I'm sorry, but if I (as a company) am paying for and providing computers and email for my employees to do their jobs I should have every right to monitor it. I agree with a few provisions such as not using cameras for the express use of surveillance of employees, but as to the company's information systems, a company should have 100% access to everything done on said system.
What makes information systems so different from everything else that they should be 100% monitored? You said you agree with not having cameras for surveillance of employees, but, to borrow your words, if you (as a company) are paying for and providing a cubicle, desk, chair, and office equipment for your employees to do their jobs you should have every right to monitor them, right? So let's put cameras in every cubicle.
I do my job to the best of my abilities. My employer trusts and respects me, and I trust and respect my employer. If I worked for an employer who did not trust and respect me, guess what would happen with my trust and respect for them.
I spend 8+ hours a day programming in front of 3 screens with about 10 tabs open in each and I've never even heard of it. Maybe, just maybe, that's why it failed.
I spend 8 hours a day exactly (overtime is for suckers) programming in front of 2 screens (I dream of a third screen) with many applications and tabs open in each... and I have heard of it. I even tried it. I even thought it was really cool and wanted to use it.
But I just couldn't find a reason to.
If people like me who loved the idea and tried to find a use for it, had been able to find that use, then people like you who hadn't heard about it, would hear about it.
The cases mentioned in your link resulted in all charges being dropped.
I'm not saying that people won't overreact and even ruin someone's life over a picture of a kid in a bathtub. Obviously it has happened and will likely happen again. But the law is clear— no criminal intent means no criminal act, and that's why none of those stories end with a conviction.
They find that on average, the advertised speeds were 'up to 6.7 Mbps' while the real median was 3 Mbps and the mean was 4 Mbps. This implies that ISPs were falsely advertising by at least 50%.
"Up to" doesn't mean "median" or "mean". "Up to" means "up to", as in "maximum".
That being said, it is rather sneaky to advertise a product by focusing on a theoretical maximum that you may (or may not) experience on the rarest of occasions. It's kind of like selling a limited service as "unlimited". But no one would ever do that, right?
EG, Say I back out of my driveway, and back over the neighbor's toddler at 3am on the way to work. (WAY hypothetical)-- I in no way intended to hit said child, but if it dies as a result of my hitting it, it is vehicular manslaughter, regardless.
No, in most cases you would not be charged, precisely because of a lack of intent. Accidents happen. If you were criminally negligent, there may be charges, but if there was no negligence, then you would not be charged. You definitely would not be charged with murder, whereas you would be charged with murder if you did intend to kill the kid.
Intent is a huge part of criminal law.
The law says not to take pictures of minors in states of undress (et al), it says nothing about intent.
Again, you're wrong. If a parent takes a picture of their child in the bathtub, there is no intent to harm, and there will be no charges. If that picture is sold to a pedophile to whack off to, then there would be charges.
Why should I trust SuperGenPass? What happens if your site goes down?
SuperGenPass is open source. There is only one developer, but the source code is freely available and is regularly reviewed by independent programmers. As an algorithm, SuperGenPass is completely agnostic towards the input (your master password) and output (your generated passwords). All calculations and actions are performed locally by the Web browser on your computer; SuperGenPass does not transmit or store data.
In addition, this Web site does not collect or store any information. I do not keep access logs. All forms on this Web site are manipulated locally by the Web browser on your computer; they do not transmit or store data.
While my hosting service is generally very reliable, there are rare outages. If you use the Firefox / Safari / Opera version, outages will not affect your use of SuperGenPass. If you use the Internet Explorer version and you are concerned about outages, the "Customize SuperGenPass" page allows you to specify a different location for the hosted JavaScript file—your own server, the Coral cache, or the Google Code repository. I also recommend that you save a copy of the mobile version to your hard drive in case you need to generate a password while offline.
in the case of the SW nerds they probably have 20 versions of each movie already and can't wait to buy more due to the continuous finds of new scenes
People always say this, but I wonder if there's any reality to it.
