Then shouldn't that have happened before the person was fired? It seems the company has already claimed fraud and taken disciplinary action. The argument would be about whether that was right based on the information the company had. I don't know what reasons the company might or might not have to believe they were defrauded in this case, but it seems a bit illogical if the fact that employment was terminated, or that the termination was later challenged, shouldn't in itself be reasonable cause to invade the employees privacy, since that would mean that employers can fire people arbitrarily without a cause, and dig for reasons later when and if it reaches a court.
From what I can understand, what is being questioned by the employee are the grounds for her termination. If the grounds are valid, it shouldn't be any problem for the employer to present all the material they built the challenged decision on, for a court to review. I can't see why the fact that the employee is challenging the decision, is reason enough to let the company go fishing in the employees private data for other grounds for termination. Whether there exists other grounds or not is beside the point -- that is not what is being questioned.
I also don't buy the suggestion that there would be zero expectation of privacy on a web community like Facebook. Sure, what you post there is probably visible to a lot of people, but the fact of the matter is that it's still not visible to everyone. That's half the point of a site where you actively select people that are your "friends"; that you can share information with people you know without broadcasting it in public, wouldn't you agree?
[...] they (the Japanese) could change [the constitution] if they wanted to. But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them.
Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, certainly wants to change it, so I don't think it's as far off as you suggest.
Perhaps Wikipedia should have some kind of "court" system, with juries selected randomly from the pool of all editors, that could suspend conflicting parties from certain articles where the consensus process has failed or is undermined. This would allow new and hopefully more neutral (or at least less entrenched) editors to take over. Selecting the jury randomly would make the process hard to subvert.
Ok, so now I read that one as well. Indeed, it actually is a bit interesting. In fact, I read (most of) the article suggested for merging as well, and it does seem a bit gratuitous and also rather one-sided. Two thirds of the cited sources are Schlafly's own writings (33 out of 49, if I counted correctly), in many cases used to characterise her supposed political opponents' views in relation to her own, instead of actually citing her opponents (building a straw man, anyone?).
I don't really know anything about Phyllis Schlafly, but I did read the discussion linked to by the parent. I suggest that the moderators who raised the GP up to +5 Informative to do the same.
Basically, it looks like some people want to call this Phyllis person a racist, but fail provide reliable sources of her saying something racist, and are miffed because they're not allowed suggest it anyway.
A large part of the threat from global warming is the economic effects. The "global warming versus economic disaster" notion is a false dichotomy; the reality is: either a certain cost now, or a much larger cost later. We're gonna have to pay for it either way, the only question is how much we are going to aggravate the problem by waiting.
Perhaps we have a different take on what the news is. That a large company gives support to a politician in the US is not news. That Google with the public ethos it has supports a politician like Inhofe, on the other hand, is worthy of attention.
If I were to extend my perhaps not so stellar analogy: All planes land, but not all planes crash land.
But to call them out on it is "doing something". It taints their brand (like I explained in the part you didn't quote). Yes, it may only make a small difference, but it makes a difference nonetheless. A small contribution to a better world, if you will.
I agree with what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree that it applies to this case. You see, claiming that "the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future" is not a question of policy or opinion. It is a question of fact. And that particular statement is of course complete nonsense and blatant misinformation. The fact that he is a politician is coincidental to the matter.
It is like they would support a politician (or any person really) arguing that AIDS does not exist and therefore HIV is nothing to worry about, that smoking is actually good for your lungs, or that arsenic is in fact safe to eat. Ultimately, it harms people, which is why I think it's downright immoral.
Seriously, how is this news? A large company is schmoozing politicians. It's fine to think it's evil and corrupt and whatever. But news is generally something that you didn't already know.
That's a bit like saying, we know air planes crash, therefore the recent crash landing in San Francisco is not news.
I want to hear about events like these, and I think others should to, so that it gives Google the bad publicity it deserves. Because if it results in bad PR, it is less likely that companies will schmooze buffoons like Inhofe in the future.
We shouldn't set our expectations on the behaviour of corporations so low that we are completely indifferent when they behave badly. Otherwise, those who are not will have nothing for it.
It is how to preserve Reading equipment and, even more difficult, software that can read the data stored and transform it into something the user can read.
Oh, really? Well, in that case the equipment part must be trivial. Or what exactly do you think would be so difficult about reverse engineering a file format, in particular one that has been designed to be reverse engineered in the first place?
