Gosh, his corporate picture is terrifying! He's combing hair over from his right ear (as we look at it), adding various bits of hair, to pretend he isn't balding!
WIG! WIG!
He could probably get some advice along those lines from William Shatner.
SBC training is about limiting the companies liability when there is a lawsuit. The purpose is not to "train" or "educate" employees. The purpose is to be able to say "we made it clear that this is not how you should act so this is the employee's fault - don't sue us".
Yours might be serving up kiddie porn, stolen credit card numbers, or trade secrets right now.
Probably not. But then again, other than my laptop (which I reimage periodically just in case) I don't have any Windows systems running and everything else is as tight as I can make it. No guarantees, of course... but Mr. Weiner would have had a harder time with someone who takes a few precautions. Hell, that caretaker would have probably been safe from his handyman's depredations if he'd just passworded his desktop.
Made perfect sense to me. Who is the only country to detonate a nuke in attack?
Hint: They are also the first country to detonate two nukes in a single attack.
Overkill much? The US was just pissed (like 9/11) that they got caught with their pants down at Pearl Harbour.
Hint: parading one's ignorance around is not generally a good idea, particularly here on Slashdot when there are many much better-informed people reading your post.
Well they are soldiers. That's what they are there for. Many non Americans believe it was one the most horrific moves of the 1st half of the 20th century. No amount of US chest puffing can change that.
Chest puffing? How easily you dismiss the thousands of Allied solders who took on Third Reich and the Rising Sun and died doing it. I'm glad to know their sacrifice was appreciated.
Look, it was you drain-bamaged non-Americans that utterly failed to contain Hitler and Japan, and allowed a global conflict of unprecedented scale to occur. Then we got drawn into it and a hell of a lot of us died in the process. So, if the price to pay for putting a stop to that was about 40 kiloton equivalent of thermonuclear explosive dropped on an implacable enemy... so be it. You non-Americans got off lightly, and frankly, the poor decision-making of many European leaders in the years leading up to the Big One is what got us into that mess.
Note this too: since the fifties we've had weapons orders of magnitude more powerful, with delivery systems capable of reaching anywhere on the planet. Add to that the fact that we haven't used a single one of them in an armed conflict of any kind. So take your skewed view of history and stuff it.
Deliberately leveling civilian centers is never justified.
History, my boy, history. Before the advent of the long-range bomber, the only way to attack an enemy's means of production was to fight your way through his ground forces to reach them. Unfortunately for the average citizen of any country involved in a major conflict, that hasn't been true since the ability to bomb distant targets became a reality.
The problem with your way of thinking is that you're assuming a dichotomy between military and civilian that no longer exists. Where do you think munitions and other war materiel comes from? Special manufacturing plants that are always placed well away from cities full of civilians and staffed only with military personnel? No, they're the same plants that built cars and refrigerators during peacetime, and are still operated by civilian workers. Consequently they're legitimate targets, since if you destroy an enemy's means of production you destroy his ability to wage war.
The relevant part of the SCOTUS ruling is "...does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes."
No, the relevant part is, "Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses..."
That's not entirely accurate. There are whole classes of tactical nuclear weapons. Due to fears of rapid escalation the numbers of them have been reduced, and I gather that the very smallest have been eliminated. But we have them.
If someone were to then go and take some of the crop (which would have spoiled anyway), should it have the same penalty as stealing it from the store?
Yes, because it's the same crime. A court might take into consideration, when determining punishment, whether anyone was harmed. But either way the rightful owner was deprived of his property. It's his choice how to dispose of his excess goods. It might be that he donates his overage to local charities... in which case someone would be harmed by the criminal's actions.
That looks like a typical Webster's definition. Here's one from the 'Lectric Law Library. If we're going to be discussing the legality of things, a legal definition is more relevant:
STEAL
the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.
Any appreciable change in the location of the property with the necessary willful intent constitutes a stealing whether or not there is any actual removal of it from the owner's premises.
This term imports, ex vi termini, nearly the same as larceny; but in common parlance, it does not always import a felony; as, for example, you stole an acre of my land.
In slander cases, it seems that the term stealing takes its complexion from the subject-matter to which it is applied, and will be considered as intended of a felonious stealing, if a felony could have been committed of such subject-matter.
But it doesn't change the fact that there still is only one country who used nuclear weapons against another country in a war.