I mean, I personally own two versions of the OT (VHS and DVD, both given to me as gifts), and one version of TPM (VHS, also a gift), along with all three prequels in "unofficial" AVI format. Total cost: $0.
Having the same movie on VHS and DVD is not uncommon in this day and age. So, is there actually anyone out there who has more than two copies of these movies? Is there anyone who actually bought multiple releases? I'd really like to know.
It's not just about whether or not God Squad could be confused for Geek Squad. If it can be argued that a possibility exists that consumers could believe that God Squad is a service offered by, or at least endorsed by, Best Buy, then it is a valid trademark dispute.
To use a pizza analogy (since this is already a car story), if I sold a pizza, and called it "Microsoft Pizza", that would be an infringement of Microsoft's trademark, even though Microsoft doesn't sell pizza, because I would be attempting to benefit from Microsoft's name and reputation in the sale of my product, by deceiving consumers about the source of the pizza.
In this case, although there is no deliberate attempt to deceive, there is, arguably, a possibility of consumer confusion.
I don't have the references handy and i can't be bothered looking them up. But a few high profile cases have turned out to be total BS because one partner assumed, led the child on, and got the courts rolling on it. However there would be physical trauma related to the accusations. There was none. It never happened.
People like Dave Packard are different from most CEOs. The main difference is that he built the company.
CEOs who actually built the company are more likely to care about the long term health of the company and its employees. Career CEOs, on the other hand, care about the short term illusion of health, or, more accurately, the money they can pocket based on that illusion before pulling the ripcord on their golden parachute and moving on.
Everything I thought I knew about civil law tells me that this is not a suit that you're allowed to file. Any lawyers around care to weigh in? Are you allowed to sue no one in particular?
If you read the article (the real one, not the article about the article that's linked in the summary), this has been done before by UMG, and apparently they were successful. So now AEG is giving a try, too.
Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general. Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof. People may confess for a variety of reasons other than them being guilty (protecting someone, being intimidated; in this story, reasons might include thinking it's cool to claim you were going fast).
The police don't need proof. The police need enough evidence to make an arrest.
The courts look for proof. If there's not enough evidence, he won't get convicted.
If he didn't do it, then the lesson is simple: don't confess to a crime you didn't commit, because, surprise surprise, you might just get charged with that crime.
But there is a big difference between saying that and pretending that you are absolutely helpless and that such crimes always occur completely at random.
And who is saying that, Mr. Strawman?
Now, sure, I should be able to walk down the street counting hundred dollar bills in such a neighborhood at 2 am and not get robbed. My actions don't EXCUSE the criminals who might rob me. But that doesn't mean that my own behavior wasn't foolish, or that it had absolutely no influence on the crime.
Yes, your behaviour is foolish. And yes, as you said, that foolishess doesn't excuse the criminals. But here's the thing: with rape, people question the victim's actions precisely for the purpose of excusing the criminal behaviour.
That's why they had to create the Rape Shield Laws. The victim's behaviour was being brought into question as a standard way of mounting a defense. The thinking was (and still is— just because they can't use it in court anymore doesn't stop people from thinking this way) that if the victim acted a certain way, they were asking for it, and this took away the defendant's responsibility for his actions.
It wouldn't make it any less a robbery, but that's very different that saying that I bear no responsibility for my own foolish actions.
Exactly. It wouldn't make it any less a robbery. But, when it comes to rape, this same thinking is applied to make it less a rape.
And if you think that people don't think this way anymore, you're fooling yourself.
To be fair, at one point it was pretty standard to put the accuser in a case like that more on trial than the accused.
What's wrong with that? If you're talking about depriving a man of several years, if not decades, of his life, potentially subjecting him to rape in prison, and branding him for life after his release, shouldn't we be damn sure the accuser has their story straight?
Defendants on trial for other crimes seem to be quite capable of being "damn sure the accuser has their story straight" without actually turning the whole thing around and blaming the accuser for bringing the crime on themselves.
