In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.
Why does a film showing people shooting each other get a PG while you still can't yet have a fully naked man in a sexual situation in mainstream entertainment. Seriously? Which one do you think is actually the more dangerous idea of acceptable behaviour?
Morals and ethics, basically. Minors are 'protected' from sex in almost every country, and that protection includes restrictions from giving them or showing them porn. The age varies around the world, I understand some countries the age of consent is as low as 14, but until that age they are protected.
After doing some web searches that are sure to get me on various watch lists, It looks like in the US it is unlawful to show porn to minors even if they are the parents... except possibly Texas.
Yes, the driver behind was at fault because they were obviously going too fast/not looking/whatever. The concept that seems to elude people is that the car in front can be at fault as well for being stopped in the middle of the road for no good reason.
Why this bizarre notion that placing some of the blame on one party has to totally absolve the other?
Because they two are separate issues. Related, certainly, but still separate.
Blocking the motorway is one issue. It can happen for many reasons. Some of those reasons may have blame, others may not. Either way, this is a separate issue.
Crashing a car into a stationary object is the second issue. It does not matter if the stationary car was disabled or distracted. It does not matter if the stationary car was justified in being there. The plain fact is that IT WAS stationary and the driver should have avoided it. If the driver crashed into ANY stationary object -- no matter why the object was stationary -- the driver of the only moving vehicle carries all the blame for that crash.
The driver of the moving car was 100% responsible for crashing the car. It doesn't matter if it was a parked car or pole or a vehicle, that was the only moving object involved in the crash. It doesn't matter why the hazard was in the road, the fact was the hazard was stationary. If you can't drive without crashing into a stationary object, you are doing it wrong.
The driver of the stopped vehicle may be responsible for some other issue, perhaps responsible for creating a hazard, but is not responsible for the crash. The two are separate.
There are 30 year olds "kids" out there that can't handle GTA, but I'm sure that there are 8 year olds that can. There is nothing magic about the number
No. That might have been true with GTA in the past. Not GTA 5.
Go look at the topless lap dance minigame. Well, don't, because doing so at work might get you fired, and doing it at home might end your marriage. It is a full-on very graphic boobs-in-face lapdance.
No reasonable adult would deny the minigame is softcore porn.
While it is true some 8-year-olds can visit porn sites and see it elsewhere, in doing so they get all the "adults only" and "this is a work of fiction" and other warnings that tell you it is not socially accepted. They might still see it, but they have absolute knowledge that they shouldn't. In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.
Handing GTA 5 to an 8-year-old child and telling them to enjoy themselves is not acceptable.
Stealing cars and smacking down ho's wasn't something you wanted them growing up emulating.
If that was all you did in GTA 5, I'd probably agree that some youths could play it.
But that is NOT what GTA 5 is like.
In GTA 3 you had the option of picking up a prostitute. The car would rock back and forth, you lose money and gain health, then the prostitute gets out. It was a little controversial, but you could just as easily see this in The Sims by making the characters 'WooHoo'.
Contrast this with GTA 5 where you are encouraged to see and repeatedly play a minigame with graphic topless lap dances and get points for interactively molesting women. This is not a stripper dancing in the background, this is full on realistic boobs-in-your-face interactive softcore porn.
So lets say you're fine with your seven year old watching interactive porn. What about the violence?
Look at the older games, you could avoid some violence, and even though you were playing a bad character you could keep the violence to a minimum if you wanted.
Not so in GTA 5. You are required (as the player) to engage in gratuitous torture. We're not talking about mild depictions of something bad going on. This is you as the player being required to commit heinous virtual crimes. It is very explicit, and very graphic. Even many adults balk at that point in the game.
If you are looking for a game of "stealing cars and smacking down ho's", a game that you can let your pre-teen child play, then go get Need For Speed.
If the first car hadn't been stationary at a green light, the accident wouldn't have happened. The first driver created a dangerous situation. If people make a habit of this there will be more accidents - so deterring people from doing it is a good idea. Stating that doesn't stop the second driver being responsible for not looking where they were going.