And what does that mean other than as a pointless exercise in U.S. bashing? We haven't since, other countries have nukes and haven't used them (largely because they know what our response will be.) The atom bomb is an horrific weapon, yes, but so are many others that both sides used in World War II. Do you think we just said "surrender or we nuke your little yellow asses?" No. In fact, we firebombed Japan for months prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you know what that means? Napalm and thermite dropped by the kiloton on a nation whose buildings were largely composed of paper and bamboo. Focusing on the fact that we dropped a couple of low-yield fission weapons and forgetting all the other atrocities committed by both sides in that conflict makes you appear unreasoning. That's especially true considering that far more damage was caused by the conventional weapons, and still did not result in an unconditional surrender.
Come back to this conversation when you have more to contribute than "there is still only one country blah blah nuclear blah blah blah." Germany, for example, used Yperite (aka mustard gas) in World War I. A truly vicious weapon that has since been outlawed by international accord. After all this time, is Germany still "evil", or does the U.S. have a few more decades to go before the veneer of evil wears off?
In the end, war often boils down to who has the ability to kill more of the other. And if you need to do that, you have basically two options: send in a lot of your troops to get killed trying, or send in something even deadlier to take their place. So, if you're going to start a war, be absolutely sure that your enemy isn't a. as technically capable as you are and b. less scrupulous. The Japanese and the Germans both assumed that the United States had too many scruples (or was just too self-absorbed) to become a "real" enemy. Well, they were wrong, and the only reason you're bitching about it having been the U.S. that dropped those two bombs is because we got there first.
You don't think that Nazi Germany, had it finished it's weapons program, or Imperial Japan, who was far closer to a working bomb than anyone realized, wouldn't have used them? You should count yourself lucky that we stopped them both: the world today would be a very different place if the Axis had won, a place I'm sure many of us would rather never existed.
Nice job with the complete lack of understanding of WWII.
Yes. And that completely ignores the months of firebombing leading up up to the dropping of Fatman and Littleboy. The atomic weapons took out a couple of square miles of city... the firebombs devastated some twenty square miles of city. We'd already done far more damage with conventional weapons, and that still wasn't enough to convince them to surrender. There's a point where you say, "enough is enough". This ends NOW.
I'm also tired of "America is the only country that ever dropped an atomic bomb and is so like, totally, evil and all" mantra. We haven't dropped any since... and that's probably a good thing since modern weapons are orders of magnitude more destructive. You really don't want to be on our target list.
So to the GP, I'd say the odds of America deliberately dropping a big one on your country are far, far lower than of some terrorist type setting off a primitive fission weapon in one of your cities. For one, you'd pretty much have to declare war on us, and actually do some serious damage before we'd nuke you. You'd have to use nukes. Truth is, even in their dramatically-reduced post-Cold War state, our conventional forces are such that we don't need nuclear weapons for, well, much of anything except as a deterrent and weapon of last resort.
When they pull crap like "we just reset/changed/added some protection settings, everything you had guarded is now wide open, kthxbye!", especially when it is a blatant attempt to further their own business plan, and then someone sucks all the data off and makes it available like this entity did?
The old "permission change without warning" has happened with Yahoo and FB that I know of.
YA, TOS probably state they can do whatever they want, but with TOS like that there has to be a fine line crossed somewhere eventually that lands them in hot water.
Well, if they continue to make themselves dangerous they're going to find the number of users will fall off. Everyone I know that was a big Facebook user isn't anymore. Partly my doing, I suppose, I just mentioned that Facebook isn't as careful with your personal data as they could be, and let them Google more if it concerned them. Just type "how do I cancel" into Google and don't even press Enter... the very top of the suggestions list is "How do I cancel my Facebook account." Seems a lot of people are interested in that.
Social networking is, by and large, a crock. There are some examples where it can be useful: Linked In is one such site. Even so, you have to be careful. You may not want people at your current employer networking with, for example, the fine folks from some old employer that fired your ass. Whatever the reason, there are certain risks that I don't think most people really think about very hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I prefer the cup holder / cigarette lighter.
Install an electrically-fired ZIP gun in the thing ... anyone tries to break into your files, you set it off and have a "drive bay shooting".
Gosh, his corporate picture is terrifying! He's combing hair over from his right ear (as we look at it), adding various bits of hair, to pretend he isn't balding!
WIG! WIG!
He could probably get some advice along those lines from William Shatner.
Now we get to watch HP crash again under the "leadership" of yet another "squat to pee" manager.
You do realize that Mark Hurd is a guy, right?
SBC training is about limiting the companies liability when there is a lawsuit. The purpose is not to "train" or "educate" employees. The purpose is to be able to say "we made it clear that this is not how you should act so this is the employee's fault - don't sue us".
So "SBC" is really another way of saying "CYA".
