In case you hadn't hear, we already won that war, and currently we're having a great deal of success with our peacekeeping efforts. In fact, there's going to be free elections in Iraq in less than two weeks.
Maybe you were thinking of the cost of the upcoming war with Iran, but I have it on good authority that it's going to be a cake walk, and our soldiers will be greeted as liberators.
Well, you can rest a little easier, because the Iraqis won't be getting those things. After the big contractors are done lining their pockets, there won't be enough left.
It's not just newer and better. It's different. It measures different parts of the spectrum. So it's not a replacement.
But this isn't about entitlement programs for pointy headed scientists, it's about the security in the free world. Bush has only 4 years to get us embroiled in a war with Iran*, and he's already feeling a budget pinch.
It should go with out saying (but this is left wing hippy slashdot, so I'll say it anyway) that we can't afford puffery like "basic science" or "free education" or even "saving Social Security" when there are still rogue nations that threaten us with another 9-11. Just be glad that NASA isn't going to be dismantled from within, like they're planning on doing to Social Security. In fact, if scientist weren't helping build more weapons, I'd say to ship you all to gitmo for some re-education. Y'all are getting above yourselves. The President knows what he's doing.
* A Short Play by Bill Ohreally
Commie/hippie/traitor: Invading Iraq was a mistake! They weren't involved in 9-11. Iran is the one that has the history of sponsoring terrorist groups!
Our glorious and wise President: Iran you say? Hold on a second.
--The chief exectutive of the most free and powerful nation on Earth picks up his phone.
Our glorious and wise President: Hello, Dick? Get Condi and come here. I want to know how soon we can invade Iran. What? You two were already working on it? Great! OK, see you in five.
If we're going to become a third world nation anyway, wouldn't it make sense to keep our current standard of living until the rest of the world catches up instead of decreasing our standard of living down to the current state of the rest of the world? Think about it for a second- since these are our two choices with globalization- Participate and watch our standard of living fall, or don't participate and watch our standard of living stand still as the rest of the world passes us by.
Here's the fallacy in your thinking: the state of our economy is not a static thing, unrelated to the rest of the world. Our standard of living wouldn't stand still after we shut off our borders, it would drop like a stone.
I think your proposal would be only slightly less absurd if it was to put the entire US into suspended animation and then into a time capsule (and thus, keep our current standard of living). Your proposal is almost Swiftian, except that it lacks the component of canabalism.
Oh, and in third world countries? A disappearing middle class isn't a salient feature, because they haven't yet developed much of a middle class.
You mentioned elsewhere putting an extremely hi tax on shipping, to encourage local manufacture. How about instead we encourage piracy, to make shipping more expensive and more risky? Then, instead of a tradewar, we could have a boner-inducing fight between our pirates and the ninjas that the Asian countries would no doubt field to protect their shipping. A fight for REAL ULTIMATE POWER! With guitars wailing in the background! And whoever wins gets to bone all the chicks of the losing side, which is braggable. Now that would be cool, and by cool I mean totally sweet. Doesn't it get you pumped?
Well, if you can't support yourself on what you make in California, you're free to move to an area with a lower cost of living. What's keeping you in CA?
From the price of rent on the poorest apartment, it sounds like you're living in San Fran. Why not look for a place on the other side of the bay? Say around Ashby and Shattuck. Yeah, it's crappy (at least last time I checked), but you should find something much cheaper.
Maybe you should consider sharing a house with another family? Find a two bedroom house, then your family gets one bedroom and the other family gets the other.
I know this sounds absurd, but I'm trying to illustrate that collectively, we've chosen a higher standard of living as our norm. If we had a lower standard, lower expectations, we might be better able to compete.
I simply re-create myself into something too valuable to be shipped overseas, now I stay employed.
I have to say this: YOU ARE NOT YOUR JOB. Your value as a human being is not related in ANY way to your earning power. This is important to remember, because you will always be replaceable in your job, no matter how hard you work. Even if you own your own company, you're still replaceable because of the possibility that someone somewhere else can do it cheaper. If it ever happens that you are replaced, and you've got too much of your identity and ego tied into your job, you will suffer a crushing blow from which you might not recover. So avoid at all costs buying into this particular brand of bullshit. YOU ARE NOT YOUR JOB.