That is amazing logic.
Children walk onto the roadway, the car doesn't move and gets rear-ended? Crash is the fault of the driver who stopped.
Car remains stopped because emergency vehicles are coming, another driver doesn't notice and collides with you? Crash is the fault of the driver who stopped.
Driver having a heart attack or other major medical condition and stops the car for the safety of everyone? Crash is the fault of the driver who stopped.
Sorry, but in a collision with a completely stationary object, I put the fault on the moving vehicle, not the stopped vehicle. If you cannot avoid a stopped car, you are driving wrong.
I like knowing that I have at least two copy buffers without having to resort to opening a text editor as a poor-man's buffer.
Indeed, most good software development tools allow you to copy/yank code into any of multiple buffers, allowing you to paste from any number of items.
In Visual Studio one of the most useful plugins I have includes a copy/paste buffer that includes the past 10 clipboard entries that I can choose from if I want.
I think the owner of such a car should end up paying for accidents through insurance costs, unless a driving algorithm was fundamentally flawed.
The common public won't accept that. If I buy a self-driving car, there is no way I'm doing to (directly) pay if it crashes while it does the driving.
From the common person's perspective, a self-driving car should be no different than hiring a taxi. Get in and state the destination, then don't care about the details of how it gets there.
First, the carrot: The government "shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information. Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored."
Second, the stick: Failure to comply shall be punishable as a civil or criminal contempt of court, and may also result in an enhancement of the sentence under obstruction of justice. So individual violators are looking at a year in prison, and companies are facing a fine that begins at level 24 of the fine table (currently $2,100,000) which includes a multiplier for large organizations.
The options are to comply and get paid, or fight it and face the very real possibility of prison time and/or a multi-million dollar fine. Couple that with the gag order so you cannot tell the board of directors why the company is paying a multi-million dollar fine or why the executive is sitting jail, only that there is an undisclosed legal issue.
Fingerprint scanners store a mathematical representation of the fingerprint and not a picture.
And they can be defeated using a known fingerprint and a gummy candy. So what?
Both sides have their own goals, and both can be met with an alternate solution. The whole problem can be avoided entirely by competent management, but I'm sure they are hiring supervisors at the minimum wage so competence probably isn't a thing they expect.
The company probably wants the fingerprint scanners for convenience. It is unlikely (although certainly possible) that they are trying to get the fingerprint data for nefarious purposes. They want it because a fingerprint is easy to automate no matter which machine the employee uses to clock in, it is hard to forge when somebody is running late and says "Bob, I'm running late, please put in my employee code of 23456", and it is difficult to accidentally leave at home.
The employees don't want to surrender one of their fingerprints for various reasons. There are many well-documented good reasons for this, most already covered by slashdotters. Most people only have ten fingerprints, it can only be compromised so many times before it is a nasty problem for the individual.
There are so many other good solutions. The MOST obvious solution is that doing the work is more important than punching the timecard, their manager or team leader should know when someone isn't present or isn't doing their job. If for some reason the boss is incompetent and doesn't know if his employees are actually present and working would be cheap RFID cards given to each employee; swipe the card when you come to work. It is hard (but not impossible) for an employee running late to give the card to someone who is on time. There is still the possibility that someone forgets their badge/card, but they can say "hey boss, I'm here and I forgot my card this morning."
As someone mentioned above, this scenario was mentioned in the book The Peter Principle as an example of incompetent leadership. The policy and procedure of checking the box by a certain time is more important than the actual work.
i dont know of a single internet company who DOESNT cap your internet speed
Is this a US thing? With my ISP here in Romania, I've never experienced caps even going into the hundreds of gigabytes a month (I torrent a lot of Blurays).
Around here (Salt Lake City, US) people can get inexpensive home connections in the 12Mbps-20Mbps range. The caps on many of these plans are about 1TB/month. As you mention, an individual can transfer quite a lot of data before hitting that kind of cap.
