It is my understanding that there is nothing illegal about distributing trade secrets. Specifically, trade secrets are information that enterprises keep to themselves instead of publishing under copyright or registering under patent law.
The point is that patents oblige a certain level of disclosure that inventors or their companies are uncomfortable disclosing, and so gamble on keeping them secret instead of patented, in the hope of keeping the secret to themselves longer.
It is, however, legal to pursue people who leak secret company information to third parties, which is pretty much what Apple was doing, excepting for the not having a leg to stand on part as far as the journalist was concerned.
Stolen trade secrets are not illegal; employees giving them away is illegal.
Simple. I live on an island. I overnight two nights a week in the big city, working 3 days there, and two days a week from home. The 35 minute float plane flight is cost-effective and lets be be in the office at 8:00am on Tuesdays and back home by 8:00pm on Thursdays. No flying turns it into a 4-5 hour drive with ferries. Not so cost effective anymore.
That's what excites me - my right eye vision has fallen to under 20/400, which is to say I can't make out the E at the top of an eye chart. It's very localized, but bang on the spot I need to read. I'm lucky, so to speak, because I retain my periferal vision in that eye. And with luck, some months after surgery, I'll be able to fuse binocular images again.
But my fear is that it spreads to the other eye (which is highly likely over the course of my hopefully long life to come) and leaves me unable to read. One thing we do seem to know about this condition is that it's an ongoing thing, not just a one-off.
Hope comes in all sorts of forms, even early experiments in optical cybernetics:-)
As someone who has been losing central vision from a pesky bleeding blood vessel under my retina, this news really excites me.
On friday I'm going in for essentially the same surgery, only instead of inserting a chip, they try to deal with the bad blood vessel. Then, after a week of lying face down, and a month of no flying (which kills my easy work commute and turns it into a 5 hour ordeal), I get to find out how much damage was done to my retinal pigments by the blood that has been pooling there for half a year.
Damage that *used* to be un-repairable. With this technology now deployed there's a good chance it will be routine for people like me in 10-15 years.
And given that the likelyhood of diagnosis in the second (currently good) eye is about 1 in 50 per year from now on, the stats give me 15-25 years before I start worrying about getting an artificial retina.
What you have just observed is that there is a limit to how much your own labour is worth.
People who make the big bucks are brokering other people's labour, not their own. In the investment world it's called leverage, in business it's called managment.
I think that you're making the common error of believing that anybody who complains about electoral irregularities is doing so only out of partisan spite.
Instead of making accusations, work on making sure that your elections are (and look) procedurally flawless in the future.
The problem is not that Democrats hate Republicans, it's that there is (at least the appearance of) systematic abuse of the system that should decide who will make decisions that have radical impacts on people's lives. That's not a place where even the appearance of irregularity should be tolerated, much less the actual irregularities reported.
As a non-american, I don't really give a rat's ass about who governs the US. I do however, as a believer that democracy is less bad a system than most others, care that the most powerful nation on earth elect its president with the due care and dilligence that so many less powerful nations manage to use. And I do care about how US foreign policy affects my life and much of the world's, but again, that's not the issue here.
It should be *easier* (compared to centralized counting) to count the votes at the voting site as the election gets larger: the number of politically interested people correlates closely to the number of required voting stations.
Political parties are already using such distributed systems to "get out the vote" and so forth; adding a burden of a counter per ballot box is not much.
I do agree that there is still possibility of fraud regarding tallying sub-totals, but again, the counts from every ballot box can be made public, and so be trivially verifiable, again by the same volunteer who were at the box and know the counts.
Many hands make light work, and are harder to bribe.
But then your bribe would change *ONE* ballot box. To make a real change in the outcome you would have to bribe too many people too keep it quiet.
Decentralized vote counting is more robust to fraud because you have more volunteer observers and counters. It scales well because it's local; again, if a party can't find an observer for a ballot box, then that party has deeper troubles than fraud at that box.
Let's try this again. There is only *ONE* effective way to run an election:
Vote on Paper
Count each ballot box separately
Count the ballot box at the voting site
Allow every party to have an observer there. Parties that can't pony up a counter/observer per ballot box have deeper problems
The advantage is that wide-spread fraud would require widespread efforts, unlike the US's system of centralizing voting processes (central counting machines, central code source bases for voting machines, shipping ballots to counting locations).
Distributed systems are much more robust to fraud.
