He would be guilty of poor practices. There's a difference between refusal through choice and inability - your argument is is stupid because it ignores that point.
I've held off commenting on this story, but I think I will have to.
AFTER he's fired, they go to him and STILL want him to do part of his job (disclose the passwords). Tough cookies. The deal in employment is "payment received for services rendered". Once he's fired, he is not receiving payment from the city. So he's under no obligation whatsoever to render services.
That argument is stupid - Childs was obstructive in his employers efforts to gain access to their own property, and he continued to do so even after he was fired. The equivalent is if he had refused to return the only set of keys, or the combination to a safe - he is depriving owners of their property.
They never wanted him to do his job, they just wanted him to return their property - the fact that he was not in physical possession of that property is neither here nor there, he was still depriving them of it.
I know its unpopular here, but I support this conviction - Childs was being an asshole prima donna and suffered for it.
Who denied it tho, is the question (if they even did - I haven't seen anything provable). Who did Gizmodo check with? Did they ring a generic number for Apple and ask the receptionist? Did they pop into a store? Did they ask for the iPhone R&D department to report they had it? What?
As already noted, LAN boot is one option, but if you go with tools like Symantec Ghost (or one of the free options, I haven't checked those out in the past 2 years), you have the option of installing a pre-boot environment for Ghost which the computer will boot into first, check to see if there are any imaging tasks to do (and you have the option with Ghost of preserving users data on the currently installed image, and migrating it to the fresh image) and either do them or boot into the day-to-day OS. Works a treat when you have it set up correctly.
As we have seen with this incident, you cannot trust any patch you distribute - yes it is a trade off, but a virus infection is not going to happen en mass while a duff OS or anti-virus patch can certainly take out a significant proportion of your install base in a single swipe. Which would you rather? Seriously? I'd rather progressively roll out the patch, reducing the possible vulnerable surface area as I went, than instantly wipe out my install base.
So I stand by my original statement - its not impossible, you just don't want to do it.
And to the people that marked me flamebait or troll, I don't think you have ever been responsible for more than your grandmothers computer - my strategy works, I know since I worked by it when I was a sysadmin (up until August last year). You never, *ever* make a change to the entire install base in one sweep, regardless of the reason. Progressive roll out is king.
Bollocks is it impossible, you just don't want to do it. The entire point of a progressive rollout is that it limits damage done to a small group that increases in size the more you trust the patch.
Should McAfee really be on the hook for your departments poor IT practices? Every one of those computers should have been remotely re-imaged, and as all campus data was kept on centralised servers then you should have lost no data, your job should have consisted of queuing systems for re-imaging, not much more.
People are railing McAfee here for poor QA, and they rightly should - but you have just demonstrated your own poor QA. Who in their right mind releases a patch to their entire install base at once? Release it to 10 computers and monitor for a couple of days. Then released it to 50 more and continue monitoring. Keep including groups until all computers have been covered without issue. How hard is that?
Aside from the stupidity of the rest of your post, what makes the Euro any more 'imaginary' than any other fiat currency, such as the British Pound Sterling, or the US Dollar? Is it because it came into existence only a few years ago, rather than a couple of hundred years ago?
In answer to your question, nationalised healthcare is something I would not do without, and would support with great effort.
Being able to walk into a hospital and get treated for any ailment without cost to myself is fantastic. Not having to sort out healthcare insurance for each visit to the doctors is amazing, and not having to worry about the cost of a hospital stay for any reason is the best feeling in the world.
I get to pay £7 odd per item for prescription items, regardless of how much the drug or treatment actually costs. If the prescription item costs less than £7, the pharmacy typically offers to sell me it over the counter rather than on prescription, and I save money. Again, not having to worry about insurance costs and affiliated drug requirements is amazing.
The problem with the NHS is not the service they provide, or the concept of nationalised or socialised healthcare - its the way the NHS has become top heavy, and that is going to happen in any scenario.
When it was created, the NHS was truly national - today, its regional, with Primary Care Trusts dictating the individual level of treatments in its region and hospitals.
The very concept of the Primary Care Trust regions brings in the so called post-code lottery, where some people will get some treatments and others will not. It of course also duplicates administration positions et al.
But the NHS also tries to con itself...
