Yes, but the whole argument is that if someone is drunk, then they are supposedly unable to consent. That a guy might be willing should be no more meaningful than the girl being willing, if the law (or school rules) is saying that someone who is drunk is not in a fit state of mind to consent.
I am not arguing about any law here. I'm making snide comments about guys who worry about being date-raped by girls (hopefully). I suppose if you're deprived enough, anything could happen, but (in my experience) men who have sex with some regularity have problems *performing* after using enough alcohol to impair their judgement. Women, however, can be unconcious and still engage in sexual intercourse. Fer cryin' out loud, admit that there are physical differences between the sexes.
The point you're missing is that the male has to be a very willing participant in order for the act to happen. The consumption of alcohol makes the necessary state even harder (no pun intended) to achieve. If you have been date-raped by a female, I offer my sincers condolences -- I realize you will be emotionally scarred forever.
Usually, it does go the other way, too, just to be fair; if a girl orders you a few drinks, takes you home and you say yes, and then you wake up the next morning and realize, "Oh my God, what the Hell was I thinking?" then, technically, she raped you.
There's a rather obvious disparity there. If she takes you home and forces a Viagra pill down your throat, then you might have a case -- or a vivid imagination.
Well also I'm going to bet they don't get any more shots at government contracts.
What you say should be true, but you'd lose that bet. Under an executive order by the first President Bush, a company guilty of illegal activities can be banned from consideration in procurements. The problem is that the company first has to be debarred by a federal agency, and that just doesn't happen. Face it, big business runs the country, not the government.
Most of the USGS topo maps I've seen are older than Microsoft, some even older than Bill Gates. They aren't updated very often and are useless for finding roads and streets. I use USGS maps for hiking and they ARE useful for that.
Topo maps are basically elevation maps with a few major features like railroads and rivers thrown in. Topography doesn't change very quickly, so there is little need for updates to the paper maps. If you really need current data, use the national map. The DEM (Digital Elevation) data is relatively current, and you can add the layers (roads, etc.) that you want.
Microsoft vs. Linux is just like Democrats vs. Republicans.
Microsoft vs. Linux is more like a despot vs. the resistance. Microsoft does not believe in a system where multiple choices are allowed. Democrats and Republicans both believe in a multi-party system.
That is just what I was thinking. Make all operating systems free today and it hurts MS more than it does IBM.
That's uncanny. It's almost as if you had read the linked article, which made a similar point. Great minds think alike, I guess.:)
Of course, IBM's market share of personal desktop computers could be better and I have never understood why that have so much trouble competing in that arena.
IBM made the mistake of trying to control (and tax) the PC market by moving from their original open architecture to a proprietary MicroChannel bus with its PS/2 line of PCs in the mid-80s. Ironically, IBM PCs came to be viewed as *non-IBM compatible*. They got greedy, and the clone makers, who provided a better, cheaper alternative, ate IBM's lunch. Starting to sound like a familiar story?
I like to dream that I can fly in outer space under my own power, safely, and as fast as needed to go where I want to look. Anyhow, the scenario where I go to Mars and 'buzz' the Spirit rover and try to get on cam has played out a few times in my head. It's fun.
Forget buzzing the rover, what happened to the Beagle? And Capt. Carter? Oh yeah, and especially Deja Thoris Princess of Mars? Your priorities are all messed up.:)
But that was then, this is now: those laws have been struck down in the USA.
I'm assuming your link was to point out the link included in Katharine's comment. That was about the CPPA, a federal law. That does not preclude people from being jailed under state laws.
You are just one of many respondents who didn't follow state-of-the-law.
Perhaps those "many respondents" may be more aware than you think. If you had read the link I provided, you'd be aware that Ashcroft pledged to push for legislation making virtual porn illegal after the CPPA was overturned. It's not over yet, even at the federal level.
Personally I'm in favor of real asylums for those whose desires are incompatible with the world. They do not need to be punished, they need to be isolated. Which means decent living accomodations, a setting that is more campus-like - except it is isolated - protecting society from them AND them from society.
Remember that in the USA, illegal child porn is only pictures whose production actually involved the sexual abuse of children- not just ones that look that way.
