My vote would be for "execution" of their political lives. Send them home, ban them from ever holding public office again, and make them apologise in person to each of their constituents. That would last a lot longer than a quick hanging. How about tattooing something suitable on their foreheads as well?? "Disgraced Politician" perhaps, or "Scum of the Earth"??
When you said that the President has special powers in time of invasion, I thought you mean when we're being invaded
I think that was "special powers" in the sense of being able to fly through the air, leap tall buildings, and get away with lying his face off in front of the world.
Speaking of the PATRIOT Act and subverting laws and society, there's another threat to our freedoms on the horizon. Under the guise of "protecting the food supply", the USDA is pushing regulations that will eventually make it difficult for average people to raise their own animals. It's called the National Animal Identification System and when it comes into full force every single livestock animal, from a newly hatched chicken to a full sized draft horse will have to be RFID-tagged and registered, as well as the premises where they are kept, and of course there's a filing fee. And if a registered animal is transported from one place to another?? File movement papers, both for going out and coming back, with more fees, of course. The penalty for not registering?? $1,000 per animal, per day of non-compliance.
How does this "protect the food supply"?? Well, it doesn't... Supposedly it protects from "Mad Cow Disease", except that's been proved to be caused by cows being fed parts of other cows. For the thousands of people whose livestock doesn't get within 5 miles of a cow, mad or sane, it's nothing more than yet another tax. And that includes 90-year-old grandmothers living in apartment blocks with pet parakeets or canaries.
After seeing some of the black helicopters I decided to take a look in Google Earth at a nearby National Guard base. The satellite images clearly show "black helicopters". The landing strip is about 300 yards from a major north-south highway, and the "black helos" are usually cunningly disguised as green helos. Damn, they're good, hiding the secret black helos in full view of thousands of motorists...:)
had this guy bought a laptop (which he is likely going to need for his new company anyway) and used it for dealings w/ his new venture... his problems would be gone.
Don't you think it's possible that IAC would subpoena the personal laptop to search for evidence that he was in breach of contract?? As evidence, it could be tied up for years, making it more difficult to run his competing business...
I don't think they *did* invent a new law. I think the law they used to nail this guy was *intended* to nail people that launch viruses and worms. The wording quoted in the Appeals Court decision is:
"intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorisation, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage".
They're saying that his authorisation to use the laptop was implicitly revoked the moment he decided to quit IAC and go into business for himself. Therefore, deleting *any* files after that time was a violation of the act. Never mind that they can't prove the files were company property and not, for example, photos of his dog or love letters to his girlfriend, and therefore can't prove there is any actual damage to the company...
Notice the order of events stated in the Appeals Court decision - "Citrin decided to quit IAC and go into business for himself, in breach of his employment contract.".
So, he quit the company because he wanted to start his own business. The laptop would have been handed back on the last day of his employment, or the day he resigned, depending on company policy about allowing people to work out their notice period. Subsequently, when he started his business, IAC hoped to find evidence on the laptop that they were currently in possession of, showing that he was in breach of contract. They found that *some* files had been securely deleted, but they don't know: a) what they contained; b) what they were called; and therefore c) whether they were even company property.
Sure, the deletion *could* still be a crime, but I think I'd like to see the guy's lawyer force the company to prove that *he* actually deleted the files. I mean, they *could* have fired up the undelete program within minutes of regaining possession of the laptop, but it's more likely that some days elapsed, and where was the laptop during that time?? In a storeroom, or on some I.T grunts desk?? The police are very careful to track evidence, to make sure it couldn't be tampered with - would IAC have done the same??
That aside, the wording of the court decision suggests that the "breach of employment contract" was some sort of non-compete clause, and the whole of the argument about deleting the files seems to follow from that. What I'm wondering is, was that non-compete clause even legal?? If you're trained in a particular field can a company legally prevent you from applying your skills to make a living?? If not, does IAC's case fall apart??
what trace was there that this "secure eraser" had been used?
One place I worked,the "secure eraser" involved grinding the disk to dust. Not just overwriting everything with multiple layers of garbage, or even scraping the surface of each platter, but actually destroying the entire platter. I don't recall how they dispersed the remains...
One thing missing from the Police Blotter report was *when* the files were deleted. Were they deleted the day before giving back the laptop, or some months before?? In the latter case, it would be difficult to prove he wasn't just keeping things tidy. Kinda like shredding old printouts that are no longer relevant.
this law might get tossed, but how many more make it to the books?
