That's right. And now all we need is for all normal email subject headers to start with Not Unsolicited Mail: to get through the spam filters. Hell, the email client can even add and remove the thing automatically. Anybody who sends a spam email with those words is committing fraud.
"The rest of the penalty is for state's attorneys' fees and court costs."
Which adds a nice cool $96,197.74 on to it.
Good God, are you Clueless?
on
WiFi Triangulation
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Hint: War-chalking happens because people are clueless about their networks. The problem is networks that let everyone on board by default without any encryption.
I don't think that you can make a CEO think that way. If management is allowed to set its own compensation, management will always look out for number one. There is really no substitute for oversight from stockholders. And once that oversight is present, keeping your CEO motivated is exactly the same process as keeping the janitor motivated--though you might want to spend more effort on the one.
Most well-run companies do have good oversight of management. Think of yourself as just a stockholder for a moment. For example, imagine that you have a mid-life crisis tomorrow, and you decide to get someone else to run your company. You are still the major stock-holder, but you need to hire a CEO.
You certainly aren't going to allow your new CEO to give himself loans from the company slush fund. However, that doesn't mean that your worries about CEO over-compensation are gone, or even reduced. Your most likely problems are going to come from this sort of thing. (The one co-author Khurana in that article has written a book on the subject that is supposed to be very good that I have never read.)
There is a sort of artificial celebrity market out there at the moment. Part of the reason for the celebrity market goes back to the companies with bad oversight. The few places that allow management to run up compensation raise the price for everybody. However, that's only the demand side. The supply side comes from this type of thinking: "If you haven't been CEO of GE, we don't want you." Companies can easily overvalue a successful CEO, without truly evaluating how much that CEO can really do for them compared to a cheaper version without the celebrity status.
I agree totally. In fact, I even said so in the paragraph just after the one you quoted.:)
a) did not hold a sufficient stake in the company to care about its success, or b) DID own a good chunk, but never believed in the business to begin with, so they wanted to cash out ASAP.
I would have to add c) they were able to extract more cash through other methods than they were able to get by raising the value of the stock they owned, d) divestiture of stock was far too easy, making it the equivalent of cash, and e) they simply got the wrong amount of stock, because it is hard to gauge the value of stock, expecially in an options format used to prevent divestiture.
I read the post--however I actually thought about it before replying.
If he has sold the stock (or most of the stock) in his company to someone else, then yes. He is only a hired hand. There is no room for gratefulness, only profit. He built a product, the company, and sold it for cash.
If he hasn't sold the stock to someone else, then he isn't really getting a salary, he is getting profits. Any salary he does get is actually coming out of those profits. In that case he doesn't have much room to speak on CEO salary.
Eliminate your incentive? Don't make me laugh. There are a dozen CEOs better than you out there who would work for 1/4 your salary. You are hired help. You get paid on the labor market supply-demand curve.
Unfortunately, for the past couple decades, management has been setting its own wages without much imput from the owners (the stock holders who care about profit). Rather than setting executive wages to maximize profit for the company--which would make the wages fall in the labor market supply-demand curve, they have been setting wages to maximize executive profit. Hence the result.
The blame does not, of course, lie with greedy executives like yourself. The blame resides with the poor oversight by stock holders. This in turn is fueled by the ever more popular notion that holding stock is like a simple bank account with bigger interest payments.
I don't know. You have good points, but in the end I'd suggest leaving the choice up to individuals. If you've made a mistake with an email, simply send a second with the subject: Don't read my last email.
Most of the time, you are correct. It simply smooths personal relationships, or corrects errors--and that's all to the good.
However, in certain instances that sort of thing can be used for unethical purposes. For example, if you've done something illegal or unethical, you might use this feature to hide the evidence. I'd have to consider it abuse to use the feature in that manner.
A silly example: Re: Why didn't I get that cushy promotion? Duh, because you're a woman!^H^H^H^H^H^H lousy worker. So there is at least some potential for abuse. I'd say that the method I suggested at the beginning of the post is good enough that it doesn't have to be improved upon with a un-send feature.