See, you can't even point it out without getting a flamebait mod.
Oh, come on elrous0, you've been around Slashdot long enough to know that controversial statements generally get modded briefly in one direction at first, then turn around and go fast in the other direction.
Your feminist-bashing was almost the dictionary definition of flamebait, and you got modded so. At the time of this posting, you're up to +3 insightful, and your complaint about being modded flamebait is +4 insightful. This is usually the way it works, and you should know it by now.
I got a team working on solving Rubik's cube in 1 move.
That's easy.
Step 1. Don't scramble the cube.
Voila!
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 1
My experience was similar, even though I would say I fall into the "loved it" category.
Basically, I watched the video and thought, "this is the coolest thing I've heard of in years" (note: although I'm a nerd, new tech rarely impresses me). I signed up for an invite, finally got my invite, invited friends, and started playing. After playing for a while, my thought was still "this is awesome".
However..... when I tried to come up with a reason to actually use it, I drew a blank.
It's cool, but I don't have a use for it. I hope it continues to exist, because other people found it useful, and maybe one day I will too.
That's what I said when they wanted to add sound to pictures! Heresy, I say, heresy!
Next thing you know, they'll want all the pictures with that no-good technicolor!
Adding sound took the experience to a whole new level. Adding colour didn't do as much, but it brought a new level of realism. Adding 3D... well, there seems to be a diminishing returns sort of thing happening, because it's just not adding nearly as much. Hell, the fact that people still make movies in black and white shows that even colour was a relatively unnecessary enhancement.
Personally I have nothing against 3D movies, and I'm sure that in some cases the 3D makes the movie a tiny bit better. But ultimately, any movie that I will enjoy in 3D, I'll also enjoy in 2D, and any movie I won't enjoy in 2D, I also won't enjoy in 3D.
Folks don't go to see a movie for a story. If all you wanted was a story you'd read a book or listen to a radio play. Folks go to a movie to see the story played-out on the screen. They're looking for visual stimulation. That's the whole reason why there's a wardrobe department, and folks in makeup, and special effects, and dramatic locations.
Speak for yourself.
Movies, books, and radio plays are all different ways to enjoy a story, along with live plays and stories told around a campfire. Each has its own merits.
The movies that interest me may or may not have exciting wardrobes, interesting makeup, cool special effects, and/or dramatic locations. But they always have a good story.
The method doesn't look for guilt, it looks for knowledge. They use the phrase "guilty knowledge", but what they really mean is "knowledge that indicates that you're guilty". A better term would be "target knowledge".
Basically, as I understand it, it works like this: I suspect that you have been to a particular location, so I show you a bunch of pictures of various locations. One of the locations I show you is the location I suspect you have been to, and the rest are locations that I have reason to believe you have never been to. When you see the location that is familiar to you, the device supposedly picks up brainwave activity that indicates this. That is the "guilty knowledge". It's not that you feel guilty about it, it's just that it's the knowledge that indicates that you are "guilty" of whatever it is that I'm investigating. It's the knowledge that I'm looking for.
If there's any value to this, it could replace polygraphs (which are absolute garbage and should never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be used for anything, period). If I ask you "have you ever met Bob", where "Bob" is the ringleader of a terrorist cell, and you say "nope, never heard of him", then I show you pictures of people, including Bob, and if the device lights up to say that you recognize Bob, then I know you just lied to me.
Big secret nobody knows about because nobody subscribes except those of us who appreciate Slashdot.
As a longtime Slashdot visitor and commenter who also appreciates Slashdot (as much as it drives me insane most days), I just wanted to let you know that your comment made me feel guilty, and I just (finally!) became a Slashdot subscriber.
Slashdot Mirror
Ring around the Death Star? Greedo shooting first? You mean, people actually watch the butchered editions of Star Wars?
I had no idea.
I'm sorry, but if I (as a company) am paying for and providing computers and email for my employees to do their jobs I should have every right to monitor it. I agree with a few provisions such as not using cameras for the express use of surveillance of employees, but as to the company's information systems, a company should have 100% access to everything done on said system.