That's not true. I wish I could find a link to the story, but one guy was convicted of posession of child porn because of some fictional story he wrote that involved children. It was on one of the wire services some months ago. Also, Ashcroft does not distinguish between the real and the unreal.
To him, it doesn't make any difference if porn is real or virtual or whether real people were involved - you're still guilty (see the bottom, er, I mean lower part, of the page).
In the corporate world, he has stood up did his masters bidding. It was unpopular, unpleasent, and had nothing to do with reality. He is standing in a storm of controversy.
Still having those delusions of grandeur? Your storm is a tempest in a lukewarm teapot.
I believe we call withstanding adversity a character building experience.
I believe most of us would attribute creating adversity for personal gain to a lack of character. You are best known for suing everone in sight, including your previous employer.
He might well be rewarded for his efforts.
Run for it, Darl, before Sontag decides to save himself and sends all your emails to the SEC. You've had your last million dollar paycheck. Be sure to post once in a while from the islands. We'll miss your chemically bronzed visage, vacuous claims, crack-induced lawsuits, and hilarious interpretations of the Constitution. Not! Die poorly.
sadly, i agree. this article is bereft of any important or interesting information or conjecture. it basically says "there's nothing to say about anything."
The article shows that the constantly yapping McBride has been muzzled by Baystar. If Baystar is pulling the strings, we can expect SCO to dump their so-called UNIX operations next. Each little twist is interesting to those of us who are following the story. It's a regular geek soap opera. Tune in tomorrow when Jax from Baystar threatens to have Darl *removed*, and Chris offers to help.
Keeping informed is part of that. No problems getting in trouble for that here:D
Truly an enlightened company. Where I work, it's not the reading and staying current that's a concern, it's the reading then posting . . . then reading, then responding . . .;)
Actually, we haven't heard from Darl and the boys for a while. No ludicrous statements. No bold and cunning plans. No 'all your code are belong to us! Muahahahaha!'
Baystar publicly told SCO to shut Darl up or replace him or pay back all the money. Why is the silence surprising?
We may be all adults, but my Boss' kid is here today. You won't get fired if he runs around the office saying "Darl's shit hit the fan!", but I sure will.
No doubt this will be modded -1 Heresy, but have you ever considered doing Slashdot after work and working during work?
They copied text, waited for someone to notice, then paid up without a court order.
I love that logic. It's okay for SCO to knowingly infringe on others' IP as long as they pony up when they get caught.
That's pretty much the way most businesses work.
What company do you work for? The company I work for would be very upset about unknowingly infringing someone's copyright. If it wasn't an accident, the person responsible would be fired -- well, as long as it wasn't one of the CxOs, of course (then they'd find ten real workers to blame and fire).
Slightly off topic, I suppose, but you know that the unemployment rate in Canada is currently higher (7.3% April 2004) than the US unemployment rate (5.6% April 2004), right?
Does Canada manipulate the numbers the same way the U.S. does? The U.S. numbers don't include people who have been out of work so long they've given up looking. Nor do they include unemployed IT workers flipping burgers part-time while looking for a job (they are fully employed burger flippers according to the government).
How does open source cause outsourcing? . . . Can someone explain their reasoning for me?
I was trying to figure that out as well. My take on it is that if companies can't get 80% profit margins selling proprietary software because of OSS, then they will outsource jobs to regain that profit margin. Sounds like a statement about managerial greed to me.
The part of the article I found most interesting was the conclusion: "Unless intellectual property assets are better protected, we will soon see information technology firms resorting to draconian measures even worse than outsourcing." What could be more draconian? Griding up the employees and making Soylent Green?
We'll, then all the FBI has to do is plug in their Gameshark and enter the following codes...
Hero Is Immortal 24509328 36F055F8
Enemies Are Blind 24109228 36705568
That would be typical for the FBI; they'll forget the enabling code:
M (Must be on) 453ABE78 9CB751FF
Not that I know anything about this Gameshark thingy you speak of.
Symantec wants between 45 and 60 bucks for a virus scanner! So lets be reasonable and say that a hundred or so bucks for an Operating system is a good deal.
Is it really? The irony here is thick. For a hundred bucks you get an OS that will get you 0wned before you can spend the six hours needed patching it over the 'net. You will have to pay for that virus scanner you mentioned to protect you from the OS. Then, by default, you will be running with administrator privileges because many third-party programs won't run otherwise. Given past experience, there probably won't be an upgrade for at least two years.
