That's the best example of wishful thinking I've seen, since I read the last issue of Fast Company.
They plan on doing movies. The X-Files has/never/ done so well at answering the questions it poses. Just ignores them, or replaces them with new questions. I couldn't deal with that anymore. Once Mulder left -- well, I dunno. I just lost interest. I felt bad for awhile -- I wanted to know how things turned out, but then I realized that I wouldn't be finding that out by watching the show.
I recommend just reading the re-caps on MightyBigTV (www.mightybigtv.com). You save yourself an hour,/and/ they're damn funny.
If only things were/that/ simple. Citizens of the United States have rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments are our guide.
9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment:
"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."
US Citizens have all sorts of rights that are not written down. Now, to the main point, on where this right of privacy lies, and its basis.
The notion that a citizen has the right to "privacy" is, as Justice Black put it (Griswald v. Connecticut), "...broad, abstract, and ambiguous..." Yet it is there. The sum of the bill of rights, and the constitution as a whole yield up what we believe the intent of the founding fathers was.
We are protected specifically against searches, we allowed freedom to speak (and to listen), and to worship as we choose. These, in addition to what is covered in the basis of British common law (the founders assumed that the common law would always be a guiding force), give this idea that people are to be free from the prying eyes of government in the course of their daily lives, and that further, when the government wishes to peek in, there must be a compelling governmental interest in doing so. Normally these privacy cases come up in the context of sexual freedom of some sort -- for those who are interested, Griswald v. Connecticut is a good start,and oyez.nwu.edu is a great resource for those so interested.
Having said all that, it turns out we're not talking about government in this case. Non governmental actors for the most part have carte blanch for anything we concensually agree to -- as long as it is not done under some sort of coersion. Giving a first born child, as someone mentioned above would probably not stand -- but more likely because one is prohibited by law to sell and/or barter people in that fashion, not because it is particularly agregious.
I had a high school physics teacher that was a bit of a bible thumper (no offense to any thumpers out there) who insisted that we would/never/ find planets (or planet like objects)in other solar systems. It was impossible, because . Something about proof denying faith, and without faith God being nothing... oh wait -- that was someone else.
::Probably just about. Most consumers don't need computers with uptimes of years.
No -- of course they don't. I don't need a computer with an uptime of years (at home). But in my fairly limited experience, properly configured Unix-based boxen do have uptime like that. Now all things being equal -- uptime is better than downtime, right?
Is Windows "good enough" -- of course. $40 billion in the bank can't be wrong (can it?). Is it as good as the alternatives (theoretically, alternative -- on the desktop at least) -- objectively, no.
So that was my point. By 2003, can Windows be good enough for the consumer. Yes. In fact it already is (Mr. Berry losing 18 words a day is really pretty insignificant). Will it be "as stable" as Linux, or whatever -- 10 years of history seem to point toward no. This was not the original point (as I understood it). The original point was that "we" will not have the reliability issue to kick around anymore by 2003, because Windows Insert version/service pack here) will have made the dicussion moot.
I believe on 12/31/2002, an article on Slashdot pointing out some comparison of uptime/reliability/whatever will be neither out of place, nor say "They are both the same -- roll the dice and choose" in regards to Windows-based OSes.
What a minute -- really? You think that there will be a consumer version of Windows (what the topic of Dave's column was) that will match the stability of any flavor of Unix by 12/31/2003. Really?
What's been stopping them for the last 10 years? I've been using the sundry versions of Windows since 2.0. Heck, I even used Windows for Warehouses (oh -- I mean, Windows for Workgroups), because with the 32-bit "bits", it was supposed to be better. Ok, it was better.
But arithmatically -- if you take the number of current bugs, add the new ones, and then start subtracting at the rate that Microsoft fixes them, do you really thing you end up with a number for n (insert your favorite Unix flavor here) for day-to-day productivity tasks?
I guess my real curiosity is where you came up with 2003. I know that those infinite number of monkeys will eventually get it right -- but you really do need the power of infinite time.
I actually think I have a pretty good working on theory on Bill's idea here -- and if you ask me (and of course, nobody is), it's brilliant.
Lots of companies want to be the "digital hub"... most recently of course, probably Apple. The problem is how to do you get your hardware into lots of consumer's hands? Well -- you sell them of course -- and brand & price are generally the two things that non-Slashdot consumer is looking for.
