I hate to associate casual file sharing with something like big time gangsters and flaunting criminal laws like the USA's old alcohol prohibition period. But I'm going to do just that. What an excellent example of a vocal minority flaunting its abuse of power, of passing laws eliminating citizens rights, creating laws to turn respectable law abiding citizens into criminals, and all the problems that errupted from it. Why do politicians feel they have the right to destroy the trust of the citizens they represent.
Oh, that's right, because some corporation donates millions of dollars to keep them in power. Who would care if it was just some corporation moaning about their terrible victimization at the hands of 15 year old kids? Not anyone if they didn't get our elected representatives to attack the citizens of America over things so petty. To protect a corporation's un-American rights to control distribution channels, what you see and hear, and the public domain they stole from the American people, our government has completely sold us out. Anyone who doesn't want their children labeled criminals and attacked by their government to protect unreasonable demands by corporations should be insulted and view those dishonest politicians as enemies of the people, and traitors to the USA. That's right Orin Hatch, as far as I'm concerned you sold out every American citizen to get your name in the paper, to get re-elected, to serve your party's interest over that of the American people and you did it for a bunch of multinational corporations. As far as I'm concerned you're a traitor to your country and should be put on the next boat out of here.
While I'm sure IBM has enough money to pay someone to fuck everyone at SCO in the ass, I hope they decide to fight. It's probably even a better deal for them to give in to 100 scammers demands. But all the same, I'd like to see a company with the resources to do something about this step up to the plate and swing the bat instead of taking the hit for a walk to first.
I guess I can see SCO's strategy in making IBM's customers and shareholders worried. But I don't see it as a solid plan. They are pissing off some big players saying they wont have source code and assumably SCO would try bullying those customers to pay SCO for a license. I would love to see IBM see this through. I think their stockholders believe IBM will not cave as their stock is not doing well. Pouring a bunch of corporate resources into this, alienating nix customers, and creating a terrible public image cannot be good for a company and if I was a stock holder I would be pissed.
If IBM sees this through it should scare stockholders enough that companies will think twice about this sue to riches type business plan.
They chose TV, they wanted it, they got it. I think if a culture is changing rapidly, decides to go get TV's, etc, that you can't really say it is the effect of whatever they are choosing that is causing the culture to change. If they have already decided to get some western programming I think it is apparent that their culture was already changing. You might just as well say it was the millenium that caused this change instead of TV. The case for either is just correlation and totally ignoring the obvious evidence that changes in their culture was already taking place.
Also, whenever I hear someone talk about how terrible it is for a people to "lose their culture" I always wonder why they can't accept that someone's culture will always change. I think it would be much more terrible for a culture just to stay stagnant. This kind of thing makes me think of when the eco's are all running around about how other countries are cutting down their rainforests. We cut down our forests and did so willingly for our civilization, way of life, industry, etc. We certainly don't have much of a leg to stand on when we see another country following our same path.
Television to a large extent reflects a culture, more than changes it independantly. We have all kinds of TV in America that I wouldn't watch because it represents people with viewpoints and ways of life totally different than my own that I find either offensive or just boring. I doubt those in other countries would be viewing programs that they take offense to. If these people are watching the shows at all, doesn't it show that the situations portrayed are something that the people there find acceptable and familiar?
I'm glad to know that things such as the earth being flat and the sun revolving around the earth that people accepted as undeniable fact a short time ago are proven wrong. I can look at an apple and say it is red. I can touch it and say it is solid. I can taste it and say it is sweet. All of these are true depending on how I am looking at that apple. It doesn't feel red though. It doesn't look sweet.
Science and religion are very similar things. They are attempts to understand everything and where we fit in. The difference between the two is that science is generally believed to be able to prove beyond a doubt what is true. And religion admits that we're not going to figure it out because it is beyond our capabilities. I know everyone thinks we've just about got it all figured out now, but it wouldn't be the first time for that.
Science can help us understand a lot of things. There are things it can't help us understand and that's what religion is for.
since you responded to my comment about trespassing with "so, logically, you won't mind if i take stuff from your car through the opened window." I would assume that you are comparing tresspassing to theft. don't mix them up. We were discussing whether or not it would be trespassing to get into a dumpster. Not whether or not it would be theft. Whether you are trespassing or not to reach into my vehicle and take my posessions I think anyone here can figure out that is theft, and of course someone would mind. Stuff in my car couldn't be safely assumed to be garbage and taking it would clearly be theft. I have no idea if just entering my physical property, in this case a car, would be "trespassing". Pay closer attention to the threads you are responding to.
------ That's very much the reason, just add the word fairly to supporting. ------ Fair is somewhat misleading. It is very difficult to see who is being treated unfairly.