Businesses, especially tech businesses, tend to have much greater telecom requirements than a single residence.
The story isn't about capping SPEED, it is about capping BYTES TRANSFERRED.
Critically missing from the stories are both of those numbers.
* A setup that runs at 4Mbps can run for a month and struggle to hit a 1TB/month cap.
* A setup that runs at 12Mbps will never hit a 4TB/month data cap, even if kept saturated.
* A setup that has a 4Gbps can pass a 4TB limit in about 2.5 hours.
Equipment and infrastructure are not free. Even our business connection (fiber@4Gbps) has caps. We pay quite a lot for it, and are unlikely to ever hit them, but they exist.
Back when people were on kilobit connections there wasn't much point to a cap. Today when fiber to the premises can offer 10Gbps or more it wouldn't take much to saturate the telecom's equipment.
Usage policies and caps mean you can have your high speed connection so data comes to you quickly when you want it, but because the plan is very cheap you can't keep the line saturated. When it comes to bandwidth, transfer limits and costs, you only get to pick two. The third is dictated by the other choices.
Actually the people who discuss risk IN REAL LIFE do cover those things. In this/. discussion, not so much.
Risk is just one face of a many-faceted issue.
Other faces include responsibility, liability, and morality.
The liability facet is usually discussed by lawyers and financial groups. How much of the problems do we need to pay for? If we pay up front can we avoid paying later? These groups will often talk about reducing risks in an effort to cut bottom-line costs.
The responsibility and morality facets are usually discussed by social and humanitarian groups. Are we able to do something about it, and ought we do something about it? These groups will often talk about reducing risks in an effort to improve the lives of people.
No, they still need it. Just look at the nature of the story: "The official, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified material."
Yet these people aren't being hunted across the globe for their classified leaks.
You seem to forget that the Constitution grants powers from the people to the government, not the other way around. Too frequently people wrongly assume that the only rights people have are those expressly reserved for the people by the Constitution.
If a power is not mentioned in the Constitution the government does not have that power. It remains with the people.
With cash reserves like their's, they can just move instead. There is nothing special about the land they are using... the historical reason such projects made sense in the past was they were reclaiming farmable land, which is not quite as interchangeable as corporate parks.
It is not just San Francisco that is worried. Water levels won't just rise in that one city.
The United States might lose only 5% of its land. Countries like India will lose half of their land. Some island nations will be completely uninhabitable.
Even if sea walls cost quadrillions of dollars globally to delay the eventual flooding of the land, that is likely still cheaper than such a massive sudden loss of existing infrastructure. It is cheaper (for a few centuries, at least) to spend a few trillion dollars protecting major cities than it is to completely rebuild the cities elsewhere.
Yes the people will need to eventually move through both a planned migration and normal population growth. Relocating 10% of the global population in just a few short decades is a much harder problem to solve, and a much more expensive proposition, than to build the massive walls around existing large cities.
In the United States, both selective enforcement and selective prosecution are generally legal.
You can go back over a century to Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) to see SCOTUS rulings on that. There are probably older rulings than that, but I'm too lazy to look them up.
Impartial selective enforcement is legal to a degree. On its face police cannot enforce every law on the books. Even if they do intervene, the officer may know there is insufficient evidence for a known violation. Even if they intervene and there is likely sufficient evidence, they may believe a lesser action is appropriate, such as giving an individual a warning for a minor offense. Similarly for selective prosecution, the state is not required to blindly prosecute every offense, but to use prudence in selecting which cases to prosecute. Yes sometimes it is abused, but generally it is to the citizen's favor of dropping a case rather than abuses of prosecuting aggressively.
Prejudicial selective enforcement is not legal. Only applying the law to people of a specific skin color or economic status or age or other aspect, that is unlawful.
I wish others felt that way. I'm currently in a polite-yet-heated civil discussion with some neighbors.
They are convinced that because a corporate-printed banner says something, and because they have seen police involved, that it absolutely must be the law.