So, (for example), the way Apple is trying to do it is with purely innovative products like the iPod and iMac -- and they are pretty cool -- although most will acknoledge that they are toward the higher end of their category range.
Microsoft has solved this problem, by calling their "hub" a game machine, and getting the software writers to subsidize their cost -- so while Apple has to make a profit (however small), Microsoft gets to lose money on the hardware, sell more of the boxes, and still end up ahead.
Sony I think is getting closer by including a DVD player for the PS2 -- but Microsoft specifically wants the XBox line to be this digital hub -- and as I think someone points out, you start adding satellite, Ultimate TV, and a broadband connection -- fairly easy using either USB 2.0 or something purely proprietary, and... instance market domination.
The real problem there is that Justice Scalia is not/actually/ a strict constructionalist. He tends to use that label for himself and his point of view when the action is in favor of the conservative idealogy. He has no problem with violating the "Freedom of " amendments of the constitution when it suits the overall goal.
I know I'm risking a flamebait or troll for this one, but I just can't in good conscience let someone call Scalia a strict constructionalist when that is merely a cover for his agenda. There is nothing wrong philosophically with strict constructionism -- there is something wrong with giving that cloak of legitimacy to someone with an agenda to push forward. If you want see some interesting history, take a look at what he said during his confirmation hearings about such things as a "right to privacy".
Well that certainly makes air-defense cheaper. Just issue slingshots with pointy rocks to every 8 year old along the flight path. Or perhaps we can even do better and fill the balloons with hydrogen (ok -- before any gets in a snit about it, the last part was a joke. I know that it is generally recognized today that the Hindenburg did not go down because of specifically using Hydrogen -- although it did make it a bit more spectacular).
Ok -- for no logical reason, I sure wouldn't mind having an authentic Stormtrooper helmet, but come on. They've already bid it up for over $8k. Sweet charity, or no -- $8,000 for a movie prop is impossible to comprehend.
Well that -- and the armor never seemed to protect the actual stormstrooper from anything. Not even a damned Ewok with a rock.
Of course it isn't. The idea of the US subscribing to the notion of basic human rights beyond what is in the present Constitution is admirable, and for the most part I support it. I do not hold those who are perhaps more passionate about that incorporation as "crazy".
But to say the US government is "extremist far-right" was either hyperbole gone awry, or a lack of knowledge of what a/real/ extremist far-right government is, and what that really means.
As for the rest -- such as the definition of fascism:
fascism (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
You using this hyperbole of "unholy"ness and extremism is what I meant by calling it flamebait. Your obviously reasonable points got obscured by the idea that George W. Bush is the 2nd coming of Mussolini -- and while I'm no fan, voted for someone else, etc. That is definately not the case.
Ok, I wasn't going to respond to the bits about what the US did after World War II -- I don't see how that has any material impact on what were discussing, and it's obviously not a proud moment in our history. The only defense I could reasonably offer is that people were trying to do what they felt was the right thing. It was a different time. Having said that, and for the record, I'm glad they ended up working for us, rather than working for the Soviet Union. I don't think the Soviets would have but the cream of German scientists in the gulag...
That's not exactly true -- a lower court ruling a law or situation unconstitional can be binding, provided the case is not appealed or heard by the Supreme Court, or in fact in the situation of a case being decided by a circuit court, the law is actually unconstitional in the area covered by that circuit.
In normal practice, if the circuits disagree this is one of the primary reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case. A great deal of law is determined constitional or not on the basis of circuit court decisions -- very little actually goes "all the way".
Quite right -- treaties certainly represent a form of "higher" laws that can be used in to consider whether or not a "lower" law should stand. An area where the US Constituion is unclear is how a treaty that might be unconstitional might fit into that.
However, the Convention on Human Right appears to have only been signed by the members of the Council of Europe. I don't necessarily disagree with the document, but it doesn't appear that the US is a signatory. Should we be? Another question -- certainly not a question of current law.
I, of course, won't touch the obvious flamebait about the US an "extremist far-right government" and the rest of that.
The power of judicial review is not "ignoring the law". Judicial review is the power to say that a given law violated the terms of another, "higher" law -- in the US, that's the Constitution. A judge cannot (or at least should not) choose to ignore a law on the basis of "I just don't like it".