Contrast that to using Linux-Mandrake as an OS. If you're cheap, you can get it for the price of 'net bandwidth and blank CDs, call it four dollars. For that you get the OS plus hundreds of applications, usually complete with source code. By default, you will be secure, not running as root, and have no need to pay for that antivirus software.
If you want to support the distro (your choice), you can join for sixty dollars a year. In either case, you get two upgrades per year along with upgrades for all the apps as well. So, $100 for an insecure OS that will continually bite you for two years, or $4-60 for a secure OS that offers upgrades every six months including the apps?
A hundred bucks for a PC OS is a rip-off, proven by Microsoft's 80% profit margin. I feel for those people who bought MS's subscription licensing and are getting nothing for it -- then again, maybe they deserved it.
DRM is being driven from fear of rampant P2P piracy. Blame pirates. The only way to enforce copyrights is to protect it digitally through usage restrictions, because few other things work. Hell, the RIAA can't even enforce its own copyrights with lawsuits without a bunch of whiny college students jumping up and painting the RIAA as a bad guy for protecting its own rights.
The only p2p I do is bittorrent for downloading Linux distros. I purchased all the music I have. College students and recording artists painting the saintly RIAA as a bad guy is really a terrible thing. Maybe the real pirates are in the RIAA? And let me guess your response: "But it's only 50 million dollars."
Who do you think you are?
The whole team working out your system. Hah. More like put the jnr on it when it flakes and only if anybody notices it's down.
You're right. The management probably won't notice when the customers no longer get their ordered products. You've ruined my whole day.
If it's code then it's easy to figure out.
I'm assuming you write head-scratcher stuff in VB, and I guess you didn't read the part about documentation. The apps are serious system programming written in C++ with plenty of templates and stuff thrown in.
Sure they may not be as quick as you but they're only going to do the bare minimum to get it running.
That's incorrect. The 'company' is formed by the investors.
Whatever the company is "formed" by has little to do with what a company is composed of. Hopefully, Bakery.inc has some talented bakers as well as investors.
The 'employees' are contractors who sell them commodity labor.
There are many types of employees, and some are even specified by the company's articles of incorporation, which may include specific employees for certain jobs. Sorry, I guess you weren't one of them. There are even some large companies where all employees become shareholder/owners. Broaden your perspectives.
The managers of a coporation have are responsible to the company -- that is, to their investors; they have no obligation to purchase labor from any specific providers, and in fact have an obligation not to waste their investors' resources by purchasing from providers whose prices exceed the market value of their services.
Yada yada yada. Same old Slashdot bullshit legalease. Please provide a legal citation -- I've been asking for one for years. Corporate officers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company. That does not require them to replace good employees or those with skills or knowledge important to the company with cheaper labor. Indeed, I've seen mangement contracts that require the retention of specialized knowledge and skills.
I dispute the "so your bonus is bigger" part. Yes, naturally every outsourcing manager is in it for themselves. But their bonus will be bigger because their interests are aligned with those of shareholders.
Where to start? Their bonuses will be bigger because of short-term stock price increases. This is not the same as being good for the company, which is what a CEO is supposed to be doing. If that's too hard, think *pump and dump* -- not good for investors (shareholders).
The shareholders set those mandates, not the managers.
Nonsense. Executive compensation in most large companies is set by the board of directors, and they are usually CEOs of other companies. It's called a *good old boys* network. Companies in Europe don't have the same problem, and they don't have the insane executive compensation that U.S. companies do.
The manager is filling his fiduciary duty to shareholders.
Again, nonsense. Which shareholders? What's best for the short-term holder will ruin the long-term holder, and anyway, short-term stockholder is an oxymoron; they are speculators or raiders -- the only real stockholder is long-term.
I keep hearing this whole *fiduciary duty to shareholders* over and over on Slashdot, and it's bogus. Cite a law for me. The only fiduciary duty company officers have is to act in the best interests of the company. That includes the best interests of employees as well as the real (long-term) shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the whole argument is that if someone is drunk, then they are supposedly unable to consent. That a guy might be willing should be no more meaningful than the girl being willing, if the law (or school rules) is saying that someone who is drunk is not in a fit state of mind to consent.