Most companies have their own internal paper mail system. It's not a lot like the U.S. mail. Internal e-mail seems the same way. If the CEO had wanted to cancel internal delivery of a paper memo, it wouldn't be a problem.
But non-internal e-mail is a different thing altogether. Now, the fact that it is technically legal for companies to eavesdrop on employee email, but not on employee telephone conversations does seem to be very wrong. Email should have some expectation of privacy--with the limitation that writing or reading personal email during company time is as wrong as personal telephone calls.
I hope they make a normal DVD-sized one. It would be nicer to have a 50-gig disk that is a few inches across than a 4-gig disk that is 3 centimeters across. (I don't watch that many movies on my cell phone.
Very simple solution using 1980's tech. You need a video tape and a cassette tape. Record the television signal on one, and the radio on the other. Afterwards, just cue them up, and you can watch everything in sync.
I noticed pre-caching when I read the release notes last night. In my opinion it is a major security danger.
A lot of police investigations go by the browser cache to see where you have browsed. Now you are giving control over to the cache to someone else.
It would be simple to put a link in the page source to some kiddie porn or other illegal information. You would never see the link on the page and would have no way of knowing what had been inserted in your browser cache until the police inform you of how long you are going to be in jail. Sure, it is possible that the police won't use the browser cache as proof of guilt (don't bet on it), but that requires a lot of trust. And if they want to be technical about it, it is technically illegal to possess that information, no matter how it was acquired.
And the gain isn't at all proportional to the risk. No pre-caching is done except on sites specifically engineered for it. That means next to none.
You are mistaken (except that it was about a material that can be used as a form of kitty litter). Petr Taborsky was convicted, among other things, for theft of trade secrets. Indeed, the reason he served time on the chain gang had to do, in part, with his disclosure of those secrets by filing a patent application based upon the subject matter of the lab notes.
Again changing the subject. This would have been a lot shorter if you had just argued with what I said instead of what you would have liked for me to have said. Taborsky was convicted of grand theft of research materials and theft of trade secrets. The trade secrets charge was not under discussion. The reason he was convicted of grand theft, was because that was the only copy that he stole. The school was deprived of access to his research. Xeroxing them would have been an entirely different issue. You can look up the ruling if you'd like. The patent filing which got him sent to the chain gang was a probation violation.
The theft of content is actionable in fact. Computer Fraud and Abuse, and comparable state laws operate on similar principles.
Hate to bring you back to the subject, but we were talking about the grand theft statute, not other codes.
You bet he will go free on these facts, and I would bet he would be convicted, which conviction would survive appeals.
Now when the hell did I say that? He's going away unless he can afford a good attorney.
I agree to disagree -- this is my last posting on this thread.
Next time try arguing with the other party rather than points you dream up yourself. It's less aggravating all around.
You've went to a lot of trouble to make the Fritz chip uncrackable, but Palladium has to be enforced in software. Taking control of the boot loader was a good idea, but what do you do when someone exploits a buffer overrun or a backdoor--or a macro in Word 95--to run arbitrary code, and disable all Palladium features. Isn't all your effort completely useless?
But he'll obviously be convicted when they deny him the visa and he can't complete the terms of his plea bargain. They can't give a visa to someone who is going to be convicted now, can they?
Good God Damn. I include Florida, to be sure. Anyways, it's rather impossible to argue with someone who in turn only argues with what he would like you to have said, rather than what has actually been said.
Let me get this straight. He was charged with a crime. You say that he must be presumed innocent. Hence, you conclude that an injustice has occurred.
Why do I bother? No, that is complete mischaracterization of what I wrote earlier--like most of your statements concerning what I have said. Is there some point to that sort of thing? It's a cheap debating trick that only works with an audience. And as far as I can tell, we're the only two participating. Again, I'll say it very simply: I argued that injustice occured because he was charged with the crime of grand theft, when his alledged actions do not fit the definition of grand theft. The presumption of innocence comment was a reply to your earlier comment which states: "It is reasonable to assert that you think grand theft of this kind should be a misdemeanor and not seriously penalized." All you did here was again mischaracterize my original point and further contradict me in a roundabout way with no supporting arugument. Beautiful piece of cheap rhetoric.