You say "European companies have to pay VAT when they sell online services. As these American companies apparently do not, they would have a clear unfair advantage in competition."
However, a company located in the EU doesn't have to worry about paying its workers for health insurance, that is paid for by taxes. In the USA since companies typically provide health insurance for employees, this eats into their profits and therefor expenses are higher and products would be sold costing more. Doesn't this say that companies in the EU have an unfair advantage over American companies? So while American companies will pay %25 taxes into a tax base, they will reap no commercial benefit from it.
Both sides have some pretty valid points and I don't think that a simple taxation issue really addresses the flaws in a semi-world-wide economy. Instead, this has pointed a great big laser pointer at the problems that will come of a world wide internet business model and provides no real answers.
Problem is, people are stupid. Management is twice as stupid. They do not care if your replacements can't do the job, will do it slower than you, and eat up X dollars in training.
Instead you might want to go to them and spell it out for them that in order to save money they have simply asked people to do more work for no extra compensation. Spell it out how much money you are saving the company by doing that work. And make it clear how much work is going to suffer if they continually put unrealistic goals on a group. They'll tell you to be a team player. You tell them the star pitcher doesn't pitch the whole game by himself. You need to show them in detail that they are either not going to save any money with their stupid new ideas about how to run the department or if they really are going to save a ton of money, that they had better start compensating the people that are saving them the money (ie workers, not management).
If none of that works, you are in deep. You can go over their heads and try to get a meeting with the board. Make a very professional presentation to the president. If you get on good terms with the board or president over this you'll have some protection, but either way, if you go over the heads of immediate management they will be out for blood.
Same situation if you sue for back compensation.
Basically, you had better start looking for another job. When you leave give your resignation to someone above the short sighted managers immediately above you. List your reasons and make it clear that management was not only dooming you to failure, but the department and the company overall. Try leaving stuff in a situation that the managers over your managers will have to hire you back as consultants just to explain how everything works. And no, it's not your job to train your replacements. If they don't have any idea, then that's managements job. If management doesn't know what's going on...too bad for them.
Personally, I think until you find that better job that you'd do well to slow down and stop working overtime. If they need you to start coming in X hours of overtime a week ask them to put it in writing and a reason why. Remember that if there are not enough people around to get the job done that it is managements fault, not yours.
"Apple's g may very well be more expensive than comprable ones, but you didn't make relevant comparisions"
It was very relevant. Isn't this guy's stated mission to find a Wi-Fi solution for the masses? If so, it doesn't matter if Apple Airport Extreme is 11g. If the same job can be done with x which cost $70 as y which cost $250, then it doesn't matter how y compares with similar models. The issue is that y and x can both be used to get the job done, but x can do it 3 times cheaper, almost 4 times cheaper.
For instance, if he was writing an article on how to get to work each day and said the perfect solution is the Lamborgini because it is advertised with the purpose of getting to work each day and doing it quickly (for examples sake). Well, the Lamborgini certainly will get you to work. However, the Lamborgini involves more work than the Honda Accord. I doubt the Lamborgini is any safer. And considering traffic, I doubt the Lamborgini will actually get you from point A to point B much faster than the Accord, if at all. And the Accord is certainly cheaper.
I'm not off base by comparing the Airport Extreme to the 11b in cost any more than I would be by pointing out the difference in cost between an Accord and Lamborgini for getting to work. The Lamborgini and the Airport Extreme both have particular benefits and uses.
In the case of the Airport Extreme being used as a best situation option for in-home Wi-Fi those benefits are outweighed by several factors including cost and convenience.
Why do people always think we need a new law for something that happens online instead of offline. It's the same thing, the same crime.
Would it be acceptable to tape up a poster with pictures of naked women advertising sex services in front of a school, at the mall? Certainly children would be exposed to it. Just because the spammer doesn't know specifically who will see the sign does not mean that he does not know that children will see the materials.
It is not non-intentional, it is completely intentional. The spammer knows he will reach children and chooses to do so anyway.
There doesn't need to be a new law, spammers should be punished exactly the same as someone who hands out adult materials to children in person. He should be charged in every municipality where he commits the crime for every instance of the crime committed. If 500 people come forward saying their children were sent indecent materials by the spammer then he should be charged with 500 counts of contributing to the deliquency of a minor or whatever charge best fits.
On a side note, while this topic was specifically oriented towards children viewing this material, it would be just as innappropriate for a person to go down to McDonalds and start performing sex acts or even flashing people. That person would certainly be charged. Spammers should face the same consequences. We don't need new laws, we need enforcement of current laws and an understanding that rights, responsibilities, and law apply to activities conducted with a computer just as much as anywhere else.