What makes information systems so different from everything else that they should be 100% monitored? You said you agree with not having cameras for surveillance of employees, but, to borrow your words, if you (as a company) are paying for and providing a cubicle, desk, chair, and office equipment for your employees to do their jobs you should have every right to monitor them, right? So let's put cameras in every cubicle.
I do my job to the best of my abilities. My employer trusts and respects me, and I trust and respect my employer. If I worked for an employer who did not trust and respect me, guess what would happen with my trust and respect for them.
I spend 8+ hours a day programming in front of 3 screens with about 10 tabs open in each and I've never even heard of it. Maybe, just maybe, that's why it failed.
I spend 8 hours a day exactly (overtime is for suckers) programming in front of 2 screens (I dream of a third screen) with many applications and tabs open in each... and I have heard of it. I even tried it. I even thought it was really cool and wanted to use it.
But I just couldn't find a reason to.
If people like me who loved the idea and tried to find a use for it, had been able to find that use, then people like you who hadn't heard about it, would hear about it.
That's why it failed.
The cases mentioned in your link resulted in all charges being dropped.
I'm not saying that people won't overreact and even ruin someone's life over a picture of a kid in a bathtub. Obviously it has happened and will likely happen again. But the law is clear— no criminal intent means no criminal act, and that's why none of those stories end with a conviction.
there would be all sorts of uproar if physical goods were advertised and sold the way broadband is.
You mean like having a sale and advertising that all items are "up to 50% off their regular price"?
It happens all the time. When a key selling feature is variable, "up to" is pretty much the standard way to advertise it.
They find that on average, the advertised speeds were 'up to 6.7 Mbps' while the real median was 3 Mbps and the mean was 4 Mbps. This implies that ISPs were falsely advertising by at least 50%.
"Up to" doesn't mean "median" or "mean". "Up to" means "up to", as in "maximum".
That being said, it is rather sneaky to advertise a product by focusing on a theoretical maximum that you may (or may not) experience on the rarest of occasions. It's kind of like selling a limited service as "unlimited". But no one would ever do that, right?
EG, Say I back out of my driveway, and back over the neighbor's toddler at 3am on the way to work. (WAY hypothetical)-- I in no way intended to hit said child, but if it dies as a result of my hitting it, it is vehicular manslaughter, regardless.
No, in most cases you would not be charged, precisely because of a lack of intent. Accidents happen. If you were criminally negligent, there may be charges, but if there was no negligence, then you would not be charged. You definitely would not be charged with murder, whereas you would be charged with murder if you did intend to kill the kid.
Intent is a huge part of criminal law.
The law says not to take pictures of minors in states of undress (et al), it says nothing about intent.
Again, you're wrong. If a parent takes a picture of their child in the bathtub, there is no intent to harm, and there will be no charges. If that picture is sold to a pedophile to whack off to, then there would be charges.
Why should I trust SuperGenPass? What happens if your site goes down?
SuperGenPass is open source. There is only one developer, but the source code is freely available and is regularly reviewed by independent programmers. As an algorithm, SuperGenPass is completely agnostic towards the input (your master password) and output (your generated passwords). All calculations and actions are performed locally by the Web browser on your computer; SuperGenPass does not transmit or store data.
In addition, this Web site does not collect or store any information. I do not keep access logs. All forms on this Web site are manipulated locally by the Web browser on your computer; they do not transmit or store data.
While my hosting service is generally very reliable, there are rare outages. If you use the Firefox / Safari / Opera version, outages will not affect your use of SuperGenPass. If you use the Internet Explorer version and you are concerned about outages, the "Customize SuperGenPass" page allows you to specify a different location for the hosted JavaScript file—your own server, the Coral cache, or the Google Code repository. I also recommend that you save a copy of the mobile version to your hard drive in case you need to generate a password while offline.
in the case of the SW nerds they probably have 20 versions of each movie already and can't wait to buy more due to the continuous finds of new scenes
People always say this, but I wonder if there's any reality to it.
