I dont get this - why would I ethically be bound to protect other people's secrets that they failed to protect (keep from me)?
You're not. Let me explain a little for you. I just harshed out in another post, so I'll try to keep this more amicable.
If you were involved, even tangentially, in a transaction that was either unlawful (the breaking of a contract, for instance) or illegal (the dissemination of trade secrets, for example), even if you bore no guilt whatsoever, you would still be required to make testimony about the case, to provide evidence as a witness.
The people who published the information aren't necessarily guilty of a crime nor liable for a tort. However, they are witnesses, and as such, can be compelled to reveal their sources. They tried to use a loop hole given journalists who need to protect sources for the socially beneficial purpose of whistle blowing.
The court didn't agree with this, and ordered that they must reveal their sources. The main reason was not whether or not that they are "really journalists", but that even if they are journalists, they weren't entitled to protection under the loophole because the material they published in no way whatsoever could be considered in the public interest. There was no malfeasance or illegal behavior that was being revealed.
I hope that clears things up. You did put your statements in the form of a question, and I've always been a big Jeopardy fan.
how this ruling is presuming guilt until innocence is proven, rather than the other way around
No one has accused either of the two sites in question of guilt.
Are you saying that there might not be any guilty party at all? That this information just magically appeared to the journalist, or that given the vast amount of speculation, it's only a coincidence that one of the rumors was proved correct? Do you dispute that someone broke their NDA and revealed trade secrets?
I'm sorry if I'm harsh, but you seem to neither understand the facts of the case, nor the applicable law. It's possible that you're not an idiot, and I'm just not getting your point. If that's the case, I apologize.
If it turn out that there was an intermediary or intermediaries, then Apple has moved up the chain by one link, and can question the intermediary about the source. If the intermediarry is unwilling, Apple can ask the court to compel testimony with a subpoena.
If you witnessed an accident, and were unwilling to testify to what you saw, the court can compel you to answer questions. There is no constitutional basis to refuse. If you witnessed a crime and refuse (or give wrong or misleading answers), you can also be found guilty of obstruction of justice (and related offenses).
There is no constitutional right to "mind one's own business".
The charge of nepotism was made by the unnamed source. The request for the former ambassador to investigate the claims of yellow cake was made by the Office of the Vice-President.
An ethical journalist, i.e., not an undercover operative for the White House, would have looked into things a little more, perhaps even confirmed the story with another source. At the very least, he could have asked Cheney's office whether it was true or not that they asked the ambassador to undertake the mission.
What irks me is when Novak called for Dan Rather to be compelled to reveal his sources, during the campaign.
But don't you think Novak would tell us that he had been called to a closed door session? I mean, he's a journalist*, right? What a scoop! He could get the interview of a lifetime, and not even have to get out of his bed or change out of his PJs.
Revealing state secrets is a crime of treason. Novak and his source BOTH are treasonous scum. However, Novak has done some fine work as a White House Operative, so he'll manage nicely through all this.
There is a big difference between being a whistleblower and giving out trade secrets, and leaving the distinction in the case at large to be determined was also spot on.
My favorite quote from the ruling is "an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
That's a brilliant plan. I'm glad to see that you understand that brand management is key. Before long, instead of people saying "post it notes", they'll be saying "yellow square of paper" instead!
I don't have the means to fund your venture, but I'd be most eager to work 16 hour days for minimum wage and stock options.
Well, the rise before the fall was characterized as irrational exuberance by none other than Alan Greenspan.
Another thing is that, day to day, the stock market is governed by emotions. It just happens that the emotions are Greed and Fear. And Greed is the positive emotion. =) And of course it's greed that drives the "Greater Fool" strategy of investment.
Over the long term, the markets tend to be rational and efficient. Not over the short term, however.
I'm not sure you can equate the two. Real estate is a limited commodity. Tacking "on the internet" to a crappy business plan is not a limited commodity.