It doesn't matter that both the actual law says something different, that the supreme court has already ruled on the issue back in 1988 and declared it legal, and that when I researched the actual times police were involved in PACER and discovered that all the charges ever files by the company have been dismissed or settled, they don't care. The corporation says it is illegal, so that is (in their mind) the end of it.
Thanks for the reminder that some people do care about the actual law. There are too few of us.
Fair Use is pretty well defined, in a nutshell you can use 30 consecutive seconds of audio before it becomes an infringement, or the entire track in the case of a narrative... if I use multiple fades and...
Under the legal definition, he absolutely was abducted. Kidnapping is a subset of abduction, and because police used the threat of force their actions would also qualify under that clause.
The key difference is that it was done under color of law.
When the police abduct people, it gets names like "detaining" and "questioning". If a citizen does it, it become "abducting" and "kidnapping", even if they are released after a few hours. The actions are identical.
Assuming the report that they didn't reply in any way is accurate, then THIS is where Facebook fell down worst, and it's what is inexcusable.
Seems like Facebook employees forgot the reason they pay for the bounty program in the first place. It is to provide an incentive to report it to the company rather than reporting it to the black market for exploits.
A few seconds on Google will show the going rates of black market zero-day exploits for various services. Facebook was offering $500, but now won't pay. Black market rates he can still get about $40,000. (Note that $500USD is a year's salary in most of Pakistan.)
If he doesn't have the ethics, or if he really wants the money and thinks being in Pakistan makes him outside Facebook's reach, he can still get about 80 years' salary ($40,000) on the black market.
That is exactly why they are so badly needed. Not Glass, but a continuous recording device.
Several cities started pilot programs with cop-cameras, and mine was among them buying 80 cop-cams. We had a few bad cops fired, complaints against cops almost vanished, and now the city is trying to make it mandatory for all cops on duty. They provide strong evidence both to support your innocence and to support your guilt. They also provide evidence against bad cops.
Bonus points are that the camera footage is evidence. If they are notified to keep the footage, they MUST do it and the MUST turn it over to your defense. As this type of footage grows we can demand "pics or it didn't happen". Just like the dash cams transformed traffic tickets (rate of claimed abuse plummeted, rate of fought tickets increased because there was video evidence) the same should spread to all aspects of police work. Around here it is already transforming defense lawyer's approaches because they can get unmodified views of the crime scene from every officer's point of view. (This becasuse the recordings are evidence, and any potentially exculpatory evidence must be shared with the defendant.)
I hope it takes off. If an officer says there was anything from a 'confession' of a crime or there are claims of police abuse, if there is no cop-camera footage the judge and jury should be asking, "what is this cop trying to hide?"
OTH, a friend of mine gave notice trying to be nice because she felt loyal to the company and was immediately fired.
That is a very dangerous move for the company, especially if the friend wasn't going directly to another job.
The first and most obvious is the difference in unemployment payments. If you quit you generally don't qualify for unemployment checks. If you are fired you can get them.
Being fired means all kinds of legal requirements. Depending on location on the globe there can be many legal claims for things like wrongful termination for discrimination, retaliation, character defamation, and much much more. Firing somebody without a pile of paperwork supporting it can cost a company a fortune in legal fees. Beyond the unemployment paycheck already mentioned, other unemployment benefits kick in if a person was fired. When a person quits they may give up some of these, but when they are fired they may have different (usually more employee-friendly) rights to retirement plans, insurance plans, unused benefits, and so on.
While the boss may have had a thrill shouting "You can't quit, you're FIRED!" from a business and legal perspective that is a terrible decision.
Slashdot Mirror
In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.
Why does a film showing people shooting each other get a PG while you still can't yet have a fully naked man in a sexual situation in mainstream entertainment. Seriously? Which one do you think is actually the more dangerous idea of acceptable behaviour?
Morals and ethics, basically. Minors are 'protected' from sex in almost every country, and that protection includes restrictions from giving them or showing them porn. The age varies around the world, I understand some countries the age of consent is as low as 14, but until that age they are protected.