Uh, isn't circumstances beyond your control making your life worse the very DEFINITION of unfair?
Gee, maybe this is why it's often been said that LIFE IS UNFAIR.
Actually, there is- we just don't have the courage to do it, because it would require us doing basically what the rest of the world did to fall behind us- close our borders for 50 years, and emerge into a world where we're no longer a superpower.
I think you mean, "emerge into a world where we've become the weakest and poorest third world nation.
Your proposal is absurd, if I am even understanding it.
About a year ago, I got to spend some quality time twiddling my thumbs at the local courthouse. While most people, including private attorneys, waited in line to get in, some went in through a side door without a wait. These people included jurors with badges, and employees who worked there. These employees included public defenders and prosecutors, i.e., people who's offices are in the courthouse. They still had their brief cases scanned, and had to step through a metal detector.
Basically, I think these guys tried to get arrested, as it serves their cause of agitating against the legal system. The legal system is far from perfect, but it's the best there is. If you've got a better idea for the legal system, write your elected representative and tell him or her about it. Or start a petition to have the legal system changed.
This isn't the first time Apple Legal has gotten heavy handed with the rumor sites, but it might be the first time they've followed through on a threat. IIRC, in the past, Apple sends out Cease & Desist letters, and the sites grudgingly comply. Also, I do not recall if in these cases the sites had such accurate information, or if the news made it's way to the mainstream press.
I remember that just before the iPod was announced, there were lots of rumors about a PDA. So while Apple legal might have threatened the rumor sites, there weren't any real secrets revealed. It was a case of close, but no cigar.
Another angle that explains why Apple is playing this so heavy might be this: prior to the return of jobs, Apple had been as leaky as a sieve regarding future products. When Jobs came back in 1997, he put a stop to it, including some firings to emphasize the point. Rather than completely blame Steve's ego* and his disappointment at having his keynote thunder stolen, I think this is also part of the equation. People at Apple are becoming lax in talking with outsiders, and Apple wants to set an example or two.
*In my one brief meeting with the man, I was struck by his amazing. . ..I don't know, arrogance seems to weak of a word. However, I don't just think of him as an asshole, but as our (apple zealots' and fanatics') asshole, and wouldn't want anyone else to lead the company.
Re:IRC analysis fatally flawed
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
<warez ninja> I put on my robe and illegally downloaded wizard hat.
If you were to hand me your company's confidential material, and I had no contractual relationship with your company, I can do whatever I want with what you gave me.
You might believe so, but it's arguable in court that you have the right to do whatever you want with that information. If it's not, this case will be dismissed soon.
Historically, Apple's shares always fall after the keynote. There's an old stock trader saying, "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news". Perhaps this was exacerbated by Think Secret, but it's not a new or isolated phenomenon.
Uh, working for more than one employer is hypocrisy?
Or are you saying that no attorney should be allowed to argue a case for a plaintiff, and then at some future date argue a case for the defense? That somehow the attorney here is betraying all the plaintiff lawyers, by becoming a defense lawyer?
What did I tell you about taking that cold medication? Every time you take that cold medication, your eyes get red and puffy and you start channeling Ellen Feiss.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The shield laws don't apply for the exact same reason that any whistleblower law shouldn't protect the Apple employee or subcontractor that broke his or her NDA.
There is no overriding benefit to society that needs to be defended here by journalist shield laws. If Think Secret had revealed that Apple management was cooking the books and defrauding investors, it would be a different matter.
You mean like, wear a condom while talking on the phone or reading email? =)
Nick had to have some way of establishing the credentials of the leaker. How did Nick know he was getting good information?
And if he does know who it was, he'll have to disclose that he know. If he doesn't, he'll perjure himself, and then he's going to be in real trouble that makes the current legal situation look like a traffic fine.