It's odd that the "far left" in the US appear to be those who value personal liberties, while the right is comprised of those who believe that personal rights should be allowed to be trampled (a la PATRIOT act) for the greater good of the collective.
I'd say that's a bit backwards from the labels usually given.
You don't have reps accompany the ballot boxes to the central place because there is no reason to move the ballots, as well as two compelling reasons not move them: Counting efficiency and graft-proofing.
If you count your ballots locally you get to apply completely scallable divide-and-conquer methods to vote counting - single polling places each only get so many ballots, compared to a centralized location.
Furthermore, after centralizing the ballots it requires *less* graft to corrupt the election: only people counting at the central place need be corrupted, plus they control more votes! Instead, if the votes are counted in smaller batches more people would have to be compromised, and each such compromise would have less effect on the final result.
Don't move the ballots! You *must* count the ballots at the polling place if you want any accountability. It's not hard for any serious candidate to provide an observer for each polling place; they can even count by hand. If a candidate can't provide an observer his/her organization has serious problems and shouldn't be using up ballot space.
People keep thinking that moving ballots makes them easier to count, instead it just opens another opportunity to commit fraud by switching boxes, or similar shenanigans.
Stand up for your right to fair elections: request in-place counting immediately at the close of ballotting, with a representative of each candidate present.
Interesting that I mostly hear this statement from people who didn't finish their degrees. Those that do sometimes say the same thing, but most seem to look back at that time as the last time to have studied freely of the things they wanted. If you treat uni as a job training school you're in for a disappointment. If instead you view it as a transition from living as an appendage to your parents to being your own self, pacing it through four years of learning stuff you want to learn about (and being stretched in other directions) you'll get a lot more out of it.
I've hired a lot of people into good jobs in the last few years, as their manager. Some had degrees, some didn't (and at least one does now that he didn't then - congrats). The junior people I hire almost all have degrees; the others had the experience to back up their claims of abilities, which made them not junior anymore. But someone else took the initial risk.
The issue is that making a copy for personal use is leagal in Canada. We pay a tax on recording media in exchange for this. Giving a copy to someone is illegal, and if I read it right the judge doesn't consider leaving data on a shared drive "giving" it to someone.
Sanest decision I've seen in a while. Of course the NAFTA IP rationalization stuff that's going on will try to ram US values down the rest of our throats, further causing us to vilify americans.
I agree, the degree is not as exteme as in Czech. But the slippery slope has been well embarked on by the current (and somewhat by the preceeding) regime, yet americans continue to be in denial about this state.
Remember: the last president, son of the former head of the secret police, was appointed by judges appointed by his father, after an election whose results and (mis)management was widely contested. Saying "it can't happen here" doesn't make it not happen.
And the US put Saddam in place and supported him for years, during his war with Iran. US foreign policy is not something hold up as an example of virtue.
The international community isn't about being benevolent. It's about stopping (well, trying to stop) bullies from kicking about outside of their borders. The US (among others) is *really* bad at staying out of other countries' affairs.
Yes, the "international community" of dictators and human rights violators, including (led by) France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Belgium, and so on. Lots of dictators in that list of objectors to unilateral actions from the US.
The US never learned how to do diplomacy. There's just too much of the schoolyard bully inherent in the attitude.
Convicted of lying! Oh my, not at all like any US Presidents. Worked for the STB? Not like any US Presidents were ever head of the CIA. Spied on people? Give me a break.
Watch out for your implicit double standards: The US is every bit as dodgy as the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that patents oblige a certain level of disclosure that inventors or their companies are uncomfortable disclosing, and so gamble on keeping them secret instead of patented, in the hope of keeping the secret to themselves longer.
It is, however, legal to pursue people who leak secret company information to third parties, which is pretty much what Apple was doing, excepting for the not having a leg to stand on part as far as the journalist was concerned.
Stolen trade secrets are not illegal; employees giving them away is illegal.
Simple. I live on an island. I overnight two nights a week in the big city, working 3 days there, and two days a week from home. The 35 minute float plane flight is cost-effective and lets be be in the office at 8:00am on Tuesdays and back home by 8:00pm on Thursdays. No flying turns it into a 4-5 hour drive with ferries. Not so cost effective anymore.
But my fear is that it spreads to the other eye (which is highly likely over the course of my hopefully long life to come) and leaves me unable to read. One thing we do seem to know about this condition is that it's an ongoing thing, not just a one-off.