After doing some web searches that are sure to get me on various watch lists, It looks like in the US it is unlawful to show porn to minors even if they are the parents... except possibly Texas.
Yes, the driver behind was at fault because they were obviously going too fast/not looking/whatever. The concept that seems to elude people is that the car in front can be at fault as well for being stopped in the middle of the road for no good reason.
Why this bizarre notion that placing some of the blame on one party has to totally absolve the other?
Because they two are separate issues. Related, certainly, but still separate.
Blocking the motorway is one issue. It can happen for many reasons. Some of those reasons may have blame, others may not. Either way, this is a separate issue.
Crashing a car into a stationary object is the second issue. It does not matter if the stationary car was disabled or distracted. It does not matter if the stationary car was justified in being there. The plain fact is that IT WAS stationary and the driver should have avoided it. If the driver crashed into ANY stationary object -- no matter why the object was stationary -- the driver of the only moving vehicle carries all the blame for that crash.
The driver of the moving car was 100% responsible for crashing the car. It doesn't matter if it was a parked car or pole or a vehicle, that was the only moving object involved in the crash. It doesn't matter why the hazard was in the road, the fact was the hazard was stationary. If you can't drive without crashing into a stationary object, you are doing it wrong.
The driver of the stopped vehicle may be responsible for some other issue, perhaps responsible for creating a hazard, but is not responsible for the crash. The two are separate.
There are 30 year olds "kids" out there that can't handle GTA, but I'm sure that there are 8 year olds that can. There is nothing magic about the number
No. That might have been true with GTA in the past. Not GTA 5.
Go look at the topless lap dance minigame. Well, don't, because doing so at work might get you fired, and doing it at home might end your marriage. It is a full-on very graphic boobs-in-face lapdance.
No reasonable adult would deny the minigame is softcore porn.
While it is true some 8-year-olds can visit porn sites and see it elsewhere, in doing so they get all the "adults only" and "this is a work of fiction" and other warnings that tell you it is not socially accepted. They might still see it, but they have absolute knowledge that they shouldn't. In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.
Handing GTA 5 to an 8-year-old child and telling them to enjoy themselves is not acceptable.
Stealing cars and smacking down ho's wasn't something you wanted them growing up emulating.
If that was all you did in GTA 5, I'd probably agree that some youths could play it.
But that is NOT what GTA 5 is like.
In GTA 3 you had the option of picking up a prostitute. The car would rock back and forth, you lose money and gain health, then the prostitute gets out. It was a little controversial, but you could just as easily see this in The Sims by making the characters 'WooHoo'.
Contrast this with GTA 5 where you are encouraged to see and repeatedly play a minigame with graphic topless lap dances and get points for interactively molesting women. This is not a stripper dancing in the background, this is full on realistic boobs-in-your-face interactive softcore porn.
So lets say you're fine with your seven year old watching interactive porn. What about the violence?
Look at the older games, you could avoid some violence, and even though you were playing a bad character you could keep the violence to a minimum if you wanted.
Not so in GTA 5. You are required (as the player) to engage in gratuitous torture. We're not talking about mild depictions of something bad going on. This is you as the player being required to commit heinous virtual crimes. It is very explicit, and very graphic. Even many adults balk at that point in the game.
If you are looking for a game of "stealing cars and smacking down ho's", a game that you can let your pre-teen child play, then go get Need For Speed.
This game should have been rated as AO.
If the first car hadn't been stationary at a green light, the accident wouldn't have happened. The first driver created a dangerous situation. If people make a habit of this there will be more accidents - so deterring people from doing it is a good idea. Stating that doesn't stop the second driver being responsible for not looking where they were going.
That is amazing logic.
Children walk onto the roadway, the car doesn't move and gets rear-ended? Crash is the fault of the driver who stopped.
Car remains stopped because emergency vehicles are coming, another driver doesn't notice and collides with you? Crash is the fault of the driver who stopped.