In Las Vegas, that type of contractor is called an "escort."
That's still a euphemism. The correct term would be something on the order of "prostitute", "hooker" or "call-girl"
But he should have paid for the whole fling out of his own pocket; too many CEOs treat the company treasury as their piggy bank.
True, but if you use company funds for your peccadilloes it's a lot harder for your wife to find out.
This guy makes over $40 million per year, and he has to lie and steal to get laid?
No kidding. He could have just paid for it.
how about creating a Bootable Kiddie Porn Distro
Call it "Pubuntu Linux".
Yours might be serving up kiddie porn, stolen credit card numbers, or trade secrets right now.
Probably not. But then again, other than my laptop (which I reimage periodically just in case) I don't have any Windows systems running and everything else is as tight as I can make it. No guarantees, of course ... but Mr. Weiner would have had a harder time with someone who takes a few precautions. Hell, that caretaker would have probably been safe from his handyman's depredations if he'd just passworded his desktop.
I'll bet he does now.
Well you actually made a good analog
Yes, he did, but it needed a car.
Made perfect sense to me. Who is the only country to detonate a nuke in attack? Hint: They are also the first country to detonate two nukes in a single attack.
Overkill much? The US was just pissed (like 9/11) that they got caught with their pants down at Pearl Harbour.
Hint: parading one's ignorance around is not generally a good idea, particularly here on Slashdot when there are many much better-informed people reading your post.
Well they are soldiers. That's what they are there for. Many non Americans believe it was one the most horrific moves of the 1st half of the 20th century. No amount of US chest puffing can change that.
Chest puffing? How easily you dismiss the thousands of Allied solders who took on Third Reich and the Rising Sun and died doing it. I'm glad to know their sacrifice was appreciated.
... so be it. You non-Americans got off lightly, and frankly, the poor decision-making of many European leaders in the years leading up to the Big One is what got us into that mess.
Look, it was you drain-bamaged non-Americans that utterly failed to contain Hitler and Japan, and allowed a global conflict of unprecedented scale to occur. Then we got drawn into it and a hell of a lot of us died in the process. So, if the price to pay for putting a stop to that was about 40 kiloton equivalent of thermonuclear explosive dropped on an implacable enemy
Note this too: since the fifties we've had weapons orders of magnitude more powerful, with delivery systems capable of reaching anywhere on the planet. Add to that the fact that we haven't used a single one of them in an armed conflict of any kind. So take your skewed view of history and stuff it.
Deliberately leveling civilian centers is never justified.
History, my boy, history. Before the advent of the long-range bomber, the only way to attack an enemy's means of production was to fight your way through his ground forces to reach them. Unfortunately for the average citizen of any country involved in a major conflict, that hasn't been true since the ability to bomb distant targets became a reality.
The problem with your way of thinking is that you're assuming a dichotomy between military and civilian that no longer exists. Where do you think munitions and other war materiel comes from? Special manufacturing plants that are always placed well away from cities full of civilians and staffed only with military personnel? No, they're the same plants that built cars and refrigerators during peacetime, and are still operated by civilian workers. Consequently they're legitimate targets, since if you destroy an enemy's means of production you destroy his ability to wage war.
Wiring in a solar array to your household wiring is the work of professionals the same way wiring in a kettle is.
It's not THAT difficult. You need a synchronized inverter.
Boarzilla!
More likely Godzoara.
The relevant part of the SCOTUS ruling is "...does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes."
No, the relevant part is, "Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses..."
We don't have much nukes that small anymore.
That's not entirely accurate. There are whole classes of tactical nuclear weapons. Due to fears of rapid escalation the numbers of them have been reduced, and I gather that the very smallest have been eliminated. But we have them.
and lawyers, politicians, and cable companies.
No, you've confused "scavenger" with parasite
r you might have created radiation resistant super creatures that will take over the world!!!!!!!!!!
Too late.
What of the thousands of clean up workers who are now sick with some sort of radio-disease?
They just need to listen to less talk radio in the morning.
If someone were to then go and take some of the crop (which would have spoiled anyway), should it have the same penalty as stealing it from the store?
Yes, because it's the same crime. A court might take into consideration, when determining punishment, whether anyone was harmed. But either way the rightful owner was deprived of his property. It's his choice how to dispose of his excess goods. It might be that he donates his overage to local charities ... in which case someone would be harmed by the criminal's actions.
That looks like a typical Webster's definition. Here's one from the 'Lectric Law Library. If we're going to be discussing the legality of things, a legal definition is more relevant:
STEAL
the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.