The presumption of innocence does not preclude charging someone with a crime, or the discussion whether the facts, if they occurred, would give rise to the crime. You aren't disputing the facts -- you are asserting that the facts, if true, would not be criminal at the level charged. I am disagreeing with THAT point, not asserting that he is guilty because he was charged.
Finally. It took you this long to disagree with it in a direct manner. Now that you have finally stated the real argument without mischaracterization of any kind, make your point.
the value of personal property is not limited to the price of the media stored on it, and the case books are filled with criminal grand theft involving unpublished works and intellectual property -- primarily trade secrets. Such cases have been heavily appealed on similar grounds (Taborsky being one of them), and the defendants have lost.
You prove my point. It's the amount of damage done, not the street value of the copyrighted material that is the issue. Stealing the only copy of an original manuscript is quite different from copying an expensive software program or electronic book. Again Taborsky is another case where the damage is important and not the items (the notebooks), but the invention (kitty litter, wasn't it?). What if he had merely xeroxed the notebooks, as more or less (apparently) occurred in this Star Wars case? Quite a different thing (assuming it was the university that got the patents). Suddenly you have much smaller real damages, and if I recall, grand theft statutes usually have a damage minimum in cases of non-violent theft--that is if we are talking about damage done, and not price of files stored on the media.
My suggestion -- don't whine about injustice. Do something about it by changing the law
Wow. What an incredible statement. I don't suppose you could give one example of a single law in all of history that wasn't changed by people 'whining about injustice?' (Please don't include examples of dictators or the powerful making the laws more unjust.)
The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.
No, he was accused of computer crimes as well as grand theft?
In that context I was only speaking about the grand theft charges. He should be held liable for the computer crimes. Of course, even for those computer crimes, the issue of actual damage remains important, I would assume.
I read several articles, but saw none that made any reference to criminal copyright infringement (which would be brought only by a USA, and not by a state attorney; I agree that infringement is malum prohibitum, by the way).
Exactly, which makes me feel that he is being charged under the wrong statutes.
We, as individuals, don't get to make it up as we go along -- the laws are the laws, and the penalties are the penalties.
Yes, but certain people called prosecutors will often try to bend the wording of a statute (more often the spirit) in order to land a big case.
And finally I apologize for the personal attacks. Rather, I was trying to colorfully say that the quality of your argument up to this point, was that of a foreigner who misunderstands both law and the English language.
Good God! I can't get through, can I? I'll repeat myself one last time: He was charged with grand theft, but committed no crimes on the order of grand theft.
I don't know why this is such a hard concept to get across. Maybe you live in a foreign country where everyone charged with a crime is assumed to be guilty. In my country, America, just because someone is charged with a certain crime, doesn't mean that he guilty. We assume that person is innocent. We even allow him to defend himself with the proposition that he may not have committed the alledged crimes at all.
This man was charged with thirteen felony crimes. You don't think that what he did was all that bad. But if the elements of those crimes are proved, he committed the crimes.
Your residence in a far off land obviously keeps you from any real understanding of the justice system. There are any number of prosecutors who "bend" the definition of a statute to serve their purposes. The acts alledged don't always fit the statute. So just because he was proven to commit the alledged acts, does not mean he has actually committed grand theft under the definition of the statute.
Hell, according the the newspaper accounts the only physical items that that the police claimed he had were 19 CD-ROMS. We don't know that he stole the CD-ROMS, or simply brought some from home and burned him. Anyway, $9.00 worth of CD-ROMS is not grand theft under the statute.
The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.
You are having trouble reading. I wrote that the crimes that he committed were on the order of petty misdemeanors.
He was charged with grand theft.
I will write this very slowly, so that I now get my point across to you. If someone commits a crime that is small in degree, but is charged with a crime that is large in degree, there is injustice. Look up the definition of draconian.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right. And now all we need is for all normal email subject headers to start with Not Unsolicited Mail: to get through the spam filters. Hell, the email client can even add and remove the thing automatically. Anybody who sends a spam email with those words is committing fraud.
"The rest of the penalty is for state's attorneys' fees and court costs."
Which adds a nice cool $96,197.74 on to it.