I'm not sure what your complaint really is. Modern browsers essentially are sandboxed virtual machines. Some compile to bytecode and then JIT compile, some JIT compile directly from JavaScript source code. The only difference in your suggestion is that you want the software code to be sent from the server in the form of (standardised) bytecode (to be JIT compiled at the client, if you want to stand sliver of a chance against the competition) instead of text (to be JIT compiled at the client). So you gain a tiny bit of start-up performance by reducing the parsing load, at the cost of harder to debug web applications and less flexibility when implementing clients.
While it is true that 1523 is celebrated as a year of independence, I don't think you could say the Swedes recognise Christian II as a legitimate ruler either (even more so than Petain). Christian II started his reign in Sweden by massacring about a hundred Swedish nobility in what is known as the Stockholm blood bath, which resulted in a deep-rooted hatred between Swedes and Danes that lasted for several hundreds of years thereafter. In Sweden, Christian II carries the epithet "the Tyrant" to this day.
I guess one could also make the argument that the fact that the French (now) do not recognize Petain's Vichy government, in effect is an admission that they had lost their independence -- de Gaulle may have had resistance fighters in France, but he himself was exiled to England, and he wasn't a politically elected leader, he was a military general.
In many ways, Gustav Vasa plays the same role in Sweden during the 1520's as de Gaulle did for the French during WWII. Unlike de Gaulle, however, Vasa is supposed to have remained in Sweden while organising the rebellion.
...or the fact that France was occupied by the Germans during WWII. The three year occupation of Sweden by the Danes during a war in the 1520:s, on the other hand, is apparently enough to cut Sweden's age down to 490 years.
Something which by the way wouldn't bother a Swede if it wasn't for the fact that the blasted Danes are listed at 1048 years.;-)
The fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide that comes from fossil fuels can be measured, as can solar radiation influx, cloud cover, albedo etc. Calling it a discussion is a bit of a stretch to say the least, unless you by "how much" are talking about decimal places. What is being "discussed" (and by "discussed" I actually mean simulated and experimented on) is mostly how strong various feedback mechanisms are (such as increased tree growth, which buffers CO2 but also might reduce Earth's albedo, decreased snow cover, which also reduces the albedo, release of methane deposits when permafrost melts, and so on), and exactly how many fractions of degrees they ultimately contribute to -- up or down -- in future climate.
So, precisely the reasons you state is what makes Assange's argument more or less moot. If the U.S. wanted him extradited, it would certainly have been easier to have done it while he was living openly in the U.K., one of their closest allies. The fact that they didn't suggests they don't bother. If you add to that that they would have for some reason orchestrated a complicated international conspiracy involving a number of people in the Swedish police and judicial system, just so they could get him there instead, the theory becomes almost absurd.
As for somehow intercepting him en-route, I honestly don't think the U.S. cares enough about him for that. It would make some public spectacle, result in a diplomatic incident, and they already have the primary source for the leak (Manning). If you ask me, Assange is just being a narcissistic douche -- not that it diminishes the positive things he has done.
If it is like you say, shouldn't it then be relatively safe for Assange to go to Sweden? Obviously he would have to spend some time in holding, but in effect that is already the case where he is now. (And I doubt he would be held for five years in Sweden, even if he were convicted of the alleged crime despite the obvious "gross misconduct" on the prosecutor's part.)
Or are you arguing that this is a conspiracy instigated by the U.S. government to get him extradited, via Sweden, which would somehow be easier than to get him directly from their friends in the U.K. where he was residing before this took off?
I'm with you that there should have been a criminal investigation. Obviously everyone involved wants to weasel their way out of it, which to some extent includes the judicial system and the police, and since the one most obviously and ultimately responsible is dead, well that's just a rather convenient situation for everyone.
But that's beside the point; what I'm saying is that it's politically more difficult to rendition people arbitrarily since this case became known, regardless of the potential criminal consequences (or lack thereof).
Indubitably. It is a lousy excuse, if you can even call it that.
My point was only that GGP:s post isn't an argument in support of Assange likely being extradited. I don't mean they could never extradite him under any circumstances, but if anything, they'll be more careful the next time. The Americans would have to make a good case, and there are more legal restrictions than risk of torture.
But they didn't try while Assange was living in the U.K., so to be honest I don't think the U.S. cares about him nearly as much has he thinks himself. He can't really cause much more harm/humiliation -- WikiLeaks is more or less dead -- and they have other things to worry about right now (e.g. Snowden).
You do realise that the person who gave the order, and should have faced the consequences, was Anna Lindh, and that she was dead at the time this became known?
I'm not sure there is much judicial ground for making such a promise. It would also mean treating Assange differently because he is a public figure. The Swedish system is in some regards different from the U.S. (and maybe other common law systems). It is for example illegal for Swedish prosecutors to make any sort of plea bargains; only courts can rule on punishments, and this has to be in accordance with how the law is written -- there isn't much lee-way.