Any appreciable change in the location of the property with the necessary willful intent constitutes a stealing whether or not there is any actual removal of it from the owner's premises.
This term imports, ex vi termini, nearly the same as larceny; but in common parlance, it does not always import a felony; as, for example, you stole an acre of my land.
In slander cases, it seems that the term stealing takes its complexion from the subject-matter to which it is applied, and will be considered as intended of a felonious stealing, if a felony could have been committed of such subject-matter.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
maybe +1 inightfull, maybe -1 overrated
But it doesn't change the fact that there still is only one country who used nuclear weapons against another country in a war.
And what does that mean other than as a pointless exercise in U.S. bashing? We haven't since, other countries have nukes and haven't used them (largely because they know what our response will be.) The atom bomb is an horrific weapon, yes, but so are many others that both sides used in World War II. Do you think we just said "surrender or we nuke your little yellow asses?" No. In fact, we firebombed Japan for months prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you know what that means? Napalm and thermite dropped by the kiloton on a nation whose buildings were largely composed of paper and bamboo. Focusing on the fact that we dropped a couple of low-yield fission weapons and forgetting all the other atrocities committed by both sides in that conflict makes you appear unreasoning. That's especially true considering that far more damage was caused by the conventional weapons, and still did not result in an unconditional surrender.
Come back to this conversation when you have more to contribute than "there is still only one country blah blah nuclear blah blah blah." Germany, for example, used Yperite (aka mustard gas) in World War I. A truly vicious weapon that has since been outlawed by international accord. After all this time, is Germany still "evil", or does the U.S. have a few more decades to go before the veneer of evil wears off?
In the end, war often boils down to who has the ability to kill more of the other. And if you need to do that, you have basically two options: send in a lot of your troops to get killed trying, or send in something even deadlier to take their place. So, if you're going to start a war, be absolutely sure that your enemy isn't a. as technically capable as you are and b. less scrupulous. The Japanese and the Germans both assumed that the United States had too many scruples (or was just too self-absorbed) to become a "real" enemy. Well, they were wrong, and the only reason you're bitching about it having been the U.S. that dropped those two bombs is because we got there first.
You don't think that Nazi Germany, had it finished it's weapons program, or Imperial Japan, who was far closer to a working bomb than anyone realized, wouldn't have used them? You should count yourself lucky that we stopped them both: the world today would be a very different place if the Axis had won, a place I'm sure many of us would rather never existed.
Nice job with the complete lack of understanding of WWII.
Yes. And that completely ignores the months of firebombing leading up up to the dropping of Fatman and Littleboy. The atomic weapons took out a couple of square miles of city ... the firebombs devastated some twenty square miles of city. We'd already done far more damage with conventional weapons, and that still wasn't enough to convince them to surrender. There's a point where you say, "enough is enough". This ends NOW.
... and that's probably a good thing since modern weapons are orders of magnitude more destructive. You really don't want to be on our target list.
I'm also tired of "America is the only country that ever dropped an atomic bomb and is so like, totally, evil and all" mantra. We haven't dropped any since
So to the GP, I'd say the odds of America deliberately dropping a big one on your country are far, far lower than of some terrorist type setting off a primitive fission weapon in one of your cities. For one, you'd pretty much have to declare war on us, and actually do some serious damage before we'd nuke you. You'd have to use nukes. Truth is, even in their dramatically-reduced post-Cold War state, our conventional forces are such that we don't need nuclear weapons for, well, much of anything except as a deterrent and weapon of last resort.
When they pull crap like "we just reset/changed/added some protection settings, everything you had guarded is now wide open, kthxbye!", especially when it is a blatant attempt to further their own business plan, and then someone sucks all the data off and makes it available like this entity did?
The old "permission change without warning" has happened with Yahoo and FB that I know of.
YA, TOS probably state they can do whatever they want, but with TOS like that there has to be a fine line crossed somewhere eventually that lands them in hot water.
Well, if they continue to make themselves dangerous they're going to find the number of users will fall off. Everyone I know that was a big Facebook user isn't anymore. Partly my doing, I suppose, I just mentioned that Facebook isn't as careful with your personal data as they could be, and let them Google more if it concerned them. Just type "how do I cancel" into Google and don't even press Enter ... the very top of the suggestions list is "How do I cancel my Facebook account." Seems a lot of people are interested in that.
Social networking is, by and large, a crock. There are some examples where it can be useful: Linked In is one such site. Even so, you have to be careful. You may not want people at your current employer networking with, for example, the fine folks from some old employer that fired your ass. Whatever the reason, there are certain risks that I don't think most people really think about very hard.