Dunno. How many "must pass" bills go through in any average week?? The RealID act got tossed out at least twice before being tacked onto a "must oass" military and tsunami victims appropriation bill. However, I don't see this bill trumping the Constitution, though I'd imagine that more than one ISP would get crapped on before it got tossed out.
Not just secret votes, but also secret amendments. Time and again, people have proved that once something "escapes" onto the Internet, there's no way to revoke it, so by having the text published you don't get someone surreptitiously inserting amendments.
Doing a tax return every year is ridiculous. For example, before I left the UK, I'd been working there for maybe 15 years and did a tax return only 2 or 3 times. The way it works is that every worker gets a tax code, which consists of a number and a letter. Those tell your employer how much tax to take away from you before they cut your pay check. That tax code varies depending on marital status, number of dependants, mortgage, etc, and it seems to be accurate enough that most people don't need to do a tax return every year. I think you can get the paperwork and do one anyway, if you want to check, but you don't have to. I don't know how that works out for companies, though, as I've never been in a position to employ anyone...
I have a padlock that's at least 20 years old, with no external holes, other than where the loop comes out of the main body. The key is a flat metal plate about an inch long, with a number of magnets built into it. Place it against the side of the lock and the loop can be pulled up. No batteries, but I imagine it could be rendered unopenable by a sufficiently hard whack with a hammer. But then again, so would most locks...
Possibly a giant 3 headed alien working on his or her 3rd grade science project.... Just because it's a giant 3-headed alien doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly also be an omnipotent creator. The Intelligent Design folks can't even prove a creator exists, other than by saying that "it must be so, because all this couldn't happen by accident", so they can't deny the possibility that the creator is a 3-headed alien, a ball of pure energy, or a super-intelligent shade of the color blue...
I don't find any conflict either. Rather, I wonder what it is with all these people claiming to know the mind of God (God, Allah, Jehovah, pick one). I mean, even if Intelligent Design is right, why is it impossible for the Designer to build in a tendency for species to improve themselves by adapting as their environments change (i.e. evolve)??
Do the Intelligent Design folks deny "survival of the fittest"?? That's a form of evolution - good gene combinations propagating while not-so-good combinations die off.
Awhile back, Google (I think, or maybe Altavista) claimed that they were only indexing around 10% of available pages. *That's* why the filtering programs are are not terribly effective. And then there's the fact that those same filtering programs deny access to perfectly reasonable sites... Apparently, people trying to find information about breast cancer were (still are?) being blocked from medical sites, a number of politicians sites were blocked for much the same reason, and I seem to remember some people being denied access to a web page containing the Constitution.
I own Google stock myself; I don't care if you idealized Google and your dreams burst, I want my investment protected.
Now *that* suggests an interesting possibility - if shareholders can sue a company for not protecting their investments, could those same shareholders get an injunction to prevent the company from giving out information that might affect their investments?? IANAL, obviously...
Slashdot Mirror
My vote would be for "execution" of their political lives. Send them home, ban them from ever holding public office again, and make them apologise in person to each of their constituents. That would last a lot longer than a quick hanging. How about tattooing something suitable on their foreheads as well?? "Disgraced Politician" perhaps, or "Scum of the Earth"??
I think that was "special powers" in the sense of being able to fly through the air, leap tall buildings, and get away with lying his face off in front of the world.
How does this "protect the food supply"?? Well, it doesn't... Supposedly it protects from "Mad Cow Disease", except that's been proved to be caused by cows being fed parts of other cows. For the thousands of people whose livestock doesn't get within 5 miles of a cow, mad or sane, it's nothing more than yet another tax. And that includes 90-year-old grandmothers living in apartment blocks with pet parakeets or canaries.
After seeing some of the black helicopters I decided to take a look in Google Earth at a nearby National Guard base. The satellite images clearly show "black helicopters". The landing strip is about 300 yards from a major north-south highway, and the "black helos" are usually cunningly disguised as green helos. Damn, they're good, hiding the secret black helos in full view of thousands of motorists...:)
Don't you think it's possible that IAC would subpoena the personal laptop to search for evidence that he was in breach of contract?? As evidence, it could be tied up for years, making it more difficult to run his competing business...
So, he quit the company because he wanted to start his own business. The laptop would have been handed back on the last day of his employment, or the day he resigned, depending on company policy about allowing people to work out their notice period. Subsequently, when he started his business, IAC hoped to find evidence on the laptop that they were currently in possession of, showing that he was in breach of contract. They found that *some* files had been securely deleted, but they don't know: a) what they contained; b) what they were called; and therefore c) whether they were even company property.