I mean, I personally own two versions of the OT (VHS and DVD, both given to me as gifts), and one version of TPM (VHS, also a gift), along with all three prequels in "unofficial" AVI format. Total cost: $0.
Having the same movie on VHS and DVD is not uncommon in this day and age. So, is there actually anyone out there who has more than two copies of these movies? Is there anyone who actually bought multiple releases? I'd really like to know.
It's not just about whether or not God Squad could be confused for Geek Squad. If it can be argued that a possibility exists that consumers could believe that God Squad is a service offered by, or at least endorsed by, Best Buy, then it is a valid trademark dispute.
To use a pizza analogy (since this is already a car story), if I sold a pizza, and called it "Microsoft Pizza", that would be an infringement of Microsoft's trademark, even though Microsoft doesn't sell pizza, because I would be attempting to benefit from Microsoft's name and reputation in the sale of my product, by deceiving consumers about the source of the pizza.
In this case, although there is no deliberate attempt to deceive, there is, arguably, a possibility of consumer confusion.
I don't have the references handy and i can't be bothered looking them up. But a few high profile cases have turned out to be total BS because one partner assumed, led the child on, and got the courts rolling on it. However there would be physical trauma related to the accusations. There was none. It never happened.
This one's a classic.
People like Dave Packard are different from most CEOs. The main difference is that he built the company.
CEOs who actually built the company are more likely to care about the long term health of the company and its employees. Career CEOs, on the other hand, care about the short term illusion of health, or, more accurately, the money they can pocket based on that illusion before pulling the ripcord on their golden parachute and moving on.
Everything I thought I knew about civil law tells me that this is not a suit that you're allowed to file. Any lawyers around care to weigh in? Are you allowed to sue no one in particular?
If you read the article (the real one, not the article about the article that's linked in the summary), this has been done before by UMG, and apparently they were successful. So now AEG is giving a try, too.
Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general. Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof. People may confess for a variety of reasons other than them being guilty (protecting someone, being intimidated; in this story, reasons might include thinking it's cool to claim you were going fast).
The police don't need proof. The police need enough evidence to make an arrest.
The courts look for proof. If there's not enough evidence, he won't get convicted.
If he didn't do it, then the lesson is simple: don't confess to a crime you didn't commit, because, surprise surprise, you might just get charged with that crime.
But there is a big difference between saying that and pretending that you are absolutely helpless and that such crimes always occur completely at random.
And who is saying that, Mr. Strawman?
Now, sure, I should be able to walk down the street counting hundred dollar bills in such a neighborhood at 2 am and not get robbed. My actions don't EXCUSE the criminals who might rob me. But that doesn't mean that my own behavior wasn't foolish, or that it had absolutely no influence on the crime.
Yes, your behaviour is foolish. And yes, as you said, that foolishess doesn't excuse the criminals. But here's the thing: with rape, people question the victim's actions precisely for the purpose of excusing the criminal behaviour.
That's why they had to create the Rape Shield Laws. The victim's behaviour was being brought into question as a standard way of mounting a defense. The thinking was (and still is— just because they can't use it in court anymore doesn't stop people from thinking this way) that if the victim acted a certain way, they were asking for it, and this took away the defendant's responsibility for his actions.
It wouldn't make it any less a robbery, but that's very different that saying that I bear no responsibility for my own foolish actions.
Exactly. It wouldn't make it any less a robbery. But, when it comes to rape, this same thinking is applied to make it less a rape.
And if you think that people don't think this way anymore, you're fooling yourself.
To be fair, at one point it was pretty standard to put the accuser in a case like that more on trial than the accused.
What's wrong with that? If you're talking about depriving a man of several years, if not decades, of his life, potentially subjecting him to rape in prison, and branding him for life after his release, shouldn't we be damn sure the accuser has their story straight?
Defendants on trial for other crimes seem to be quite capable of being "damn sure the accuser has their story straight" without actually turning the whole thing around and blaming the accuser for bringing the crime on themselves.