The power the judge is exercising in this case, is the ability for a judicial or quasi-judicial authority (ie: a congressional committee) to hold someone in contempt. When one violates the order of a judge in a given situation -- that is, a case is brought before him/her, and in the course of that proceeding orders a certain thing to be done, or not be done -- and that order is violated, they can be held until such time as they satisfy the judge that they will comply, or until suitably punished. Yes, the power of holding someone in contempt is broad, with only the barest hint of restraint (many jurisdictions only allow someone to be held on contempt for a year or less).
This says nothing of the laws themselves -- where one is charged, tried, and formally sentenced to a given term in accordance with the law violated.
I think it has more to do with the size of the company, than it being IT -- although I recognize that companies usually have to be of a certain size before the "IT department" is more than the office assistant who "knows all about computers".
When I was working for a company of about 300, we did that sort of after-work socializing thing all the time. Oddly, looking back - even with the people one didn't like. It was more of a family -- you can't not go visit that weird Uncle, he's family. Once a company gets much bigger than that it isn't "family-like" anymore, and so one feels perfectly comfortable not hanging out with people they don't particularly like.
At my last job, there were about 5000 of us (not just IT)... there were maybe 5 people that I'd consider myself "friends" with -- you know, not "friends I wouldn't see outside of work", but people that I genuinely liked and would go out of my way to stop by and see, or go to lunch with, etc.
I don't consider myself particularly anti-social, but of course, I'd probably be the wrong person to ask.
The HP3000 was the first computer I actually had any "control" over. My high school had a 3rd one with a room full of terminals that they used to teach a Pascal course (if you can imagine). Right after I graduated they were all replaced with PS/2 Model 30's -- which could not have been any where near as much fun as:
1.) Learning how much fun the "down" command was as a cheap prank.
2.) Sending messages from the consoles to newer newbies that their terminal was about to explode.
3.) Mystery Mansion
4.) The Land of Warp -- and I don't care what Adventureland says (http://www.lysator.liu.se/adventure/), Warp was weeks of fun.
Of course, when the AC went out at my school, the nicely cooled server room was a favorite place. Oh yeah -- and I think I still owe my school $376.58 for the service call when I downed the console. It seemed clever at the time.
At least I wasn't the one who hit the Emergency Stop button...
Now I suppose where the "kinda" comes in is...well... it's been close to 15 years now since then, it's hard to believe HP was still signing people up for new ones.
[In order to justify it's positions, the ACLU uses an argunent that is vary simple to articulate but vary difficult to defend - that being, the Slippery Slope Argument.]
I completely agree, but I think it is tough to argue with taking that type of logical stance. When you look at other single interest lobbying groups (the NRA comes to mind quickly), they are fairly effective. I mean, you could argue that there have been various laws that doodle around the edges of restricting gun ownership, but regardless of how you feel about the notion, the NRA has managed to keep most firearms safely legal. The Constitution (US, of course) is pretty ambiguous about the whole thing -- throwing in a phrase about well regulated militias -- and yet consistently a right is found by the "common" person.
The real problem the ACLU has is that they are trying to protect a right that is even more ambiguous. The 4th amendment is clear in the beginning -- but then gets into warrants which takes away with the other hand what we just got with the first. The 5th Amendment also offers a small amount of protection -- but in general, once one is the subject of investigation and a warrant issued, the 5th amendment won't save you.
The ACLU has no real choice but to be for nearly absolutely freedom and privacy because the constitutional language doesn't give them any place to say, "This far, and no further." Once they give in to the notion that the government can have warrantless searches because of terrorists, there's no reason to stop for any other reason -- you get into "tests" of how "compelling" the government's interest is... and unless you get the equivilent of "strict scrutiny", you usually lose those cases.
As another responder pointed out, this is called "jury nullification". I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US this is one of those things that will generally either get you not selected for a jury or a contempt citation if it is found to have been used.
There is a limit on the power of a jury -- the idea that a jury is/only/ the trier of fact, not of law. In the US the judge is the trier of law... the jury is (supposedly) not allowed to determine the law, only the facts, and by extension if the facts satisified the burden (either preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt). This is where the idea of Guilty or Not Guilty comes from -- it is only about the prosecution's/plaintiff's burden, not about the belief of the rightness of the law in question.
Now, in the real world, in most cases the proceeding of the jury are secret. If the jury members unanimously agree to a certain "finding" it is very difficult to prove this type of "misconduct". It is enough for the juror to say, "I did not find the evidence credible". However the juror would not find much traction by suggesting the law was unjust.