Hint: War-chalking happens because people are clueless about their networks. The problem is networks that let everyone on board by default without any encryption.
I don't think that you can make a CEO think that way. If management is allowed to set its own compensation, management will always look out for number one. There is really no substitute for oversight from stockholders. And once that oversight is present, keeping your CEO motivated is exactly the same process as keeping the janitor motivated--though you might want to spend more effort on the one.
Most well-run companies do have good oversight of management. Think of yourself as just a stockholder for a moment. For example, imagine that you have a mid-life crisis tomorrow, and you decide to get someone else to run your company. You are still the major stock-holder, but you need to hire a CEO.
You certainly aren't going to allow your new CEO to give himself loans from the company slush fund. However, that doesn't mean that your worries about CEO over-compensation are gone, or even reduced. Your most likely problems are going to come from this sort of thing. (The one co-author Khurana in that article has written a book on the subject that is supposed to be very good that I have never read.)
There is a sort of artificial celebrity market out there at the moment. Part of the reason for the celebrity market goes back to the companies with bad oversight. The few places that allow management to run up compensation raise the price for everybody. However, that's only the demand side. The supply side comes from this type of thinking: "If you haven't been CEO of GE, we don't want you." Companies can easily overvalue a successful CEO, without truly evaluating how much that CEO can really do for them compared to a cheaper version without the celebrity status.
I believe that he is only saying that he inserted the names of the justices from memory.
That's the owners' fault, not the managment!
:)
I agree totally. In fact, I even said so in the paragraph just after the one you quoted.
a) did not hold a sufficient stake in the company to care about its success, or b) DID own a good chunk, but never believed in the business to begin with, so they wanted to cash out ASAP.
I would have to add c) they were able to extract more cash through other methods than they were able to get by raising the value of the stock they owned, d) divestiture of stock was far too easy, making it the equivalent of cash, and e) they simply got the wrong amount of stock, because it is hard to gauge the value of stock, expecially in an options format used to prevent divestiture.
I read the post--however I actually thought about it before replying.
If he has sold the stock (or most of the stock) in his company to someone else, then yes. He is only a hired hand. There is no room for gratefulness, only profit. He built a product, the company, and sold it for cash.
If he hasn't sold the stock to someone else, then he isn't really getting a salary, he is getting profits. Any salary he does get is actually coming out of those profits. In that case he doesn't have much room to speak on CEO salary.
Eliminate your incentive? Don't make me laugh. There are a dozen CEOs better than you out there who would work for 1/4 your salary. You are hired help. You get paid on the labor market supply-demand curve.
Unfortunately, for the past couple decades, management has been setting its own wages without much imput from the owners (the stock holders who care about profit). Rather than setting executive wages to maximize profit for the company--which would make the wages fall in the labor market supply-demand curve, they have been setting wages to maximize executive profit. Hence the result.
The blame does not, of course, lie with greedy executives like yourself. The blame resides with the poor oversight by stock holders. This in turn is fueled by the ever more popular notion that holding stock is like a simple bank account with bigger interest payments.
I don't know. You have good points, but in the end I'd suggest leaving the choice up to individuals. If you've made a mistake with an email, simply send a second with the subject: Don't read my last email.
Most of the time, you are correct. It simply smooths personal relationships, or corrects errors--and that's all to the good.
However, in certain instances that sort of thing can be used for unethical purposes. For example, if you've done something illegal or unethical, you might use this feature to hide the evidence. I'd have to consider it abuse to use the feature in that manner.
A silly example: Re: Why didn't I get that cushy promotion? Duh, because you're a woman!^H^H^H^H^H^H lousy worker. So there is at least some potential for abuse. I'd say that the method I suggested at the beginning of the post is good enough that it doesn't have to be improved upon with a un-send feature.
Most companies have their own internal paper mail system. It's not a lot like the U.S. mail. Internal e-mail seems the same way. If the CEO had wanted to cancel internal delivery of a paper memo, it wouldn't be a problem.
But non-internal e-mail is a different thing altogether. Now, the fact that it is technically legal for companies to eavesdrop on employee email, but not on employee telephone conversations does seem to be very wrong. Email should have some expectation of privacy--with the limitation that writing or reading personal email during company time is as wrong as personal telephone calls.