See, you can't even point it out without getting a flamebait mod.
Oh, come on elrous0, you've been around Slashdot long enough to know that controversial statements generally get modded briefly in one direction at first, then turn around and go fast in the other direction.
Your feminist-bashing was almost the dictionary definition of flamebait, and you got modded so. At the time of this posting, you're up to +3 insightful, and your complaint about being modded flamebait is +4 insightful. This is usually the way it works, and you should know it by now.
I got a team working on solving Rubik's cube in 1 move.
That's easy.
Step 1. Don't scramble the cube.
Voila!
My experience was similar, even though I would say I fall into the "loved it" category.
Basically, I watched the video and thought, "this is the coolest thing I've heard of in years" (note: although I'm a nerd, new tech rarely impresses me). I signed up for an invite, finally got my invite, invited friends, and started playing. After playing for a while, my thought was still "this is awesome".
However..... when I tried to come up with a reason to actually use it, I drew a blank.
It's cool, but I don't have a use for it. I hope it continues to exist, because other people found it useful, and maybe one day I will too.
Google's guidelines for code contributions calls for 2 spaces.
It's also in the Green Book.
That's what I said when they wanted to add sound to pictures! Heresy, I say, heresy!
Next thing you know, they'll want all the pictures with that no-good technicolor!
Adding sound took the experience to a whole new level. Adding colour didn't do as much, but it brought a new level of realism. Adding 3D... well, there seems to be a diminishing returns sort of thing happening, because it's just not adding nearly as much. Hell, the fact that people still make movies in black and white shows that even colour was a relatively unnecessary enhancement.
Personally I have nothing against 3D movies, and I'm sure that in some cases the 3D makes the movie a tiny bit better. But ultimately, any movie that I will enjoy in 3D, I'll also enjoy in 2D, and any movie I won't enjoy in 2D, I also won't enjoy in 3D.
Folks don't go to see a movie for a story. If all you wanted was a story you'd read a book or listen to a radio play. Folks go to a movie to see the story played-out on the screen. They're looking for visual stimulation. That's the whole reason why there's a wardrobe department, and folks in makeup, and special effects, and dramatic locations.
Speak for yourself.
Movies, books, and radio plays are all different ways to enjoy a story, along with live plays and stories told around a campfire. Each has its own merits.
The movies that interest me may or may not have exciting wardrobes, interesting makeup, cool special effects, and/or dramatic locations. But they always have a good story.
The method doesn't look for guilt, it looks for knowledge. They use the phrase "guilty knowledge", but what they really mean is "knowledge that indicates that you're guilty". A better term would be "target knowledge".
Basically, as I understand it, it works like this: I suspect that you have been to a particular location, so I show you a bunch of pictures of various locations. One of the locations I show you is the location I suspect you have been to, and the rest are locations that I have reason to believe you have never been to. When you see the location that is familiar to you, the device supposedly picks up brainwave activity that indicates this. That is the "guilty knowledge". It's not that you feel guilty about it, it's just that it's the knowledge that indicates that you are "guilty" of whatever it is that I'm investigating. It's the knowledge that I'm looking for.
If there's any value to this, it could replace polygraphs (which are absolute garbage and should never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be used for anything, period). If I ask you "have you ever met Bob", where "Bob" is the ringleader of a terrorist cell, and you say "nope, never heard of him", then I show you pictures of people, including Bob, and if the device lights up to say that you recognize Bob, then I know you just lied to me.
Did Zune lower the price of ipods?
I don't know if it was the sole reason, but today's iPod is half the price of the iPod that I bought before the Zune came out.
Big secret nobody knows about because nobody subscribes except those of us who appreciate Slashdot.
As a longtime Slashdot visitor and commenter who also appreciates Slashdot (as much as it drives me insane most days), I just wanted to let you know that your comment made me feel guilty, and I just (finally!) became a Slashdot subscriber.
Just thought I'd let you know.