Ok - so someone's really decided there needs to be separate categories for "Atheist" and "None". I want to see the discussion here the delineates the differences between someone who says there's no God (which seems to me to be saying that religion would necessarily be a fabrication), and "None"... which means. I dunno -- pretty much the same thing? That there is a god and they choose not to believe -- it seems that you start to get into one of those Douglas Adams'-ish loops about proof denying faith, and without faith god being nothing -- with of course proof, proving god doesn't exist because god exists.
Just for the record (and even mentioned in the article), Steve Heckler is SVP of Sony Pictures Entertainment -- it wouldn't bother me, except I used to work for the... well... I used to work for him.
As a former Apple authorized service technician, I'd like to point out that while the warnings and such are nice (and an article that includes soldering wouldn't seem complete without it), you'd be hard pressed to find any authorized service center that would even notice the solders he was making.
Apple system repairs are done at the module level (one of the reasons it is so expensive) -- if the system doesn't start up, and you've got power from the a/c adapter, you're going to get a new logic board (unless they are doing whole-unit replacement, which is fairly common nowadays). In anycase, nobody is peering over your logic board to see that resistor R237 has been incorrectly connected to R233. The new one comes in, the old one goes in a static bag, and back to Apple via Airborne.
Not to say it won't happen that you'll get "caught" -- but it's pretty damned unlikely.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. It's not more a theft of services than the space junk mail takes up in your non-virtual mailbox that potentially crowds out (or for that matter even damages) items that you are actually interested in.
The only difference that occurs to me is that in some instances you as an individual might be paying for your logged-in time. Of course, the same rules should apply to junk e-mail as apply to regular junk mail -- that is being able to opt-out.
Perhaps it might be a good idea for ISPs to charge soliciters for access to the users on their systems (as a mailer pays the post office). But to label it the rather perjorative "theft", or suggest it should be illegal is a bit much. As many things in a capitalist, free-market (mostly) system -- some things require regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the best example of wishful thinking I've seen, since I read the last issue of Fast Company.
/never/ done so well at answering the questions it poses. Just ignores them, or replaces them with new questions. I couldn't deal with that anymore. Once Mulder left -- well, I dunno. I just lost interest. I felt bad for awhile -- I wanted to know how things turned out, but then I realized that I wouldn't be finding that out by watching the show.
/and/ they're damn funny.
They plan on doing movies. The X-Files has
I recommend just reading the re-caps on MightyBigTV (www.mightybigtv.com). You save yourself an hour,
If only things were /that/ simple. Citizens of the United States have rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments are our guide.
9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment:
"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."
US Citizens have all sorts of rights that are not written down. Now, to the main point, on where this right of privacy lies, and its basis.
The notion that a citizen has the right to "privacy" is, as Justice Black put it (Griswald v. Connecticut), "...broad, abstract, and ambiguous..." Yet it is there. The sum of the bill of rights, and the constitution as a whole yield up what we believe the intent of the founding fathers was.
We are protected specifically against searches, we allowed freedom to speak (and to listen), and to worship as we choose. These, in addition to what is covered in the basis of British common law (the founders assumed that the common law would always be a guiding force), give this idea that people are to be free from the prying eyes of government in the course of their daily lives, and that further, when the government wishes to peek in, there must be a compelling governmental interest in doing so. Normally these privacy cases come up in the context of sexual freedom of some sort -- for those who are interested, Griswald v. Connecticut is a good start,and oyez.nwu.edu is a great resource for those so interested.
Having said all that, it turns out we're not talking about government in this case. Non governmental actors for the most part have carte blanch for anything we concensually agree to -- as long as it is not done under some sort of coersion. Giving a first born child, as someone mentioned above would probably not stand -- but more likely because one is prohibited by law to sell and/or barter people in that fashion, not because it is particularly agregious.
I had a high school physics teacher that was a bit of a bible thumper (no offense to any thumpers out there) who insisted that we would /never/ find planets (or planet like objects)in other solar systems. It was impossible, because . Something about proof denying faith, and without faith God being nothing ... oh wait -- that was someone else.
...
I'd love to talk with him now
::Probably just about. Most consumers don't need computers with uptimes of years.
No -- of course they don't. I don't need a computer with an uptime of years (at home). But in my fairly limited experience, properly configured Unix-based boxen do have uptime like that. Now all things being equal -- uptime is better than downtime, right?