GP practices are businesses (GPs are privately employed by private practices, and have a service contract with the NHS), and hospitals are set up to be business like - GPs are given treatment budgets by the NHS, and when they refer to a hospital for treatment the hospital gets to bill the GP practice for the amount. The problem is, the GP budget includes aftercare treatment such as pain relief, and the hospital bills for that as well but doesn't dispense it all (for example, a hip replacement budget item will include two weeks of pain relief, but the hospital will dispense one week on discharge of the patient - the patient can ask for the second week, but the aim is that they will go to the GP for it and not the hospital, so the GP pays twice).
So in my view the concept is fine, and it does actually work, but its the current realisation that is the issue.
Why do people find it hard to understand the concept of partial subsidization - either have ads, or pay more. In this case, you are paying for an additional product, not the original without ads.
The only Buran flight was done without a crew, and it was autonomous - the only one to fly was destroyed, but there were another one which was nearly complete which survives, and another three in production, of which two survive. The USSR
She is a member of two unions, one which is solely for defending her in court (the Medical Defense Union). Her labour union is the BMA and it gladly turns a blind eye to the above - she cannot be a member of any other union under her GMC membership terms.
You miss the point - my wife works for a government run and mandated system that is little more than a sweat shop itself. But people turn a blind eye because its what is required to become a doctor in the UK.
I also didn't tell you about the contracts - if you apply to become a Training GP in the UK, you can no longer apply for any other NHS position until your application for GP is rejected. If you are accepted as a GP, you have to accept the position within 48 hours of being offered it - except its not a job offer, its an offer of a training position which can start either in August or February, be at one of a dozen hospitals in the area and one of several dozen practices in the area, and pay scales can vary significantly. You don't know any of these things but you are forced to make a decision.
Before you get to the offer, you have to get to the interview - the interviews for GP are held on the same day nationally, but no hospitals budget for their lowest grade doctors going to the interview, so you have to fight to take the day off. My wife was initially told 'no', and it wasn't until the tuesday before that she beat a concession out of them - they would allow her to have one shift off.
The problem is, she was on nights for that period - they were going to allow her to take one shift off, but she had to work the other one. So she could either take the night before off, or the night after off - taking the night after off means she couldn't attend the interview at all (her night shifts finish at 8.30am, the interview started at 9am and was a 2 hour drive away). But taking the night before off meant that she would have zero rest time before her night shift - and remember, its up to her to maintain patient safety, its her license and her job.
Yes she could quit, but then we have $100,000 of tuition debt to clear...
Re:infringement is "imminent,"
on
ACTA Treaty Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In the USA, simply conspiring isn't illegal unless you have also performed at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Few people are ever punished for simple conspiracy, unless the final act has been done. In most convictions, there is only enough evidence to convince the lesser participants of conspiring (buying the gun, driving the getaway car) and not doing the actual act (murder, robbery). Even with terrorism and paranoia that follows, people have generally had to have shown they bought the fuel oil and fertilizer (or equivalent deed) to get a conviction. There are obviously exceptions, but they are more rare than mystery novels would have you believe.
Actually, if you read the Wikipedia article it says that the Supreme Court has ruled 'common law did not require proof of an overt step, and the need to prove it for a federal conspiracy conviction requires Congress to specifically require proof of an overt step to accomplish the conspiracy. It is a legislative choice on a statute by statute basis.', and indeed several statutes have been ruled to not require overt step.
Also: 'Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.' from the Wikipedia article, under the US section. State jurisdictions differ on requirement of an overt act or step.
No, it's not just a matter of napping after work. It is seriously inhumane treatment.
The mostly female workers, aged 18 to 25, work from 7.45am to 10.55pm, sometimes with 1,000 workers crammed into one 105ft by 105ft room.
They are not allowed to talk or listen to music, are forced to eat substandard meals from the factory cafeterias, have no bathroom breaks during their shifts and must clean the toilets as discipline, according to the NLC.
My wife works for the British NHS - the following is a comparison.
She is regularly rostered in for 12.5 hour shifts, but is required to stay until the patient she is handling has been dealt with - if she takes on an A&E case 30 minutes before she is scheduled to finish, that case can take up to 4 hours to conclude, and she is not allowed to leave until then. She is still required to turn up for the next shift on time.
She is not allowed to take extended breaks, short comfort breaks are all she is permitted and any meals she takes are routinely interrupted - the longest she has had to eat a meal in the past 6 months is 20 minutes uninterrupted.