I am not arguing about any law here. I'm making snide comments about guys who worry about being date-raped by girls (hopefully). I suppose if you're deprived enough, anything could happen, but (in my experience) men who have sex with some regularity have problems *performing* after using enough alcohol to impair their judgement. Women, however, can be unconcious and still engage in sexual intercourse. Fer cryin' out loud, admit that there are physical differences between the sexes.
The point you're missing is that the male has to be a very willing participant in order for the act to happen. The consumption of alcohol makes the necessary state even harder (no pun intended) to achieve. If you have been date-raped by a female, I offer my sincers condolences -- I realize you will be emotionally scarred forever.
Usually, it does go the other way, too, just to be fair; if a girl orders you a few drinks, takes you home and you say yes, and then you wake up the next morning and realize, "Oh my God, what the Hell was I thinking?" then, technically, she raped you.
There's a rather obvious disparity there. If she takes you home and forces a Viagra pill down your throat, then you might have a case -- or a vivid imagination.
Well also I'm going to bet they don't get any more shots at government contracts.
What you say should be true, but you'd lose that bet. Under an executive order by the first President Bush, a company guilty of illegal activities can be banned from consideration in procurements. The problem is that the company first has to be debarred by a federal agency, and that just doesn't happen. Face it, big business runs the country, not the government.
Most of the USGS topo maps I've seen are older than Microsoft, some even older than Bill Gates. They aren't updated very often and are useless for finding roads and streets. I use USGS maps for hiking and they ARE useful for that.
Topo maps are basically elevation maps with a few major features like railroads and rivers thrown in. Topography doesn't change very quickly, so there is little need for updates to the paper maps. If you really need current data, use the national map. The DEM (Digital Elevation) data is relatively current, and you can add the layers (roads, etc.) that you want.
Microsoft vs. Linux is just like Democrats vs. Republicans.
Microsoft vs. Linux is more like a despot vs. the resistance. Microsoft does not believe in a system where multiple choices are allowed. Democrats and Republicans both believe in a multi-party system.
That is just what I was thinking. Make all operating systems free today and it hurts MS more than it does IBM.
That's uncanny. It's almost as if you had read the linked article, which made a similar point. Great minds think alike, I guess. :)
Of course, IBM's market share of personal desktop computers could be better and I have never understood why that have so much trouble competing in that arena.
IBM made the mistake of trying to control (and tax) the PC market by moving from their original open architecture to a proprietary MicroChannel bus with its PS/2 line of PCs in the mid-80s. Ironically, IBM PCs came to be viewed as *non-IBM compatible*. They got greedy, and the clone makers, who provided a better, cheaper alternative, ate IBM's lunch. Starting to sound like a familiar story?
I like to dream that I can fly in outer space under my own power, safely, and as fast as needed to go where I want to look. Anyhow, the scenario where I go to Mars and 'buzz' the Spirit rover and try to get on cam has played out a few times in my head. It's fun.
Forget buzzing the rover, what happened to the Beagle? And Capt. Carter? Oh yeah, and especially Deja Thoris Princess of Mars? Your priorities are all messed up. :)
But that was then, this is now: those laws have been struck down in the USA.
I'm assuming your link was to point out the link included in Katharine's comment. That was about the CPPA, a federal law. That does not preclude people from being jailed under state laws.
You are just one of many respondents who didn't follow state-of-the-law.
Perhaps those "many respondents" may be more aware than you think. If you had read the link I provided, you'd be aware that Ashcroft pledged to push for legislation making virtual porn illegal after the CPPA was overturned. It's not over yet, even at the federal level.
Personally I'm in favor of real asylums for those whose desires are incompatible with the world. They do not need to be punished, they need to be isolated. Which means decent living accomodations, a setting that is more campus-like - except it is isolated - protecting society from them AND them from society.
Yes! Finally, a home for us Slashbots! :)
Remember that in the USA, illegal child porn is only pictures whose production actually involved the sexual abuse of children- not just ones that look that way.
That's not true. I wish I could find a link to the story, but one guy was convicted of posession of child porn because of some fictional story he wrote that involved children. It was on one of the wire services some months ago. Also, Ashcroft does not distinguish between the real and the unreal.