Is Windows "good enough" -- of course. $40 billion in the bank can't be wrong (can it?). Is it as good as the alternatives (theoretically, alternative -- on the desktop at least) -- objectively, no.
So that was my point. By 2003, can Windows be good enough for the consumer. Yes. In fact it already is (Mr. Berry losing 18 words a day is really pretty insignificant). Will it be "as stable" as Linux, or whatever -- 10 years of history seem to point toward no. This was not the original point (as I understood it). The original point was that "we" will not have the reliability issue to kick around anymore by 2003, because Windows Insert version/service pack here) will have made the dicussion moot.
I believe on 12/31/2002, an article on Slashdot pointing out some comparison of uptime/reliability/whatever will be neither out of place, nor say "They are both the same -- roll the dice and choose" in regards to Windows-based OSes.
What a minute -- really? You think that there will be a consumer version of Windows (what the topic of Dave's column was) that will match the stability of any flavor of Unix by 12/31/2003. Really?
What's been stopping them for the last 10 years? I've been using the sundry versions of Windows since 2.0. Heck, I even used Windows for Warehouses (oh -- I mean, Windows for Workgroups), because with the 32-bit "bits", it was supposed to be better. Ok, it was better.
But arithmatically -- if you take the number of current bugs, add the new ones, and then start subtracting at the rate that Microsoft fixes them, do you really thing you end up with a number for n (insert your favorite Unix flavor here) for day-to-day productivity tasks?
I guess my real curiosity is where you came up with 2003. I know that those infinite number of monkeys will eventually get it right -- but you really do need the power of infinite time.
I actually think I have a pretty good working on theory on Bill's idea here -- and if you ask me (and of course, nobody is), it's brilliant.
... most recently of course, probably Apple. The problem is how to do you get your hardware into lots of consumer's hands? Well -- you sell them of course -- and brand & price are generally the two things that non-Slashdot consumer is looking for.
... instance market domination.
Lots of companies want to be the "digital hub"
So, (for example), the way Apple is trying to do it is with purely innovative products like the iPod and iMac -- and they are pretty cool -- although most will acknoledge that they are toward the higher end of their category range.
Microsoft has solved this problem, by calling their "hub" a game machine, and getting the software writers to subsidize their cost -- so while Apple has to make a profit (however small), Microsoft gets to lose money on the hardware, sell more of the boxes, and still end up ahead.
Sony I think is getting closer by including a DVD player for the PS2 -- but Microsoft specifically wants the XBox line to be this digital hub -- and as I think someone points out, you start adding satellite, Ultimate TV, and a broadband connection -- fairly easy using either USB 2.0 or something purely proprietary, and
IMHO, of course.
Yeah, just imagine a beowolf cluster, and you'll do fine.
The real problem there is that Justice Scalia is not /actually/ a strict constructionalist. He tends to use that label for himself and his point of view when the action is in favor of the conservative idealogy. He has no problem with violating the "Freedom of " amendments of the constitution when it suits the overall goal.
I know I'm risking a flamebait or troll for this one, but I just can't in good conscience let someone call Scalia a strict constructionalist when that is merely a cover for his agenda. There is nothing wrong philosophically with strict constructionism -- there is something wrong with giving that cloak of legitimacy to someone with an agenda to push forward. If you want see some interesting history, take a look at what he said during his confirmation hearings about such things as a "right to privacy".
Well that certainly makes air-defense cheaper. Just issue slingshots with pointy rocks to every 8 year old along the flight path. Or perhaps we can even do better and fill the balloons with hydrogen (ok -- before any gets in a snit about it, the last part was a joke. I know that it is generally recognized today that the Hindenburg did not go down because of specifically using Hydrogen -- although it did make it a bit more spectacular).
Ok -- for no logical reason, I sure wouldn't mind having an authentic Stormtrooper helmet, but come on. They've already bid it up for over $8k. Sweet charity, or no -- $8,000 for a movie prop is impossible to comprehend.
Well that -- and the armor never seemed to protect the actual stormstrooper from anything. Not even a damned Ewok with a rock.
Of course it isn't. The idea of the US subscribing to the notion of basic human rights beyond what is in the present Constitution is admirable, and for the most part I support it. I do not hold those who are perhaps more passionate about that incorporation as "crazy".
/real/ extremist far-right government is, and what that really means.
...