She is regularly pressured by the Trust to declare that she has not worked past her legal limit, even though they both know that she was rostered on to work way past that limit.
She has to pay money to a private, non-government body to be able to practice in the UK - she cannot practice without GMC membership.
She cannot become GMC qualified without being trained by the government - there is no alternative to the government workplace for doctors in the UK.
She does not get to plan her holidays, she gets told when she is on holiday, sometimes without any notice (she was told she was on holiday last week on the friday before).
And she gets paid less than the night security staff.
Oh, and shes responsible for the lives of her patients during all of this - any mistakes she makes and that's potentially her livelihood out of the window. Tiredness and overwork is not an excuse, but neither is refusing to work the NHS roster.
My point? The western world has its own little sweat shops and no one gives a damn.
There are already plenty of laws to that effect - conspiracy is one of them, you do not necessarily have to commit the crime you are planning, so long as you plan it together with someone.
I didn't miss it, I just chose to ignore it. I was infact going to make a comment about it in my original post, but then I realised that him writing a footnote doesn't preclude a post refuting his claims anyway.
Ahem, Opera had 'tab' functionality before Firefox, and I think you are either forgetting or are blissfully unaware of the Netscape-IE browser wars of the 1990s, with new tags and functionality left, right and center from both (some of which the other browser adopted and become standard, some of which weren't and some of which we all wish weren't).
You probably don't even want to know that the whole Ajax thing didn't really even come of age until Microsoft released XMLHttpRequest with IE from version 5, and this was adopted by all browsers eventually (and even MS standardised it as a Javascript object later on).
A class action suite does not preclude other actions being taken, and it does not prevent criminal action at all.
But what you describe is precisely how Google got its book settlement - have someone bring a class action against it, create an agreement with that 'class' and they now have the ability to do what they wish. A horrific corruption of the legal system.
Why pirate it? Is your sense of entitlement so great that you couldn't simply go without a game that goes against your principles?
People need to stop considering piracy as a viable alternative, and start considering other products instead. Making a stand without making a sacrifice isn't going to prove the thing you want it to.
Slashdot Mirror
He would be guilty of poor practices. There's a difference between refusal through choice and inability - your argument is is stupid because it ignores that point.
I've held off commenting on this story, but I think I will have to.
That argument is stupid - Childs was obstructive in his employers efforts to gain access to their own property, and he continued to do so even after he was fired. The equivalent is if he had refused to return the only set of keys, or the combination to a safe - he is depriving owners of their property.
They never wanted him to do his job, they just wanted him to return their property - the fact that he was not in physical possession of that property is neither here nor there, he was still depriving them of it.
I know its unpopular here, but I support this conviction - Childs was being an asshole prima donna and suffered for it.
Who denied it tho, is the question (if they even did - I haven't seen anything provable). Who did Gizmodo check with? Did they ring a generic number for Apple and ask the receptionist? Did they pop into a store? Did they ask for the iPhone R&D department to report they had it? What?
As already noted, LAN boot is one option, but if you go with tools like Symantec Ghost (or one of the free options, I haven't checked those out in the past 2 years), you have the option of installing a pre-boot environment for Ghost which the computer will boot into first, check to see if there are any imaging tasks to do (and you have the option with Ghost of preserving users data on the currently installed image, and migrating it to the fresh image) and either do them or boot into the day-to-day OS. Works a treat when you have it set up correctly.
As we have seen with this incident, you cannot trust any patch you distribute - yes it is a trade off, but a virus infection is not going to happen en mass while a duff OS or anti-virus patch can certainly take out a significant proportion of your install base in a single swipe. Which would you rather? Seriously? I'd rather progressively roll out the patch, reducing the possible vulnerable surface area as I went, than instantly wipe out my install base.
So I stand by my original statement - its not impossible, you just don't want to do it.
And to the people that marked me flamebait or troll, I don't think you have ever been responsible for more than your grandmothers computer - my strategy works, I know since I worked by it when I was a sysadmin (up until August last year). You never, *ever* make a change to the entire install base in one sweep, regardless of the reason. Progressive roll out is king.
Bollocks is it impossible, you just don't want to do it. The entire point of a progressive rollout is that it limits damage done to a small group that increases in size the more you trust the patch.