It might sort of be possible for the current administration to promise they will not let him be extradited while they are in office, since they have the authority to veto extraditions (at least to non-EU countries). But to be fair, this is a rather minor criminal case. I don't think they care if Assange remains in self-imposed house arrest in London.
Moreover, it is at least theoretically possible that there could be previously unknown but perfectly valid reasons to extradite him.
That said, it is expressly forbidden to extradite anyone charged with political or military offences, and the receiving country must guarantee that they will not charge the person for any other crime than the one they claim extradition on. Furthermore, unless I am mistaken (I can't find a source right now), since Assange would have been extradited to Sweden first, Swedish courts may not allow extradition to a third country unless the U.K. approves of it as well. Which, frankly, makes Assange's whole argument quite ridiculous -- he would be safer in Sweden than he previously was in the U.K., since in that case two countries would have to approve of any extradition to the U.S.
So, is your point that this case is obvious to you, based on what you have heard and read, that there is no need for a court to decide, and therefore extraditing Assange is redundant and he should be let go?
The reason that this case has a rather long Wikipedia article, and probably the reason you knew about it in the first place, is that it caused a rather huge political scandal when it became known in Sweden. And the whole deal was caused by typically naive Swedish politicians basically being suckered by the U.S. into believing no harm would come to the poor fellow. The fact that this particular rendition is so well known, unlike the X hundreds or thousands of others that have occurred around the world, is precisely because human rights violations are taken quite seriously in Swedish public debate.
And yes, it is unsurprising that nobody has been held accountable, considering that the person who made the decision had been murdered when the case became known.
All these facts makes it extremely politically volatile for anyone considering allowing a similar rendition again. Not that I think many Swedish foreign ministers would trust the United States' assurances so easily on matters like these soon again.
And it is very effective. Just look at this thread: Some people have been completely taken in by it and the discussion now revolves not around the correctness of whistle blowing, or whether society benefits from an organization like wikileaks, or if what the government was exposed in having done was right or wrong... the entire discussion now centers largely on Julian.
Well, maybe because TFA is about Julian, and not about Wikileaks, or whistle blowing or government wrong-doing. I'd say it is you who are the one conflating the person with the deed right now. But then again, I guess that proves your point as well, in a way.
Slashdot Mirror
Then shouldn't that have happened before the person was fired? It seems the company has already claimed fraud and taken disciplinary action. The argument would be about whether that was right based on the information the company had. I don't know what reasons the company might or might not have to believe they were defrauded in this case, but it seems a bit illogical if the fact that employment was terminated, or that the termination was later challenged, shouldn't in itself be reasonable cause to invade the employees privacy, since that would mean that employers can fire people arbitrarily without a cause, and dig for reasons later when and if it reaches a court.
From what I can understand, what is being questioned by the employee are the grounds for her termination. If the grounds are valid, it shouldn't be any problem for the employer to present all the material they built the challenged decision on, for a court to review. I can't see why the fact that the employee is challenging the decision, is reason enough to let the company go fishing in the employees private data for other grounds for termination. Whether there exists other grounds or not is beside the point -- that is not what is being questioned.
I also don't buy the suggestion that there would be zero expectation of privacy on a web community like Facebook. Sure, what you post there is probably visible to a lot of people, but the fact of the matter is that it's still not visible to everyone. That's half the point of a site where you actively select people that are your "friends"; that you can share information with people you know without broadcasting it in public, wouldn't you agree?
[...] they (the Japanese) could change [the constitution] if they wanted to. But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them.
Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, certainly wants to change it, so I don't think it's as far off as you suggest.
Perhaps Wikipedia should have some kind of "court" system, with juries selected randomly from the pool of all editors, that could suspend conflicting parties from certain articles where the consensus process has failed or is undermined. This would allow new and hopefully more neutral (or at least less entrenched) editors to take over. Selecting the jury randomly would make the process hard to subvert.
Ok, so now I read that one as well. Indeed, it actually is a bit interesting. In fact, I read (most of) the article suggested for merging as well, and it does seem a bit gratuitous and also rather one-sided. Two thirds of the cited sources are Schlafly's own writings (33 out of 49, if I counted correctly), in many cases used to characterise her supposed political opponents' views in relation to her own, instead of actually citing her opponents (building a straw man, anyone?).
I don't really know anything about Phyllis Schlafly, but I did read the discussion linked to by the parent. I suggest that the moderators who raised the GP up to +5 Informative to do the same.
Basically, it looks like some people want to call this Phyllis person a racist, but fail provide reliable sources of her saying something racist, and are miffed because they're not allowed suggest it anyway.