I don't think just trashing your logs or not keeping them in the first place is going to be enough in this case. Or wearing a condom. =)
It's much more complicated than that. Apple is also suing Think Secret, which publishes informations and rumors about Apple and Apple products. So this does become a matter of free speech. What makes this case interesting is that the case is at the intersection of Trade Secrets and Free Speech.
And in the words of Ed McMahon, "You are correct, sir!"
However, explaining The Law to your average slashdotter is sort of like explaining computers to my dad. It's just not going to sink in. What makes it worse is that my dad knows he doesn't know a damn thing about computers, but the average slashdotter thinks he already knows it all.
If I tell you, hey, fool, run your car into the street light, and you do it, who's the guy who rammed his car into the street light, you or me?
Who should pay for the street light, you or me?
Yeah, you guessed it, you.
There's a concept in law of contribution. In your example, it could be argued that you contributed to the acts which created damage by egging the other person on. Imagine if you and another person were in an argument with a third person. Your friend has a gun. You scream repeatedly, "Kill him!" Your friend shoots the third party dead with the gun. Congratulations. Although you didn't pull the trigger, you just participated in a murder.
I'm not saying that this scenario is in any way analogous to the Think Secret case. I was just using it as an extreme example of how a third party can participate or contribute to unlawful acts.
Me: "Hey, gimme your company's next year budget, even if you signed an NDA." You give me your company's budget.
Now, I post it on the web.
Who's stupid and should be fired? You, not me.
In this case, you might not get fired (as you were never hired), but you could certainly be sued by the company, for the combined acts of posting the info and for how you came by the information. If you found the budget on the side of the road, it might be a different matter, but if you somehow induced the NDA breaker, you could well be considered to have participated in an unlawful leak. I think also that if you benefitted from publishing the info, you'd be a lot more vulnerable to such a claim.
Slashdot Mirror
In case you hadn't hear, we already won that war, and currently we're having a great deal of success with our peacekeeping efforts. In fact, there's going to be free elections in Iraq in less than two weeks.
Maybe you were thinking of the cost of the upcoming war with Iran, but I have it on good authority that it's going to be a cake walk, and our soldiers will be greeted as liberators.
Well, you can rest a little easier, because the Iraqis won't be getting those things. After the big contractors are done lining their pockets, there won't be enough left.
It's not just newer and better. It's different. It measures different parts of the spectrum. So it's not a replacement.
But this isn't about entitlement programs for pointy headed scientists, it's about the security in the free world. Bush has only 4 years to get us embroiled in a war with Iran*, and he's already feeling a budget pinch.
It should go with out saying (but this is left wing hippy slashdot, so I'll say it anyway) that we can't afford puffery like "basic science" or "free education" or even "saving Social Security" when there are still rogue nations that threaten us with another 9-11. Just be glad that NASA isn't going to be dismantled from within, like they're planning on doing to Social Security. In fact, if scientist weren't helping build more weapons, I'd say to ship you all to gitmo for some re-education. Y'all are getting above yourselves. The President knows what he's doing.
* A Short Play by Bill Ohreally
Commie/hippie/traitor: Invading Iraq was a mistake! They weren't involved in 9-11. Iran is the one that has the history of sponsoring terrorist groups!
Our glorious and wise President: Iran you say? Hold on a second.
--The chief exectutive of the most free and powerful nation on Earth picks up his phone.
Our glorious and wise President: Hello, Dick? Get Condi and come here. I want to know how soon we can invade Iran. What? You two were already working on it? Great! OK, see you in five.
If we're going to become a third world nation anyway, wouldn't it make sense to keep our current standard of living until the rest of the world catches up instead of decreasing our standard of living down to the current state of the rest of the world? Think about it for a second- since these are our two choices with globalization- Participate and watch our standard of living fall, or don't participate and watch our standard of living stand still as the rest of the world passes us by.
Here's the fallacy in your thinking: the state of our economy is not a static thing, unrelated to the rest of the world. Our standard of living wouldn't stand still after we shut off our borders, it would drop like a stone.