Should McAfee really be on the hook for your departments poor IT practices? Every one of those computers should have been remotely re-imaged, and as all campus data was kept on centralised servers then you should have lost no data, your job should have consisted of queuing systems for re-imaging, not much more.
People are railing McAfee here for poor QA, and they rightly should - but you have just demonstrated your own poor QA. Who in their right mind releases a patch to their entire install base at once? Release it to 10 computers and monitor for a couple of days. Then released it to 50 more and continue monitoring. Keep including groups until all computers have been covered without issue. How hard is that?
Terabyte hard disks may be 'in the bargain bin at the computer store', but oodles of bandwidth isn't.
Aside from the stupidity of the rest of your post, what makes the Euro any more 'imaginary' than any other fiat currency, such as the British Pound Sterling, or the US Dollar? Is it because it came into existence only a few years ago, rather than a couple of hundred years ago?
The Christian law is 'thou shalt not murder', not 'thou shalt not kill' - and yes, there is a distinction.
In answer to your question, nationalised healthcare is something I would not do without, and would support with great effort.
Being able to walk into a hospital and get treated for any ailment without cost to myself is fantastic. Not having to sort out healthcare insurance for each visit to the doctors is amazing, and not having to worry about the cost of a hospital stay for any reason is the best feeling in the world.
I get to pay £7 odd per item for prescription items, regardless of how much the drug or treatment actually costs. If the prescription item costs less than £7, the pharmacy typically offers to sell me it over the counter rather than on prescription, and I save money. Again, not having to worry about insurance costs and affiliated drug requirements is amazing.
The problem with the NHS is not the service they provide, or the concept of nationalised or socialised healthcare - its the way the NHS has become top heavy, and that is going to happen in any scenario.
When it was created, the NHS was truly national - today, its regional, with Primary Care Trusts dictating the individual level of treatments in its region and hospitals.
The very concept of the Primary Care Trust regions brings in the so called post-code lottery, where some people will get some treatments and others will not. It of course also duplicates administration positions et al.
But the NHS also tries to con itself...
GP practices are businesses (GPs are privately employed by private practices, and have a service contract with the NHS), and hospitals are set up to be business like - GPs are given treatment budgets by the NHS, and when they refer to a hospital for treatment the hospital gets to bill the GP practice for the amount. The problem is, the GP budget includes aftercare treatment such as pain relief, and the hospital bills for that as well but doesn't dispense it all (for example, a hip replacement budget item will include two weeks of pain relief, but the hospital will dispense one week on discharge of the patient - the patient can ask for the second week, but the aim is that they will go to the GP for it and not the hospital, so the GP pays twice).
So in my view the concept is fine, and it does actually work, but its the current realisation that is the issue.
Why do people find it hard to understand the concept of partial subsidization - either have ads, or pay more. In this case, you are paying for an additional product, not the original without ads.
The only Buran flight was done without a crew, and it was autonomous - the only one to fly was destroyed, but there were another one which was nearly complete which survives, and another three in production, of which two survive. The USSR
She is a member of two unions, one which is solely for defending her in court (the Medical Defense Union). Her labour union is the BMA and it gladly turns a blind eye to the above - she cannot be a member of any other union under her GMC membership terms.
You miss the point - my wife works for a government run and mandated system that is little more than a sweat shop itself. But people turn a blind eye because its what is required to become a doctor in the UK.
I also didn't tell you about the contracts - if you apply to become a Training GP in the UK, you can no longer apply for any other NHS position until your application for GP is rejected. If you are accepted as a GP, you have to accept the position within 48 hours of being offered it - except its not a job offer, its an offer of a training position which can start either in August or February, be at one of a dozen hospitals in the area and one of several dozen practices in the area, and pay scales can vary significantly. You don't know any of these things but you are forced to make a decision.
Before you get to the offer, you have to get to the interview - the interviews for GP are held on the same day nationally, but no hospitals budget for their lowest grade doctors going to the interview, so you have to fight to take the day off. My wife was initially told 'no', and it wasn't until the tuesday before that she beat a concession out of them - they would allow her to have one shift off.
The problem is, she was on nights for that period - they were going to allow her to take one shift off, but she had to work the other one. So she could either take the night before off, or the night after off - taking the night after off means she couldn't attend the interview at all (her night shifts finish at 8.30am, the interview started at 9am and was a 2 hour drive away). But taking the night before off meant that she would have zero rest time before her night shift - and remember, its up to her to maintain patient safety, its her license and her job.