A large part of the threat from global warming is the economic effects. The "global warming versus economic disaster" notion is a false dichotomy; the reality is: either a certain cost now, or a much larger cost later. We're gonna have to pay for it either way, the only question is how much we are going to aggravate the problem by waiting.
Perhaps we have a different take on what the news is. That a large company gives support to a politician in the US is not news. That Google with the public ethos it has supports a politician like Inhofe, on the other hand, is worthy of attention.
If I were to extend my perhaps not so stellar analogy: All planes land, but not all planes crash land.
But to call them out on it is "doing something". It taints their brand (like I explained in the part you didn't quote). Yes, it may only make a small difference, but it makes a difference nonetheless. A small contribution to a better world, if you will.
I agree with what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree that it applies to this case. You see, claiming that "the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future" is not a question of policy or opinion. It is a question of fact. And that particular statement is of course complete nonsense and blatant misinformation. The fact that he is a politician is coincidental to the matter.
It is like they would support a politician (or any person really) arguing that AIDS does not exist and therefore HIV is nothing to worry about, that smoking is actually good for your lungs, or that arsenic is in fact safe to eat. Ultimately, it harms people, which is why I think it's downright immoral.
Seriously, how is this news? A large company is schmoozing politicians. It's fine to think it's evil and corrupt and whatever. But news is generally something that you didn't already know.
That's a bit like saying, we know air planes crash, therefore the recent crash landing in San Francisco is not news.
I want to hear about events like these, and I think others should to, so that it gives Google the bad publicity it deserves. Because if it results in bad PR, it is less likely that companies will schmooze buffoons like Inhofe in the future.
We shouldn't set our expectations on the behaviour of corporations so low that we are completely indifferent when they behave badly. Otherwise, those who are not will have nothing for it.
It is how to preserve Reading equipment and, even more difficult, software that can read the data stored and transform it into something the user can read.
Oh, really? Well, in that case the equipment part must be trivial. Or what exactly do you think would be so difficult about reverse engineering a file format, in particular one that has been designed to be reverse engineered in the first place?
I'm not sure what your complaint really is. Modern browsers essentially are sandboxed virtual machines. Some compile to bytecode and then JIT compile, some JIT compile directly from JavaScript source code. The only difference in your suggestion is that you want the software code to be sent from the server in the form of (standardised) bytecode (to be JIT compiled at the client, if you want to stand sliver of a chance against the competition) instead of text (to be JIT compiled at the client). So you gain a tiny bit of start-up performance by reducing the parsing load, at the cost of harder to debug web applications and less flexibility when implementing clients.
While it is true that 1523 is celebrated as a year of independence, I don't think you could say the Swedes recognise Christian II as a legitimate ruler either (even more so than Petain). Christian II started his reign in Sweden by massacring about a hundred Swedish nobility in what is known as the Stockholm blood bath, which resulted in a deep-rooted hatred between Swedes and Danes that lasted for several hundreds of years thereafter. In Sweden, Christian II carries the epithet "the Tyrant" to this day.
I guess one could also make the argument that the fact that the French (now) do not recognize Petain's Vichy government, in effect is an admission that they had lost their independence -- de Gaulle may have had resistance fighters in France, but he himself was exiled to England, and he wasn't a politically elected leader, he was a military general.
In many ways, Gustav Vasa plays the same role in Sweden during the 1520's as de Gaulle did for the French during WWII. Unlike de Gaulle, however, Vasa is supposed to have remained in Sweden while organising the rebellion.
...or the fact that France was occupied by the Germans during WWII. The three year occupation of Sweden by the Danes during a war in the 1520:s, on the other hand, is apparently enough to cut Sweden's age down to 490 years.
Something which by the way wouldn't bother a Swede if it wasn't for the fact that the blasted Danes are listed at 1048 years. ;-)
The fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide that comes from fossil fuels can be measured, as can solar radiation influx, cloud cover, albedo etc. Calling it a discussion is a bit of a stretch to say the least, unless you by "how much" are talking about decimal places. What is being "discussed" (and by "discussed" I actually mean simulated and experimented on) is mostly how strong various feedback mechanisms are (such as increased tree growth, which buffers CO2 but also might reduce Earth's albedo, decreased snow cover, which also reduces the albedo, release of methane deposits when permafrost melts, and so on), and exactly how many fractions of degrees they ultimately contribute to -- up or down -- in future climate.
So, precisely the reasons you state is what makes Assange's argument more or less moot. If the U.S. wanted him extradited, it would certainly have been easier to have done it while he was living openly in the U.K., one of their closest allies. The fact that they didn't suggests they don't bother. If you add to that that they would have for some reason orchestrated a complicated international conspiracy involving a number of people in the Swedish police and judicial system, just so they could get him there instead, the theory becomes almost absurd.