I hope they make a normal DVD-sized one. It would be nicer to have a 50-gig disk that is a few inches across than a 4-gig disk that is 3 centimeters across. (I don't watch that many movies on my cell phone.
Very simple solution using 1980's tech. You need a video tape and a cassette tape. Record the television signal on one, and the radio on the other. Afterwards, just cue them up, and you can watch everything in sync.
I noticed pre-caching when I read the release notes last night. In my opinion it is a major security danger.
A lot of police investigations go by the browser cache to see where you have browsed. Now you are giving control over to the cache to someone else.
It would be simple to put a link in the page source to some kiddie porn or other illegal information. You would never see the link on the page and would have no way of knowing what had been inserted in your browser cache until the police inform you of how long you are going to be in jail. Sure, it is possible that the police won't use the browser cache as proof of guilt (don't bet on it), but that requires a lot of trust. And if they want to be technical about it, it is technically illegal to possess that information, no matter how it was acquired.
And the gain isn't at all proportional to the risk. No pre-caching is done except on sites specifically engineered for it. That means next to none.
That sounds too big for the CPU cache. Couldn't a motherboard maker give you some sort of access to that area of memory (or even a hacked bios)?
You are mistaken (except that it was about a material that can be used as a form of kitty litter). Petr Taborsky was convicted, among other things, for theft of trade secrets. Indeed, the reason he served time on the chain gang had to do, in part, with his disclosure of those secrets by filing a patent application based upon the subject matter of the lab notes.
Again changing the subject. This would have been a lot shorter if you had just argued with what I said instead of what you would have liked for me to have said. Taborsky was convicted of grand theft of research materials and theft of trade secrets. The trade secrets charge was not under discussion. The reason he was convicted of grand theft, was because that was the only copy that he stole. The school was deprived of access to his research. Xeroxing them would have been an entirely different issue. You can look up the ruling if you'd like. The patent filing which got him sent to the chain gang was a probation violation.
The theft of content is actionable in fact. Computer Fraud and Abuse, and comparable state laws operate on similar principles.
Hate to bring you back to the subject, but we were talking about the grand theft statute, not other codes.
You bet he will go free on these facts, and I would bet he would be convicted, which conviction would survive appeals.
Now when the hell did I say that? He's going away unless he can afford a good attorney.
I agree to disagree -- this is my last posting on this thread.
Next time try arguing with the other party rather than points you dream up yourself. It's less aggravating all around.
Damn, but I had fun, though.
You've went to a lot of trouble to make the Fritz chip uncrackable, but Palladium has to be enforced in software. Taking control of the boot loader was a good idea, but what do you do when someone exploits a buffer overrun or a backdoor--or a macro in Word 95--to run arbitrary code, and disable all Palladium features. Isn't all your effort completely useless?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Not nearly worth the effort otherwise.
But he hasn't been convicted yet.
But he'll obviously be convicted when they deny him the visa and he can't complete the terms of his plea bargain. They can't give a visa to someone who is going to be convicted now, can they?
Maybe you live in a foreign country
:-)
After all, I am a lawyer.
Good God Damn. I include Florida, to be sure. Anyways, it's rather impossible to argue with someone who in turn only argues with what he would like you to have said, rather than what has actually been said.
Let me get this straight. He was charged with a crime. You say that he must be presumed innocent. Hence, you conclude that an injustice has occurred.
Why do I bother? No, that is complete mischaracterization of what I wrote earlier--like most of your statements concerning what I have said. Is there some point to that sort of thing? It's a cheap debating trick that only works with an audience. And as far as I can tell, we're the only two participating. Again, I'll say it very simply: I argued that injustice occured because he was charged with the crime of grand theft, when his alledged actions do not fit the definition of grand theft. The presumption of innocence comment was a reply to your earlier comment which states: "It is reasonable to assert that you think grand theft of this kind should be a misdemeanor and not seriously penalized." All you did here was again mischaracterize my original point and further contradict me in a roundabout way with no supporting arugument. Beautiful piece of cheap rhetoric.