But to say the US government is "extremist far-right" was either hyperbole gone awry, or a lack of knowledge of what a
As for the rest -- such as the definition of fascism:
fascism (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
You using this hyperbole of "unholy"ness and extremism is what I meant by calling it flamebait. Your obviously reasonable points got obscured by the idea that George W. Bush is the 2nd coming of Mussolini -- and while I'm no fan, voted for someone else, etc. That is definately not the case.
Ok, I wasn't going to respond to the bits about what the US did after World War II -- I don't see how that has any material impact on what were discussing, and it's obviously not a proud moment in our history. The only defense I could reasonably offer is that people were trying to do what they felt was the right thing. It was a different time. Having said that, and for the record, I'm glad they ended up working for us, rather than working for the Soviet Union. I don't think the Soviets would have but the cream of German scientists in the gulag
That's not exactly true -- a lower court ruling a law or situation unconstitional can be binding, provided the case is not appealed or heard by the Supreme Court, or in fact in the situation of a case being decided by a circuit court, the law is actually unconstitional in the area covered by that circuit.
In normal practice, if the circuits disagree this is one of the primary reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case. A great deal of law is determined constitional or not on the basis of circuit court decisions -- very little actually goes "all the way".
Quite right -- treaties certainly represent a form of "higher" laws that can be used in to consider whether or not a "lower" law should stand. An area where the US Constituion is unclear is how a treaty that might be unconstitional might fit into that.
However, the Convention on Human Right appears to have only been signed by the members of the Council of Europe. I don't necessarily disagree with the document, but it doesn't appear that the US is a signatory. Should we be? Another question -- certainly not a question of current law.
I, of course, won't touch the obvious flamebait about the US an "extremist far-right government" and the rest of that.
One good whore deserves another, I suppose.
The power of judicial review is not "ignoring the law". Judicial review is the power to say that a given law violated the terms of another, "higher" law -- in the US, that's the Constitution. A judge cannot (or at least should not) choose to ignore a law on the basis of "I just don't like it".
The power the judge is exercising in this case, is the ability for a judicial or quasi-judicial authority (ie: a congressional committee) to hold someone in contempt. When one violates the order of a judge in a given situation -- that is, a case is brought before him/her, and in the course of that proceeding orders a certain thing to be done, or not be done -- and that order is violated, they can be held until such time as they satisfy the judge that they will comply, or until suitably punished. Yes, the power of holding someone in contempt is broad, with only the barest hint of restraint (many jurisdictions only allow someone to be held on contempt for a year or less).
This says nothing of the laws themselves -- where one is charged, tried, and formally sentenced to a given term in accordance with the law violated.
I think it has more to do with the size of the company, than it being IT -- although I recognize that companies usually have to be of a certain size before the "IT department" is more than the office assistant who "knows all about computers".
When I was working for a company of about 300, we did that sort of after-work socializing thing all the time. Oddly, looking back - even with the people one didn't like. It was more of a family -- you can't not go visit that weird Uncle, he's family. Once a company gets much bigger than that it isn't "family-like" anymore, and so one feels perfectly comfortable not hanging out with people they don't particularly like.
At my last job, there were about 5000 of us (not just IT)... there were maybe 5 people that I'd consider myself "friends" with -- you know, not "friends I wouldn't see outside of work", but people that I genuinely liked and would go out of my way to stop by and see, or go to lunch with, etc.
I don't consider myself particularly anti-social, but of course, I'd probably be the wrong person to ask.
You mean I didn't have the only high school with the HP 3000? Naw -- my crimes were against the Los Angeles Unified School District.
The HP3000 was the first computer I actually had any "control" over. My high school had a 3rd one with a room full of terminals that they used to teach a Pascal course (if you can imagine). Right after I graduated they were all replaced with PS/2 Model 30's -- which could not have been any where near as much fun as:
...
...well... it's been close to 15 years now since then, it's hard to believe HP was still signing people up for new ones.
1.) Learning how much fun the "down" command was as a cheap prank.
2.) Sending messages from the consoles to newer newbies that their terminal was about to explode.
3.) Mystery Mansion
4.) The Land of Warp -- and I don't care what Adventureland says (http://www.lysator.liu.se/adventure/), Warp was weeks of fun.
Of course, when the AC went out at my school, the nicely cooled server room was a favorite place. Oh yeah -- and I think I still owe my school $376.58 for the service call when I downed the console. It seemed clever at the time.