Driver having a heart attack or other major medical condition and stops the car for the safety of everyone? Crash is the fault of the driver who stopped.
Sorry, but in a collision with a completely stationary object, I put the fault on the moving vehicle, not the stopped vehicle. If you cannot avoid a stopped car, you are driving wrong.
Indeed, most good software development tools allow you to copy/yank code into any of multiple buffers, allowing you to paste from any number of items.
In Visual Studio one of the most useful plugins I have includes a copy/paste buffer that includes the past 10 clipboard entries that I can choose from if I want.
I think the owner of such a car should end up paying for accidents through insurance costs, unless a driving algorithm was fundamentally flawed.
The common public won't accept that. If I buy a self-driving car, there is no way I'm doing to (directly) pay if it crashes while it does the driving.
From the common person's perspective, a self-driving car should be no different than hiring a taxi. Get in and state the destination, then don't care about the details of how it gets there.
Of course they do!
The patriot act includes a stick and a carrot.
First, the carrot: The government "shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information. Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored."
Second, the stick: Failure to comply shall be punishable as a civil or criminal contempt of court, and may also result in an enhancement of the sentence under obstruction of justice. So individual violators are looking at a year in prison, and companies are facing a fine that begins at level 24 of the fine table (currently $2,100,000) which includes a multiplier for large organizations.
The options are to comply and get paid, or fight it and face the very real possibility of prison time and/or a multi-million dollar fine. Couple that with the gag order so you cannot tell the board of directors why the company is paying a multi-million dollar fine or why the executive is sitting jail, only that there is an undisclosed legal issue.
There really isn't much of a choice.
Fingerprint scanners store a mathematical representation of the fingerprint and not a picture.
And they can be defeated using a known fingerprint and a gummy candy. So what?
Both sides have their own goals, and both can be met with an alternate solution. The whole problem can be avoided entirely by competent management, but I'm sure they are hiring supervisors at the minimum wage so competence probably isn't a thing they expect.
The company probably wants the fingerprint scanners for convenience. It is unlikely (although certainly possible) that they are trying to get the fingerprint data for nefarious purposes. They want it because a fingerprint is easy to automate no matter which machine the employee uses to clock in, it is hard to forge when somebody is running late and says "Bob, I'm running late, please put in my employee code of 23456", and it is difficult to accidentally leave at home.
The employees don't want to surrender one of their fingerprints for various reasons. There are many well-documented good reasons for this, most already covered by slashdotters. Most people only have ten fingerprints, it can only be compromised so many times before it is a nasty problem for the individual.
There are so many other good solutions. The MOST obvious solution is that doing the work is more important than punching the timecard, their manager or team leader should know when someone isn't present or isn't doing their job. If for some reason the boss is incompetent and doesn't know if his employees are actually present and working would be cheap RFID cards given to each employee; swipe the card when you come to work. It is hard (but not impossible) for an employee running late to give the card to someone who is on time. There is still the possibility that someone forgets their badge/card, but they can say "hey boss, I'm here and I forgot my card this morning."
As someone mentioned above, this scenario was mentioned in the book The Peter Principle as an example of incompetent leadership. The policy and procedure of checking the box by a certain time is more important than the actual work.
Uhm, no. This is the Peter Principle:...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
Cute.
He quotes the actual book.
You contradict him citing the Wikipedia article summary about the book.
It is a sad world when people treat Wikipedia (a tertiary source) as more authoritative than the primary source.
Is this a US thing? With my ISP here in Romania, I've never experienced caps even going into the hundreds of gigabytes a month (I torrent a lot of Blurays).
Around here (Salt Lake City, US) people can get inexpensive home connections in the 12Mbps-20Mbps range. The caps on many of these plans are about 1TB/month. As you mention, an individual can transfer quite a lot of data before hitting that kind of cap.
Businesses, especially tech businesses, tend to have much greater telecom requirements than a single residence.