Hope comes in all sorts of forms, even early experiments in optical cybernetics :-)
On friday I'm going in for essentially the same surgery, only instead of inserting a chip, they try to deal with the bad blood vessel. Then, after a week of lying face down, and a month of no flying (which kills my easy work commute and turns it into a 5 hour ordeal), I get to find out how much damage was done to my retinal pigments by the blood that has been pooling there for half a year.
Damage that *used* to be un-repairable. With this technology now deployed there's a good chance it will be routine for people like me in 10-15 years.
And given that the likelyhood of diagnosis in the second (currently good) eye is about 1 in 50 per year from now on, the stats give me 15-25 years before I start worrying about getting an artificial retina.
Hooray for bionics!
People who make the big bucks are brokering other people's labour, not their own. In the investment world it's called leverage, in business it's called managment.
For 10 blocks it seems like the ideal way to avoid walking and instead pack on the pounds from all those lattes...
Instead of making accusations, work on making sure that your elections are (and look) procedurally flawless in the future.
The problem is not that Democrats hate Republicans, it's that there is (at least the appearance of) systematic abuse of the system that should decide who will make decisions that have radical impacts on people's lives. That's not a place where even the appearance of irregularity should be tolerated, much less the actual irregularities reported.
As a non-american, I don't really give a rat's ass about who governs the US. I do however, as a believer that democracy is less bad a system than most others, care that the most powerful nation on earth elect its president with the due care and dilligence that so many less powerful nations manage to use. And I do care about how US foreign policy affects my life and much of the world's, but again, that's not the issue here.
Political parties are already using such distributed systems to "get out the vote" and so forth; adding a burden of a counter per ballot box is not much.
I do agree that there is still possibility of fraud regarding tallying sub-totals, but again, the counts from every ballot box can be made public, and so be trivially verifiable, again by the same volunteer who were at the box and know the counts.
Many hands make light work, and are harder to bribe.
Decentralized vote counting is more robust to fraud because you have more volunteer observers and counters. It scales well because it's local; again, if a party can't find an observer for a ballot box, then that party has deeper troubles than fraud at that box.
Vote on Paper
Count each ballot box separately
Count the ballot box at the voting site
Allow every party to have an observer there. Parties that can't pony up a counter/observer per ballot box have deeper problems The advantage is that wide-spread fraud would require widespread efforts, unlike the US's system of centralizing voting processes (central counting machines, central code source bases for voting machines, shipping ballots to counting locations).
Distributed systems are much more robust to fraud.In no way was I claiming it was too real, or should not have been show. I do think that these images are a fine reason for an R rating, however.
And more, including the very broken bodies of some children. I couldn't watch the screen.
I'd say that's a bit backwards from the labels usually given.
I call that an R rating.
If you count your ballots locally you get to apply completely scallable divide-and-conquer methods to vote counting - single polling places each only get so many ballots, compared to a centralized location.
Furthermore, after centralizing the ballots it requires *less* graft to corrupt the election: only people counting at the central place need be corrupted, plus they control more votes! Instead, if the votes are counted in smaller batches more people would have to be compromised, and each such compromise would have less effect on the final result.
People keep thinking that moving ballots makes them easier to count, instead it just opens another opportunity to commit fraud by switching boxes, or similar shenanigans.
Stand up for your right to fair elections: request in-place counting immediately at the close of ballotting, with a representative of each candidate present.
I've hired a lot of people into good jobs in the last few years, as their manager. Some had degrees, some didn't (and at least one does now that he didn't then - congrats). The junior people I hire almost all have degrees; the others had the experience to back up their claims of abilities, which made them not junior anymore. But someone else took the initial risk.
Sanest decision I've seen in a while. Of course the NAFTA IP rationalization stuff that's going on will try to ram US values down the rest of our throats, further causing us to vilify americans.
Why, oh why, is there no +1 Flamebait moderation? You'd have it from me :-)
sigh. Long day.
Remember: the last president, son of the former head of the secret police, was appointed by judges appointed by his father, after an election whose results and (mis)management was widely contested. Saying "it can't happen here" doesn't make it not happen.
The international community isn't about being benevolent. It's about stopping (well, trying to stop) bullies from kicking about outside of their borders. The US (among others) is *really* bad at staying out of other countries' affairs.
The US never learned how to do diplomacy. There's just too much of the schoolyard bully inherent in the attitude.
I laugh at your silly karma.
Watch out for your implicit double standards: The US is every bit as dodgy as the rest of the world.
There will be a revolution once the riches are sufficiently concentrated.