To him, it doesn't make any difference if porn is real or virtual or whether real people were involved - you're still guilty (see the bottom, er, I mean lower part, of the page).Darl could well end up without egg on his face.
Hah. Nice try, Darl. You wish.
In the corporate world, he has stood up did his masters bidding. It was unpopular, unpleasent, and had nothing to do with reality. He is standing in a storm of controversy.
Still having those delusions of grandeur? Your storm is a tempest in a lukewarm teapot.
I believe we call withstanding adversity a character building experience.
I believe most of us would attribute creating adversity for personal gain to a lack of character. You are best known for suing everone in sight, including your previous employer.
He might well be rewarded for his efforts.
Run for it, Darl, before Sontag decides to save himself and sends all your emails to the SEC. You've had your last million dollar paycheck. Be sure to post once in a while from the islands. We'll miss your chemically bronzed visage, vacuous claims, crack-induced lawsuits, and hilarious interpretations of the Constitution. Not! Die poorly.
sadly, i agree. this article is bereft of any important or interesting information or conjecture. it basically says "there's nothing to say about anything."
The article shows that the constantly yapping McBride has been muzzled by Baystar. If Baystar is pulling the strings, we can expect SCO to dump their so-called UNIX operations next. Each little twist is interesting to those of us who are following the story. It's a regular geek soap opera. Tune in tomorrow when Jax from Baystar threatens to have Darl *removed*, and Chris offers to help.
Keeping informed is part of that. No problems getting in trouble for that here :D
Truly an enlightened company. Where I work, it's not the reading and staying current that's a concern, it's the reading then posting . . . then reading, then responding . . . ;)
Actually, we haven't heard from Darl and the boys for a while. No ludicrous statements. No bold and cunning plans. No 'all your code are belong to us! Muahahahaha!'
Baystar publicly told SCO to shut Darl up or replace him or pay back all the money. Why is the silence surprising?
We may be all adults, but my Boss' kid is here today. You won't get fired if he runs around the office saying "Darl's shit hit the fan!", but I sure will.
No doubt this will be modded -1 Heresy, but have you ever considered doing Slashdot after work and working during work?
They copied text, waited for someone to notice, then paid up without a court order.
I love that logic. It's okay for SCO to knowingly infringe on others' IP as long as they pony up when they get caught.
That's pretty much the way most businesses work.
What company do you work for? The company I work for would be very upset about unknowingly infringing someone's copyright. If it wasn't an accident, the person responsible would be fired -- well, as long as it wasn't one of the CxOs, of course (then they'd find ten real workers to blame and fire).
Slightly off topic, I suppose, but you know that the unemployment rate in Canada is currently higher (7.3% April 2004) than the US unemployment rate (5.6% April 2004), right?
Does Canada manipulate the numbers the same way the U.S. does? The U.S. numbers don't include people who have been out of work so long they've given up looking. Nor do they include unemployed IT workers flipping burgers part-time while looking for a job (they are fully employed burger flippers according to the government).
How does open source cause outsourcing? . . . Can someone explain their reasoning for me?
I was trying to figure that out as well. My take on it is that if companies can't get 80% profit margins selling proprietary software because of OSS, then they will outsource jobs to regain that profit margin. Sounds like a statement about managerial greed to me.
The part of the article I found most interesting was the conclusion: "Unless intellectual property assets are better protected, we will soon see information technology firms resorting to draconian measures even worse than outsourcing." What could be more draconian? Griding up the employees and making Soylent Green?
We'll, then all the FBI has to do is plug in their Gameshark and enter the following codes...
Hero Is Immortal 24509328 36F055F8
Enemies Are Blind 24109228 36705568
That would be typical for the FBI; they'll forget the enabling code:
M (Must be on) 453ABE78 9CB751FF
Not that I know anything about this Gameshark thingy you speak of.
Symantec wants between 45 and 60 bucks for a virus scanner! So lets be reasonable and say that a hundred or so bucks for an Operating system is a good deal.