Sure, the deletion *could* still be a crime, but I think I'd like to see the guy's lawyer force the company to prove that *he* actually deleted the files. I mean, they *could* have fired up the undelete program within minutes of regaining possession of the laptop, but it's more likely that some days elapsed, and where was the laptop during that time?? In a storeroom, or on some I.T grunts desk?? The police are very careful to track evidence, to make sure it couldn't be tampered with - would IAC have done the same??
That aside, the wording of the court decision suggests that the "breach of employment contract" was some sort of non-compete clause, and the whole of the argument about deleting the files seems to follow from that. What I'm wondering is, was that non-compete clause even legal?? If you're trained in a particular field can a company legally prevent you from applying your skills to make a living?? If not, does IAC's case fall apart??
Only if they can go on to prove there was any kind of other wireless device near enough to form a network.
One place I worked,the "secure eraser" involved grinding the disk to dust. Not just overwriting everything with multiple layers of garbage, or even scraping the surface of each platter, but actually destroying the entire platter. I don't recall how they dispersed the remains...
One thing missing from the Police Blotter report was *when* the files were deleted. Were they deleted the day before giving back the laptop, or some months before?? In the latter case, it would be difficult to prove he wasn't just keeping things tidy. Kinda like shredding old printouts that are no longer relevant.
Flamebait, huh?? I should have guessed there'd be at least one moderator with no sense of humour when it comes to religion...
I believe those evolved into the theory of Intelligent Design...
Dunno. How many "must pass" bills go through in any average week?? The RealID act got tossed out at least twice before being tacked onto a "must oass" military and tsunami victims appropriation bill. However, I don't see this bill trumping the Constitution, though I'd imagine that more than one ISP would get crapped on before it got tossed out.
I'd imagine that the police will waste a lot of time trying to interview Mr Michael Mouse, resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC...
Shouldn't be too hard to sneak that in as an amendment on page 985...
Not just secret votes, but also secret amendments. Time and again, people have proved that once something "escapes" onto the Internet, there's no way to revoke it, so by having the text published you don't get someone surreptitiously inserting amendments.
If you hadn't put that in, I would have. DownSizeDC.org seems like it's worth supporting.
Doing a tax return every year is ridiculous. For example, before I left the UK, I'd been working there for maybe 15 years and did a tax return only 2 or 3 times. The way it works is that every worker gets a tax code, which consists of a number and a letter. Those tell your employer how much tax to take away from you before they cut your pay check. That tax code varies depending on marital status, number of dependants, mortgage, etc, and it seems to be accurate enough that most people don't need to do a tax return every year. I think you can get the paperwork and do one anyway, if you want to check, but you don't have to. I don't know how that works out for companies, though, as I've never been in a position to employ anyone...
So when is the open season on quail??
I have a padlock that's at least 20 years old, with no external holes, other than where the loop comes out of the main body. The key is a flat metal plate about an inch long, with a number of magnets built into it. Place it against the side of the lock and the loop can be pulled up. No batteries, but I imagine it could be rendered unopenable by a sufficiently hard whack with a hammer. But then again, so would most locks...
Possibly a giant 3 headed alien working on his or her 3rd grade science project. ... Just because it's a giant 3-headed alien doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly also be an omnipotent creator. The Intelligent Design folks can't even prove a creator exists, other than by saying that "it must be so, because all this couldn't happen by accident", so they can't deny the possibility that the creator is a 3-headed alien, a ball of pure energy, or a super-intelligent shade of the color blue...
Do the Intelligent Design folks deny "survival of the fittest"?? That's a form of evolution - good gene combinations propagating while not-so-good combinations die off.
Awhile back, Google (I think, or maybe Altavista) claimed that they were only indexing around 10% of available pages. *That's* why the filtering programs are are not terribly effective. And then there's the fact that those same filtering programs deny access to perfectly reasonable sites... Apparently, people trying to find information about breast cancer were (still are?) being blocked from medical sites, a number of politicians sites were blocked for much the same reason, and I seem to remember some people being denied access to a web page containing the Constitution.
Was that supposed to be nudity, or lewdity??
Now *that* suggests an interesting possibility - if shareholders can sue a company for not protecting their investments, could those same shareholders get an injunction to prevent the company from giving out information that might affect their investments?? IANAL, obviously...