The story isn't about capping SPEED, it is about capping BYTES TRANSFERRED. Critically missing from the stories are both of those numbers.
Equipment and infrastructure are not free. Even our business connection (fiber@4Gbps) has caps. We pay quite a lot for it, and are unlikely to ever hit them, but they exist.
Back when people were on kilobit connections there wasn't much point to a cap. Today when fiber to the premises can offer 10Gbps or more it wouldn't take much to saturate the telecom's equipment.
Usage policies and caps mean you can have your high speed connection so data comes to you quickly when you want it, but because the plan is very cheap you can't keep the line saturated. When it comes to bandwidth, transfer limits and costs, you only get to pick two. The third is dictated by the other choices.
I trust the math, even though I don't understand it.
I don't necessarily trust the people who coded the math into a program.
I don't necessarily trust the computer that is running the program.
Actually the people who discuss risk IN REAL LIFE do cover those things. In this /. discussion, not so much.
Risk is just one face of a many-faceted issue.
Other faces include responsibility, liability, and morality.
The liability facet is usually discussed by lawyers and financial groups. How much of the problems do we need to pay for? If we pay up front can we avoid paying later? These groups will often talk about reducing risks in an effort to cut bottom-line costs.
The responsibility and morality facets are usually discussed by social and humanitarian groups. Are we able to do something about it, and ought we do something about it? These groups will often talk about reducing risks in an effort to improve the lives of people.
But is it libel if it's true?
In the US, no, truth is an absolute defense against libel claims.
In the UK, it can be considered defamatory even when true.
And in either country the cost of defending against the lawsuit can be prohibitive regardless of the outcome.
No, they still need it. Just look at the nature of the story: "The official, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified material."
Yet these people aren't being hunted across the globe for their classified leaks.
You seem to forget that the Constitution grants powers from the people to the government, not the other way around. Too frequently people wrongly assume that the only rights people have are those expressly reserved for the people by the Constitution.
If a power is not mentioned in the Constitution the government does not have that power. It remains with the people.
With cash reserves like their's, they can just move instead. There is nothing special about the land they are using... the historical reason such projects made sense in the past was they were reclaiming farmable land, which is not quite as interchangeable as corporate parks.
It is not just San Francisco that is worried. Water levels won't just rise in that one city.
Turns out people have already done research on who lives in low-lying coastal regions. About 10% of the global population will likely need to move. 2/3 of the world's largest cities would be swamped or submerged.
The United States might lose only 5% of its land. Countries like India will lose half of their land. Some island nations will be completely uninhabitable.
Even if sea walls cost quadrillions of dollars globally to delay the eventual flooding of the land, that is likely still cheaper than such a massive sudden loss of existing infrastructure. It is cheaper (for a few centuries, at least) to spend a few trillion dollars protecting major cities than it is to completely rebuild the cities elsewhere.
Yes the people will need to eventually move through both a planned migration and normal population growth. Relocating 10% of the global population in just a few short decades is a much harder problem to solve, and a much more expensive proposition, than to build the massive walls around existing large cities.
In the United States, both selective enforcement and selective prosecution are generally legal.
You can go back over a century to Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) to see SCOTUS rulings on that. There are probably older rulings than that, but I'm too lazy to look them up.
Impartial selective enforcement is legal to a degree. On its face police cannot enforce every law on the books. Even if they do intervene, the officer may know there is insufficient evidence for a known violation. Even if they intervene and there is likely sufficient evidence, they may believe a lesser action is appropriate, such as giving an individual a warning for a minor offense. Similarly for selective prosecution, the state is not required to blindly prosecute every offense, but to use prudence in selecting which cases to prosecute. Yes sometimes it is abused, but generally it is to the citizen's favor of dropping a case rather than abuses of prosecuting aggressively.
Prejudicial selective enforcement is not legal. Only applying the law to people of a specific skin color or economic status or age or other aspect, that is unlawful.
I wish others felt that way. I'm currently in a polite-yet-heated civil discussion with some neighbors.