Yes she could quit, but then we have $100,000 of tuition debt to clear...
In the USA, simply conspiring isn't illegal unless you have also performed at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Few people are ever punished for simple conspiracy, unless the final act has been done. In most convictions, there is only enough evidence to convince the lesser participants of conspiring (buying the gun, driving the getaway car) and not doing the actual act (murder, robbery). Even with terrorism and paranoia that follows, people have generally had to have shown they bought the fuel oil and fertilizer (or equivalent deed) to get a conviction. There are obviously exceptions, but they are more rare than mystery novels would have you believe.
Actually, if you read the Wikipedia article it says that the Supreme Court has ruled 'common law did not require proof of an overt step, and the need to prove it for a federal conspiracy conviction requires Congress to specifically require proof of an overt step to accomplish the conspiracy. It is a legislative choice on a statute by statute basis.', and indeed several statutes have been ruled to not require overt step.
Also: 'Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.' from the Wikipedia article, under the US section. State jurisdictions differ on requirement of an overt act or step.
No, it's not just a matter of napping after work. It is seriously inhumane treatment.
The mostly female workers, aged 18 to 25, work from 7.45am to 10.55pm, sometimes with 1,000 workers crammed into one 105ft by 105ft room.
They are not allowed to talk or listen to music, are forced to eat substandard meals from the factory cafeterias, have no bathroom breaks during their shifts and must clean the toilets as discipline, according to the NLC.
My wife works for the British NHS - the following is a comparison.
She is regularly rostered in for 12.5 hour shifts, but is required to stay until the patient she is handling has been dealt with - if she takes on an A&E case 30 minutes before she is scheduled to finish, that case can take up to 4 hours to conclude, and she is not allowed to leave until then. She is still required to turn up for the next shift on time.
She is not allowed to take extended breaks, short comfort breaks are all she is permitted and any meals she takes are routinely interrupted - the longest she has had to eat a meal in the past 6 months is 20 minutes uninterrupted.
She is regularly pressured by the Trust to declare that she has not worked past her legal limit, even though they both know that she was rostered on to work way past that limit.
She has to pay money to a private, non-government body to be able to practice in the UK - she cannot practice without GMC membership.
She cannot become GMC qualified without being trained by the government - there is no alternative to the government workplace for doctors in the UK.
She does not get to plan her holidays, she gets told when she is on holiday, sometimes without any notice (she was told she was on holiday last week on the friday before).
And she gets paid less than the night security staff.
Oh, and shes responsible for the lives of her patients during all of this - any mistakes she makes and that's potentially her livelihood out of the window. Tiredness and overwork is not an excuse, but neither is refusing to work the NHS roster.
My point? The western world has its own little sweat shops and no one gives a damn.
There are already plenty of laws to that effect - conspiracy is one of them, you do not necessarily have to commit the crime you are planning, so long as you plan it together with someone.
I never claimed Opera was the first, I simply offered them as an example of the functionality prior to Firefox.
I didn't miss it, I just chose to ignore it. I was infact going to make a comment about it in my original post, but then I realised that him writing a footnote doesn't preclude a post refuting his claims anyway.
Ahem, Opera had 'tab' functionality before Firefox, and I think you are either forgetting or are blissfully unaware of the Netscape-IE browser wars of the 1990s, with new tags and functionality left, right and center from both (some of which the other browser adopted and become standard, some of which weren't and some of which we all wish weren't).
You probably don't even want to know that the whole Ajax thing didn't really even come of age until Microsoft released XMLHttpRequest with IE from version 5, and this was adopted by all browsers eventually (and even MS standardised it as a Javascript object later on).
It lacks data?
A class action suite does not preclude other actions being taken, and it does not prevent criminal action at all.
But what you describe is precisely how Google got its book settlement - have someone bring a class action against it, create an agreement with that 'class' and they now have the ability to do what they wish. A horrific corruption of the legal system.
Experienced developers can also equate to engrained behaviours and beliefs, styles and approaches and isn't necessarily always the best thing.
Why pirate it? Is your sense of entitlement so great that you couldn't simply go without a game that goes against your principles?
People need to stop considering piracy as a viable alternative, and start considering other products instead. Making a stand without making a sacrifice isn't going to prove the thing you want it to.