Is it really? The irony here is thick. For a hundred bucks you get an OS that will get you 0wned before you can spend the six hours needed patching it over the 'net. You will have to pay for that virus scanner you mentioned to protect you from the OS. Then, by default, you will be running with administrator privileges because many third-party programs won't run otherwise. Given past experience, there probably won't be an upgrade for at least two years.
Contrast that to using Linux-Mandrake as an OS. If you're cheap, you can get it for the price of 'net bandwidth and blank CDs, call it four dollars. For that you get the OS plus hundreds of applications, usually complete with source code. By default, you will be secure, not running as root, and have no need to pay for that antivirus software.
If you want to support the distro (your choice), you can join for sixty dollars a year. In either case, you get two upgrades per year along with upgrades for all the apps as well. So, $100 for an insecure OS that will continually bite you for two years, or $4-60 for a secure OS that offers upgrades every six months including the apps?
A hundred bucks for a PC OS is a rip-off, proven by Microsoft's 80% profit margin. I feel for those people who bought MS's subscription licensing and are getting nothing for it -- then again, maybe they deserved it.
DRM is being driven from fear of rampant P2P piracy. Blame pirates. The only way to enforce copyrights is to protect it digitally through usage restrictions, because few other things work. Hell, the RIAA can't even enforce its own copyrights with lawsuits without a bunch of whiny college students jumping up and painting the RIAA as a bad guy for protecting its own rights.
The only p2p I do is bittorrent for downloading Linux distros. I purchased all the music I have. College students and recording artists painting the saintly RIAA as a bad guy is really a terrible thing. Maybe the real pirates are in the RIAA? And let me guess your response: "But it's only 50 million dollars."
Who do you think you are? The whole team working out your system. Hah. More like put the jnr on it when it flakes and only if anybody notices it's down.
You're right. The management probably won't notice when the customers no longer get their ordered products. You've ruined my whole day.
If it's code then it's easy to figure out.
I'm assuming you write head-scratcher stuff in VB, and I guess you didn't read the part about documentation. The apps are serious system programming written in C++ with plenty of templates and stuff thrown in.
Sure they may not be as quick as you but they're only going to do the bare minimum to get it running.
Duh. GOTO 10. That's the problem.
That's incorrect. The 'company' is formed by the investors.
Whatever the company is "formed" by has little to do with what a company is composed of. Hopefully, Bakery.inc has some talented bakers as well as investors.
The 'employees' are contractors who sell them commodity labor.
There are many types of employees, and some are even specified by the company's articles of incorporation, which may include specific employees for certain jobs. Sorry, I guess you weren't one of them. There are even some large companies where all employees become shareholder/owners. Broaden your perspectives.
The managers of a coporation have are responsible to the company -- that is, to their investors; they have no obligation to purchase labor from any specific providers, and in fact have an obligation not to waste their investors' resources by purchasing from providers whose prices exceed the market value of their services.
Yada yada yada. Same old Slashdot bullshit legalease. Please provide a legal citation -- I've been asking for one for years. Corporate officers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company. That does not require them to replace good employees or those with skills or knowledge important to the company with cheaper labor. Indeed, I've seen mangement contracts that require the retention of specialized knowledge and skills.
I dispute the "so your bonus is bigger" part. Yes, naturally every outsourcing manager is in it for themselves. But their bonus will be bigger because their interests are aligned with those of shareholders.
Where to start? Their bonuses will be bigger because of short-term stock price increases. This is not the same as being good for the company, which is what a CEO is supposed to be doing. If that's too hard, think *pump and dump* -- not good for investors (shareholders).
The shareholders set those mandates, not the managers.
Nonsense. Executive compensation in most large companies is set by the board of directors, and they are usually CEOs of other companies. It's called a *good old boys* network. Companies in Europe don't have the same problem, and they don't have the insane executive compensation that U.S. companies do.
The manager is filling his fiduciary duty to shareholders.
Again, nonsense. Which shareholders? What's best for the short-term holder will ruin the long-term holder, and anyway, short-term stockholder is an oxymoron; they are speculators or raiders -- the only real stockholder is long-term.
I keep hearing this whole *fiduciary duty to shareholders* over and over on Slashdot, and it's bogus. Cite a law for me. The only fiduciary duty company officers have is to act in the best interests of the company. That includes the best interests of employees as well as the real (long-term) shareholders.