They are convinced that because a corporate-printed banner says something, and because they have seen police involved, that it absolutely must be the law.
It doesn't matter that both the actual law says something different, that the supreme court has already ruled on the issue back in 1988 and declared it legal, and that when I researched the actual times police were involved in PACER and discovered that all the charges ever files by the company have been dismissed or settled, they don't care. The corporation says it is illegal, so that is (in their mind) the end of it.
Thanks for the reminder that some people do care about the actual law. There are too few of us.
Fair Use is pretty well defined, in a nutshell you can use 30 consecutive seconds of audio before it becomes an infringement, or the entire track in the case of a narrative... if I use multiple fades and ...
Wa-huh?
We're talking US law, right?
Fair Use is covered by Title 17 of the U.S.Code, section 107: "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use". Note that the law does not talk about 30 consecutive seconds of one type of clip or entire lengths for other types of tracks. You are confusing details from a mish-mash cases with the actual law.
Fortunately Lessig is a lawyer, and knows the details of copyright law better than most anyone.
No one was "abducted"
Under the legal definition, he absolutely was abducted. Kidnapping is a subset of abduction, and because police used the threat of force their actions would also qualify under that clause.
The key difference is that it was done under color of law.
When the police abduct people, it gets names like "detaining" and "questioning". If a citizen does it, it become "abducting" and "kidnapping", even if they are released after a few hours. The actions are identical.
Seems like Facebook employees forgot the reason they pay for the bounty program in the first place. It is to provide an incentive to report it to the company rather than reporting it to the black market for exploits.
A few seconds on Google will show the going rates of black market zero-day exploits for various services. Facebook was offering $500, but now won't pay. Black market rates he can still get about $40,000. (Note that $500USD is a year's salary in most of Pakistan.)
If he doesn't have the ethics, or if he really wants the money and thinks being in Pakistan makes him outside Facebook's reach, he can still get about 80 years' salary ($40,000) on the black market.
That is exactly why they are so badly needed. Not Glass, but a continuous recording device.
Several cities started pilot programs with cop-cameras, and mine was among them buying 80 cop-cams. We had a few bad cops fired, complaints against cops almost vanished, and now the city is trying to make it mandatory for all cops on duty. They provide strong evidence both to support your innocence and to support your guilt. They also provide evidence against bad cops.
Look at the New York Times article regarding the results from one city: Complaints about abuse and civil rights violations dropped by 80%, use of force dropped by 60%.
Bonus points are that the camera footage is evidence. If they are notified to keep the footage, they MUST do it and the MUST turn it over to your defense. As this type of footage grows we can demand "pics or it didn't happen". Just like the dash cams transformed traffic tickets (rate of claimed abuse plummeted, rate of fought tickets increased because there was video evidence) the same should spread to all aspects of police work. Around here it is already transforming defense lawyer's approaches because they can get unmodified views of the crime scene from every officer's point of view. (This becasuse the recordings are evidence, and any potentially exculpatory evidence must be shared with the defendant.)
I hope it takes off. If an officer says there was anything from a 'confession' of a crime or there are claims of police abuse, if there is no cop-camera footage the judge and jury should be asking, "what is this cop trying to hide?"
That is a very dangerous move for the company, especially if the friend wasn't going directly to another job.
The first and most obvious is the difference in unemployment payments. If you quit you generally don't qualify for unemployment checks. If you are fired you can get them.
Being fired means all kinds of legal requirements. Depending on location on the globe there can be many legal claims for things like wrongful termination for discrimination, retaliation, character defamation, and much much more. Firing somebody without a pile of paperwork supporting it can cost a company a fortune in legal fees. Beyond the unemployment paycheck already mentioned, other unemployment benefits kick in if a person was fired. When a person quits they may give up some of these, but when they are fired they may have different (usually more employee-friendly) rights to retirement plans, insurance plans, unused benefits, and so on.
While the boss may have had a thrill shouting "You can't quit, you're FIRED!" from a business and legal perspective that is a terrible decision.