I think your proposal would be only slightly less absurd if it was to put the entire US into suspended animation and then into a time capsule (and thus, keep our current standard of living). Your proposal is almost Swiftian, except that it lacks the component of canabalism.
Oh, and in third world countries? A disappearing middle class isn't a salient feature, because they haven't yet developed much of a middle class.
You mentioned elsewhere putting an extremely hi tax on shipping, to encourage local manufacture. How about instead we encourage piracy, to make shipping more expensive and more risky? Then, instead of a tradewar, we could have a boner-inducing fight between our pirates and the ninjas that the Asian countries would no doubt field to protect their shipping. A fight for REAL ULTIMATE POWER! With guitars wailing in the background! And whoever wins gets to bone all the chicks of the losing side, which is braggable. Now that would be cool, and by cool I mean totally sweet. Doesn't it get you pumped?
Well, if you can't support yourself on what you make in California, you're free to move to an area with a lower cost of living. What's keeping you in CA?
From the price of rent on the poorest apartment, it sounds like you're living in San Fran. Why not look for a place on the other side of the bay? Say around Ashby and Shattuck. Yeah, it's crappy (at least last time I checked), but you should find something much cheaper.
Maybe you should consider sharing a house with another family? Find a two bedroom house, then your family gets one bedroom and the other family gets the other.
I know this sounds absurd, but I'm trying to illustrate that collectively, we've chosen a higher standard of living as our norm. If we had a lower standard, lower expectations, we might be better able to compete.
I simply re-create myself into something too valuable to be shipped overseas, now I stay employed.
I have to say this: YOU ARE NOT YOUR JOB. Your value as a human being is not related in ANY way to your earning power. This is important to remember, because you will always be replaceable in your job, no matter how hard you work. Even if you own your own company, you're still replaceable because of the possibility that someone somewhere else can do it cheaper. If it ever happens that you are replaced, and you've got too much of your identity and ego tied into your job, you will suffer a crushing blow from which you might not recover. So avoid at all costs buying into this particular brand of bullshit. YOU ARE NOT YOUR JOB.
Uh, isn't circumstances beyond your control making your life worse the very DEFINITION of unfair?
Gee, maybe this is why it's often been said that LIFE IS UNFAIR.
Actually, there is- we just don't have the courage to do it, because it would require us doing basically what the rest of the world did to fall behind us- close our borders for 50 years, and emerge into a world where we're no longer a superpower.
I think you mean, "emerge into a world where we've become the weakest and poorest third world nation.
Your proposal is absurd, if I am even understanding it.
Especially now that Sony has decided to be a hardware company once again.
Good catch.
About a year ago, I got to spend some quality time twiddling my thumbs at the local courthouse. While most people, including private attorneys, waited in line to get in, some went in through a side door without a wait. These people included jurors with badges, and employees who worked there. These employees included public defenders and prosecutors, i.e., people who's offices are in the courthouse. They still had their brief cases scanned, and had to step through a metal detector.
Basically, I think these guys tried to get arrested, as it serves their cause of agitating against the legal system. The legal system is far from perfect, but it's the best there is. If you've got a better idea for the legal system, write your elected representative and tell him or her about it. Or start a petition to have the legal system changed.
This isn't the first time Apple Legal has gotten heavy handed with the rumor sites, but it might be the first time they've followed through on a threat. IIRC, in the past, Apple sends out Cease & Desist letters, and the sites grudgingly comply. Also, I do not recall if in these cases the sites had such accurate information, or if the news made it's way to the mainstream press.
.I don't know, arrogance seems to weak of a word. However, I don't just think of him as an asshole, but as our (apple zealots' and fanatics') asshole, and wouldn't want anyone else to lead the company.
I remember that just before the iPod was announced, there were lots of rumors about a PDA. So while Apple legal might have threatened the rumor sites, there weren't any real secrets revealed. It was a case of close, but no cigar.
Another angle that explains why Apple is playing this so heavy might be this: prior to the return of jobs, Apple had been as leaky as a sieve regarding future products. When Jobs came back in 1997, he put a stop to it, including some firings to emphasize the point. Rather than completely blame Steve's ego* and his disappointment at having his keynote thunder stolen, I think this is also part of the equation. People at Apple are becoming lax in talking with outsiders, and Apple wants to set an example or two.