As for somehow intercepting him en-route, I honestly don't think the U.S. cares enough about him for that. It would make some public spectacle, result in a diplomatic incident, and they already have the primary source for the leak (Manning). If you ask me, Assange is just being a narcissistic douche -- not that it diminishes the positive things he has done.
If it is like you say, shouldn't it then be relatively safe for Assange to go to Sweden? Obviously he would have to spend some time in holding, but in effect that is already the case where he is now. (And I doubt he would be held for five years in Sweden, even if he were convicted of the alleged crime despite the obvious "gross misconduct" on the prosecutor's part.)
Or are you arguing that this is a conspiracy instigated by the U.S. government to get him extradited, via Sweden, which would somehow be easier than to get him directly from their friends in the U.K. where he was residing before this took off?
I'm with you that there should have been a criminal investigation. Obviously everyone involved wants to weasel their way out of it, which to some extent includes the judicial system and the police, and since the one most obviously and ultimately responsible is dead, well that's just a rather convenient situation for everyone.
But that's beside the point; what I'm saying is that it's politically more difficult to rendition people arbitrarily since this case became known, regardless of the potential criminal consequences (or lack thereof).
Indubitably. It is a lousy excuse, if you can even call it that.
My point was only that GGP:s post isn't an argument in support of Assange likely being extradited. I don't mean they could never extradite him under any circumstances, but if anything, they'll be more careful the next time. The Americans would have to make a good case, and there are more legal restrictions than risk of torture.
But they didn't try while Assange was living in the U.K., so to be honest I don't think the U.S. cares about him nearly as much has he thinks himself. He can't really cause much more harm/humiliation -- WikiLeaks is more or less dead -- and they have other things to worry about right now (e.g. Snowden).
You do realise that the person who gave the order, and should have faced the consequences, was Anna Lindh, and that she was dead at the time this became known?
I'm not sure there is much judicial ground for making such a promise. It would also mean treating Assange differently because he is a public figure. The Swedish system is in some regards different from the U.S. (and maybe other common law systems). It is for example illegal for Swedish prosecutors to make any sort of plea bargains; only courts can rule on punishments, and this has to be in accordance with how the law is written -- there isn't much lee-way.
It might sort of be possible for the current administration to promise they will not let him be extradited while they are in office, since they have the authority to veto extraditions (at least to non-EU countries). But to be fair, this is a rather minor criminal case. I don't think they care if Assange remains in self-imposed house arrest in London.
Moreover, it is at least theoretically possible that there could be previously unknown but perfectly valid reasons to extradite him.
That said, it is expressly forbidden to extradite anyone charged with political or military offences, and the receiving country must guarantee that they will not charge the person for any other crime than the one they claim extradition on. Furthermore, unless I am mistaken (I can't find a source right now), since Assange would have been extradited to Sweden first, Swedish courts may not allow extradition to a third country unless the U.K. approves of it as well. Which, frankly, makes Assange's whole argument quite ridiculous -- he would be safer in Sweden than he previously was in the U.K., since in that case two countries would have to approve of any extradition to the U.S.
So, is your point that this case is obvious to you, based on what you have heard and read, that there is no need for a court to decide, and therefore extraditing Assange is redundant and he should be let go?
That is not the whole story.
The reason that this case has a rather long Wikipedia article, and probably the reason you knew about it in the first place, is that it caused a rather huge political scandal when it became known in Sweden. And the whole deal was caused by typically naive Swedish politicians basically being suckered by the U.S. into believing no harm would come to the poor fellow. The fact that this particular rendition is so well known, unlike the X hundreds or thousands of others that have occurred around the world, is precisely because human rights violations are taken quite seriously in Swedish public debate.
And yes, it is unsurprising that nobody has been held accountable, considering that the person who made the decision had been murdered when the case became known.
All these facts makes it extremely politically volatile for anyone considering allowing a similar rendition again. Not that I think many Swedish foreign ministers would trust the United States' assurances so easily on matters like these soon again.
And it is very effective. Just look at this thread: Some people have been completely taken in by it and the discussion now revolves not around the correctness of whistle blowing, or whether society benefits from an organization like wikileaks, or if what the government was exposed in having done was right or wrong... the entire discussion now centers largely on Julian.
Well, maybe because TFA is about Julian, and not about Wikileaks, or whistle blowing or government wrong-doing. I'd say it is you who are the one conflating the person with the deed right now. But then again, I guess that proves your point as well, in a way.