At least I wasn't the one who hit the Emergency Stop button
Now I suppose where the "kinda" comes in is
Maybe with all the upper management types off on on their 3-day weekends, we'll actually get better information.
Naw -- that never happens.
[In order to justify it's positions, the ACLU uses an argunent that is vary simple to articulate but vary difficult to defend - that being, the Slippery Slope Argument.]
... and unless you get the equivilent of "strict scrutiny", you usually lose those cases.
I completely agree, but I think it is tough to argue with taking that type of logical stance. When you look at other single interest lobbying groups (the NRA comes to mind quickly), they are fairly effective. I mean, you could argue that there have been various laws that doodle around the edges of restricting gun ownership, but regardless of how you feel about the notion, the NRA has managed to keep most firearms safely legal. The Constitution (US, of course) is pretty ambiguous about the whole thing -- throwing in a phrase about well regulated militias -- and yet consistently a right is found by the "common" person.
The real problem the ACLU has is that they are trying to protect a right that is even more ambiguous. The 4th amendment is clear in the beginning -- but then gets into warrants which takes away with the other hand what we just got with the first. The 5th Amendment also offers a small amount of protection -- but in general, once one is the subject of investigation and a warrant issued, the 5th amendment won't save you.
The ACLU has no real choice but to be for nearly absolutely freedom and privacy because the constitutional language doesn't give them any place to say, "This far, and no further." Once they give in to the notion that the government can have warrantless searches because of terrorists, there's no reason to stop for any other reason -- you get into "tests" of how "compelling" the government's interest is
As another responder pointed out, this is called "jury nullification". I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US this is one of those things that will generally either get you not selected for a jury or a contempt citation if it is found to have been used.
/only/ the trier of fact, not of law. In the US the judge is the trier of law ... the jury is (supposedly) not allowed to determine the law, only the facts, and by extension if the facts satisified the burden (either preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt). This is where the idea of Guilty or Not Guilty comes from -- it is only about the prosecution's/plaintiff's burden, not about the belief of the rightness of the law in question.
There is a limit on the power of a jury -- the idea that a jury is
Now, in the real world, in most cases the proceeding of the jury are secret. If the jury members unanimously agree to a certain "finding" it is very difficult to prove this type of "misconduct". It is enough for the juror to say, "I did not find the evidence credible". However the juror would not find much traction by suggesting the law was unjust.
Ok - so someone's really decided there needs to be separate categories for "Atheist" and "None". I want to see the discussion here the delineates the differences between someone who says there's no God (which seems to me to be saying that religion would necessarily be a fabrication), and "None" ... which means. I dunno -- pretty much the same thing? That there is a god and they choose not to believe -- it seems that you start to get into one of those Douglas Adams'-ish loops about proof denying faith, and without faith god being nothing -- with of course proof, proving god doesn't exist because god exists.
[...Sony Music Entertainment's Steve Heckler...]
... well ... I used to work for him.
Just for the record (and even mentioned in the article), Steve Heckler is SVP of Sony Pictures Entertainment -- it wouldn't bother me, except I used to work for the
As a former Apple authorized service technician, I'd like to point out that while the warnings and such are nice (and an article that includes soldering wouldn't seem complete without it), you'd be hard pressed to find any authorized service center that would even notice the solders he was making.
Apple system repairs are done at the module level (one of the reasons it is so expensive) -- if the system doesn't start up, and you've got power from the a/c adapter, you're going to get a new logic board (unless they are doing whole-unit replacement, which is fairly common nowadays). In anycase, nobody is peering over your logic board to see that resistor R237 has been incorrectly connected to R233. The new one comes in, the old one goes in a static bag, and back to Apple via Airborne.
Not to say it won't happen that you'll get "caught" -- but it's pretty damned unlikely.
Yeah, but at least your "fireball" hard drive warned you rather prominently in its name.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. It's not more a theft of services than the space junk mail takes up in your non-virtual mailbox that potentially crowds out (or for that matter even damages) items that you are actually interested in.
The only difference that occurs to me is that in some instances you as an individual might be paying for your logged-in time. Of course, the same rules should apply to junk e-mail as apply to regular junk mail -- that is being able to opt-out.
Perhaps it might be a good idea for ISPs to charge soliciters for access to the users on their systems (as a mailer pays the post office). But to label it the rather perjorative "theft", or suggest it should be illegal is a bit much. As many things in a capitalist, free-market (mostly) system -- some things require regulation.