*In my one brief meeting with the man, I was struck by his amazing. . .
Stick to rocking, and not interpreting the constitution. =)
I'm just saying.
If you were to hand me your company's confidential material, and I had no contractual relationship with your company, I can do whatever I want with what you gave me.
You might believe so, but it's arguable in court that you have the right to do whatever you want with that information. If it's not, this case will be dismissed soon.
So, who's delusions are you going to fund? =)
Oh, great. Now you're going to get sued for breaking the client-attorney privilege. How did you get this transcript?
Historically, Apple's shares always fall after the keynote. There's an old stock trader saying, "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news". Perhaps this was exacerbated by Think Secret, but it's not a new or isolated phenomenon.
You've got a good point here. I'm wondering at what point incitement or inducement would raise to the level of tortious interference.
Sorry, I meant to respond to bazmat's post, not yours. You at least know how to spell. =)
Uh, working for more than one employer is hypocrisy?
Or are you saying that no attorney should be allowed to argue a case for a plaintiff, and then at some future date argue a case for the defense? That somehow the attorney here is betraying all the plaintiff lawyers, by becoming a defense lawyer?
What did I tell you about taking that cold medication? Every time you take that cold medication, your eyes get red and puffy and you start channeling Ellen Feiss.
That'd be like discrediting everything on Slashdot because of the trolls
Or the editors.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The shield laws don't apply for the exact same reason that any whistleblower law shouldn't protect the Apple employee or subcontractor that broke his or her NDA.
There is no overriding benefit to society that needs to be defended here by journalist shield laws. If Think Secret had revealed that Apple management was cooking the books and defrauding investors, it would be a different matter.
3) no leaker if he took any sort of precautions.
You mean like, wear a condom while talking on the phone or reading email? =)
Nick had to have some way of establishing the credentials of the leaker. How did Nick know he was getting good information?
And if he does know who it was, he'll have to disclose that he know. If he doesn't, he'll perjure himself, and then he's going to be in real trouble that makes the current legal situation look like a traffic fine.
I don't think just trashing your logs or not keeping them in the first place is going to be enough in this case. Or wearing a condom. =)
It's much more complicated than that. Apple is also suing Think Secret, which publishes informations and rumors about Apple and Apple products. So this does become a matter of free speech. What makes this case interesting is that the case is at the intersection of Trade Secrets and Free Speech.
And in the words of Ed McMahon, "You are correct, sir!"
However, explaining The Law to your average slashdotter is sort of like explaining computers to my dad. It's just not going to sink in. What makes it worse is that my dad knows he doesn't know a damn thing about computers, but the average slashdotter thinks he already knows it all.
If I tell you, hey, fool, run your car into the street light, and you do it, who's the guy who rammed his car into the street light, you or me?
Who should pay for the street light, you or me?
Yeah, you guessed it, you.
There's a concept in law of contribution. In your example, it could be argued that you contributed to the acts which created damage by egging the other person on. Imagine if you and another person were in an argument with a third person. Your friend has a gun. You scream repeatedly, "Kill him!" Your friend shoots the third party dead with the gun. Congratulations. Although you didn't pull the trigger, you just participated in a murder.
I'm not saying that this scenario is in any way analogous to the Think Secret case. I was just using it as an extreme example of how a third party can participate or contribute to unlawful acts.
Me: "Hey, gimme your company's next year budget, even if you signed an NDA."
You give me your company's budget.
Now, I post it on the web.
Who's stupid and should be fired? You, not me.
In this case, you might not get fired (as you were never hired), but you could certainly be sued by the company, for the combined acts of posting the info and for how you came by the information. If you found the budget on the side of the road, it might be a different matter, but if you somehow induced the NDA breaker, you could well be considered to have participated in an unlawful leak. I think also that if you benefitted from publishing the info, you'd be a lot more vulnerable to such a claim.