There was a "market crash" in real estate in the early nineties. However, within a few years, prices had exceeded their previous peak. People did get hurt in the crash, no doubt, but those that were able to hang in there saw their investments pay off.
Well, maybe we should hear from the engineers, rather than a political appointee who declares such a mission as too risky, when no risk study was even undertaken. Do you think he consulted his image consultant and maybe he means politically risky?
For a period, AVID, which is still the leading editor, dropped Apple because Apple wasn't providing enough slots in the pro tower models. They were using windows based PCs. And as much headway as FCP has made (I prefer FCP), AVID is still dominant in the biz.
Second, Sony is weird, because they are BOTH kinds of company at once, but they still think of themselves as hardware-oriented. Maybe, but then why did they make Stringer the new head honcho? And why is the media division supporting the hardware division? I think things might be changing at Sony. We'll see.
Did IDE even exist when Apple started using SCSI? I seem to remember that MFM drives were all the rage . . . as well as wearing an onion in your belt. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The thing is, I don't see the people who want to let Hubble die earmarking the funds for a new and improved replacement. The smoke and mirrors of a manned mission to Mars looks good politically because it's so ambitious, but it's causing other important areas to be underfunded or not funded at all.
Good argument!! Unfortunately for your argument, most scientists involved are in favor of repairing the Hubble, and it was a political decision by a non-scientist political appointee to NOT repair it.
Dumbshit.
(No, I don't think you're a dumbshit. It just fit the fecal theme of this post.)
Slashdot Mirror
I dont get this - why would I ethically be bound to protect other people's secrets that they failed to protect (keep from me)?
You're not. Let me explain a little for you. I just harshed out in another post, so I'll try to keep this more amicable.
If you were involved, even tangentially, in a transaction that was either unlawful (the breaking of a contract, for instance) or illegal (the dissemination of trade secrets, for example), even if you bore no guilt whatsoever, you would still be required to make testimony about the case, to provide evidence as a witness.
The people who published the information aren't necessarily guilty of a crime nor liable for a tort. However, they are witnesses, and as such, can be compelled to reveal their sources. They tried to use a loop hole given journalists who need to protect sources for the socially beneficial purpose of whistle blowing.
The court didn't agree with this, and ordered that they must reveal their sources. The main reason was not whether or not that they are "really journalists", but that even if they are journalists, they weren't entitled to protection under the loophole because the material they published in no way whatsoever could be considered in the public interest. There was no malfeasance or illegal behavior that was being revealed.
I hope that clears things up. You did put your statements in the form of a question, and I've always been a big Jeopardy fan.
WTF are you talking about,
how this ruling is presuming guilt until innocence is proven, rather than the other way around
No one has accused either of the two sites in question of guilt.
Are you saying that there might not be any guilty party at all? That this information just magically appeared to the journalist, or that given the vast amount of speculation, it's only a coincidence that one of the rumors was proved correct? Do you dispute that someone broke their NDA and revealed trade secrets?
I'm sorry if I'm harsh, but you seem to neither understand the facts of the case, nor the applicable law. It's possible that you're not an idiot, and I'm just not getting your point. If that's the case, I apologize.
If it turn out that there was an intermediary or intermediaries, then Apple has moved up the chain by one link, and can question the intermediary about the source. If the intermediarry is unwilling, Apple can ask the court to compel testimony with a subpoena.
If you witnessed an accident, and were unwilling to testify to what you saw, the court can compel you to answer questions. There is no constitutional basis to refuse. If you witnessed a crime and refuse (or give wrong or misleading answers), you can also be found guilty of obstruction of justice (and related offenses).
There is no constitutional right to "mind one's own business".
What does liability have to do with anything? Apple was subpoena-ing these journalists to compel them to answer some questions, not suing them.
This is separate from the Think Secret case.
The charge of nepotism was made by the unnamed source. The request for the former ambassador to investigate the claims of yellow cake was made by the Office of the Vice-President.
An ethical journalist, i.e., not an undercover operative for the White House, would have looked into things a little more, perhaps even confirmed the story with another source. At the very least, he could have asked Cheney's office whether it was true or not that they asked the ambassador to undertake the mission.
