more!
over the rules created by the FCC leadership, which was appointed and installed by various politicians...
No. They were all appointed by Obama.
Tom Wheeler, Chairman, appointed by: Obama; November 2013
Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2013 and June 2009
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2012
Ajit Pai, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; May 2012
Michael O'Reilly, Commissioner, appointed by: Obama; August 2013
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
Republican view? I'm confused.
Obama, a Democrat, said, “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over”.
Obama, a Democrat, appointed Tom Wheeler, former cable & wireless lobbyist, to chair the FCC.
A democrat controlled Senate confirmed Tom Wheeler as the FCC chairman.
Tom Wheeler proposes the fast lane.
If you're going to spew partisan demagoguery, at least post it on a story it applies to.
I love it. :D
If ever there was a case of "+1 agree" modding, here it is.
There is absolutely nothing funny about "I love it." unless you're watching Naked Gun... which this is not. Don't mod the story.
That would be me.
I've been swimming in raw sewage.
I love it.
They have probably been around for a while and once reached middle aged, bought a nice ass-car.
heheheh
If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms
He says so right there:
He added: 'This debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it.
I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.
Mitreya-san, one must always respect one's enemies.