The presumption of innocence does not preclude charging someone with a crime, or the discussion whether the facts, if they occurred, would give rise to the crime. You aren't disputing the facts -- you are asserting that the facts, if true, would not be criminal at the level charged. I am disagreeing with THAT point, not asserting that he is guilty because he was charged.
Finally. It took you this long to disagree with it in a direct manner. Now that you have finally stated the real argument without mischaracterization of any kind, make your point.
the value of personal property is not limited to the price of the media stored on it, and the case books are filled with criminal grand theft involving unpublished works and intellectual property -- primarily trade secrets. Such cases have been heavily appealed on similar grounds (Taborsky being one of them), and the defendants have lost.
You prove my point. It's the amount of damage done, not the street value of the copyrighted material that is the issue. Stealing the only copy of an original manuscript is quite different from copying an expensive software program or electronic book. Again Taborsky is another case where the damage is important and not the items (the notebooks), but the invention (kitty litter, wasn't it?). What if he had merely xeroxed the notebooks, as more or less (apparently) occurred in this Star Wars case? Quite a different thing (assuming it was the university that got the patents). Suddenly you have much smaller real damages, and if I recall, grand theft statutes usually have a damage minimum in cases of non-violent theft--that is if we are talking about damage done, and not price of files stored on the media.
My suggestion -- don't whine about injustice. Do something about it by changing the law
Wow. What an incredible statement. I don't suppose you could give one example of a single law in all of history that wasn't changed by people 'whining about injustice?' (Please don't include examples of dictators or the powerful making the laws more unjust.)
The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.
No, he was accused of computer crimes as well as grand theft?
In that context I was only speaking about the grand theft charges. He should be held liable for the computer crimes. Of course, even for those computer crimes, the issue of actual damage remains important, I would assume.
I read several articles, but saw none that made any reference to criminal copyright infringement (which would be brought only by a USA, and not by a state attorney; I agree that infringement is malum prohibitum, by the way).
Exactly, which makes me feel that he is being charged under the wrong statutes.
We, as individuals, don't get to make it up as we go along -- the laws are the laws, and the penalties are the penalties.
Yes, but certain people called prosecutors will often try to bend the wording of a statute (more often the spirit) in order to land a big case.
And finally I apologize for the personal attacks. Rather, I was trying to colorfully say that the quality of your argument up to this point, was that of a foreigner who misunderstands both law and the English language.
you think grand theft of this kind
Good God! I can't get through, can I? I'll repeat myself one last time: He was charged with grand theft, but committed no crimes on the order of grand theft.
I don't know why this is such a hard concept to get across. Maybe you live in a foreign country where everyone charged with a crime is assumed to be guilty. In my country, America, just because someone is charged with a certain crime, doesn't mean that he guilty. We assume that person is innocent. We even allow him to defend himself with the proposition that he may not have committed the alledged crimes at all.
This man was charged with thirteen felony crimes. You don't think that what he did was all that bad. But if the elements of those crimes are proved, he committed the crimes.
Your residence in a far off land obviously keeps you from any real understanding of the justice system. There are any number of prosecutors who "bend" the definition of a statute to serve their purposes. The acts alledged don't always fit the statute. So just because he was proven to commit the alledged acts, does not mean he has actually committed grand theft under the definition of the statute.
Hell, according the the newspaper accounts the only physical items that that the police claimed he had were 19 CD-ROMS. We don't know that he stole the CD-ROMS, or simply brought some from home and burned him. Anyway, $9.00 worth of CD-ROMS is not grand theft under the statute.
The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.
Why do I feel like Stalin just walked into the room?
Give me any piece of code and I will reimplement it within 10 minutes to do exactly the same thing, using none of the original code.
Won't help with patents, but that's not a copyright issue.
You are having trouble reading. I wrote that the crimes that he committed were on the order of petty misdemeanors.
He was charged with grand theft.
I will write this very slowly, so that I now get my point across to you. If someone commits a crime that is small in degree, but is charged with a crime that is large in degree, there is injustice. Look up the definition of draconian.
There is all that Playboy and Penthouse software on the top shelf of the computer software section at Hastings...
Exactly my point, costs need to be based on actual damage to the copyright holder, not upon supposed value of the copies.