What irks me is when Novak called for Dan Rather to be compelled to reveal his sources, during the campaign.
But don't you think Novak would tell us that he had been called to a closed door session? I mean, he's a journalist*, right? What a scoop! He could get the interview of a lifetime, and not even have to get out of his bed or change out of his PJs.
Revealing state secrets is a crime of treason. Novak and his source BOTH are treasonous scum. However, Novak has done some fine work as a White House Operative, so he'll manage nicely through all this.
There is a big difference between being a whistleblower and giving out trade secrets, and leaving the distinction in the case at large to be determined was also spot on.
My favorite quote from the ruling is "an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
That's it in a nutshell.
Also, iirc, the RAM for the FX was insanely expensive. I mean, even by the standards of the day.
They were wicked fast, but I don't think it was Jobs who described them thusly, since he had founded NeXT by that point, and wasn't at Apple.
Also, by '93, Apple was making the transition to PPC, so I'm not sure if your dates are correct.
Then you'd be able to cook away any reproductive potential you once had in less than 10 minutes!
He doesn't care, because it's unused potential. If he was getting some kinetic action, he might be concerned.
I predict that by 2025, we won't even have cars. We'll all be using jetpacks. Flame me all you want, flying car addicts.
Flattery, ass kissing, and nepotism, just like before the bubble.
You were in school during the Gold Rush? Shit, you're even older than me! =)
That's a brilliant plan. I'm glad to see that you understand that brand management is key. Before long, instead of people saying "post it notes", they'll be saying "yellow square of paper" instead!
I don't have the means to fund your venture, but I'd be most eager to work 16 hour days for minimum wage and stock options.
Well, the rise before the fall was characterized as irrational exuberance by none other than Alan Greenspan.
Another thing is that, day to day, the stock market is governed by emotions. It just happens that the emotions are Greed and Fear. And Greed is the positive emotion. =) And of course it's greed that drives the "Greater Fool" strategy of investment.
Over the long term, the markets tend to be rational and efficient. Not over the short term, however.
I'm not sure you can equate the two. Real estate is a limited commodity. Tacking "on the internet" to a crappy business plan is not a limited commodity.
There was a "market crash" in real estate in the early nineties. However, within a few years, prices had exceeded their previous peak. People did get hurt in the crash, no doubt, but those that were able to hang in there saw their investments pay off.
Well, maybe we should hear from the engineers, rather than a political appointee who declares such a mission as too risky, when no risk study was even undertaken. Do you think he consulted his image consultant and maybe he means politically risky?
What do you mean by "invisible"? I thought looking at it was the whole point.
A couple of things:
For a period, AVID, which is still the leading editor, dropped Apple because Apple wasn't providing enough slots in the pro tower models. They were using windows based PCs. And as much headway as FCP has made (I prefer FCP), AVID is still dominant in the biz.
Second, Sony is weird, because they are BOTH kinds of company at once, but they still think of themselves as hardware-oriented. Maybe, but then why did they make Stringer the new head honcho? And why is the media division supporting the hardware division? I think things might be changing at Sony. We'll see.
Did IDE even exist when Apple started using SCSI? I seem to remember that MFM drives were all the rage . . . as well as wearing an onion in your belt. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The thing is, I don't see the people who want to let Hubble die earmarking the funds for a new and improved replacement. The smoke and mirrors of a manned mission to Mars looks good politically because it's so ambitious, but it's causing other important areas to be underfunded or not funded at all.
Good argument!! Unfortunately for your argument, most scientists involved are in favor of repairing the Hubble, and it was a political decision by a non-scientist political appointee to NOT repair it.
Dumbshit.
(No, I don't think you're a dumbshit. It just fit the fecal theme of this post.)
I think you're misunderestimating him.
Crap sci-fi movies and series
You're gonna get flamed by the Enterprise fans now.
"But it finally got good in the fourth season!" [weeps softly]