I'm not one bit against nudity or pornography on the internet, no more than in person or hard copy. However, I wouldn't expect to walk into a store named McDonads with the same golden arches and find a strip club. I wouldn't expect to open mail post marked from my friend Bill to find it was really just some scammer using his name to trick me into opening the mail and end up finding porn inside. I get my Playboy because I ordered it. I know what it is when it comes to me, it's wrapped so no one can see what is inside lest it offend their personal beliefs, etc.
That's what it refers to. But G is backwards compatible with B so the.11b can still connect to the airport extreme. The extreme costs more because it will get better speeds (and because it's Apple). However, 802.11b is going to be more than sufficient for pretty near everyone's home websurfing needs and abilities. So I don't really see how the cost is justified. I sincerely doubt this guy has 802.11g in his laptops and desktops.
And furthermore, if he is claiming to try to find a solution for the masses, he has failed miserably if they have to call their Mac buddy to come over and set up the network to get it going, expand the network, or for whatever reason to change the setup.
The cost is certainly unjustified for a Wi-Fi for the masses solution. I just got a 802.11b for $70. If it doesn't cover my entire house, I'll go get a WAP for like what? $70? Certainly under $195. 802.11g is fine if you need high speed wireless networking to the point that cost is trivial. But starting at $450 to install one wireless router and additional access point just to surf the web is nuts.
They have this place called Crossroads village by me. Supposedly showing what the area was like many many years ago. They have a little school there and on the blackboard were lessons such as "How many horses in 6 teams of horses?" and "How many apples in 2 pints of preserves?" or something along those lines. My point here is that students no longer need to know how many horses are in a team, they no longer need to know how long to bake apples to make preserves. In fact, the schools would be extremely negligent if they wasted our children's time on such outdated subjects when far more relevent subjects exists that students actually need.
My wife is a school teacher, and when I saw the kids still learning cursive, I asked her what the point is. She didn't have a good answer for me and I doubt anyone here does short of it's tradition. Printing can be used in the case of any need to use cursive. Some of you will say, "but on this form/test it says I have to use cursive". Well, if the only need for cursive is because someone arbitrarily chooses it over printing, then there isn't really any need for it, is there? If/. told us all messages had to be printed in heiroglyphics it doesn't show a NEED for heiroglyphics, rather it shows the need for heavy psychological counseling.
I work at a school that goes from Kindergarten to 8th grade. We have a 7 computer lab. Next year we will have 30 laptops to go with the old lab. In the USA new laws state that every child, every school, in every state must be computer literate by the end of 8th grade. These kids will have skills for programming, web design, office applications, that most of us don't have. And they wont even be in high school. I can't remember ever having to turn in a single thing at any job in cursive instead of typed. Do you think these kids will turn in cursive work, or typed? They'll have their reports in 7 fonts with pictures in graphs by 9th grade. In college those reports will be imbedded in multimedia presentations. When they go to work in an office EVERYTHING will be done on Word, Email, IM, or whatever is new then. For those who don't work in an office, anything they turn in might as well be printed. After all, their bosses probably wont have used cursive since third grade.
The last time I tried addressing an envelope it looked pretty lame as my penmenship is awful awful awful. So I grabbed some labels from the office, threw them in the laser printer, and fired up Word. My doctor can't write legibly and he probably makes $200,000 a year. I don't see it's importance. I'd rank it somewhere below Phys Ed.
Umm, so logically, you think that stealing is the same thing as trespassing? So if I come into your house and take stuff perhaps I am just trespassing?
I am hardly making a legal argument, but we were discussing whether or not it was "trespassing" to get into the dumpster. As in, it's not a copywrite violation to own a legal copy of something, so what other laws would prohibit it.
And as for if they have the right to retrieve it at the last second, I sincerely doubt you have the legal research to back that up. I know it is common practice for PI's to grab garbage from the street. Even cops can do it (and do).
As for stealing, I imagine they could argue that the trash wasn't at curbside and was protected by more than a thin plastic bag and therefor they had an expectation that materials from the dumpster would not be taken, but I still don't see how that comes up to a theft charge. The materials were still in a dumpster, which one might reasonably conclude means the contents are garbage, and that the owners have thrown it away. I would think this is something that would be covered by state law or even municipalities, so for most of us here it's just a matter of guessing what might be going on. Not to mention few of us on/. would have law degrees or any useful experience to back it up. I certainly don't.
I think most of us on here can figure this out. He's talking about property that is up for grabs. Your argument is trivial, such as spelling correction posts.
Wow, a special kind of jerk I think we have here. This is short sighted business sense you show. The kind of thing that is putting America behind other countries. You only consider the immediate cash consequences.
What about worker loyalty, those who stay with the company for longer periods of time are more likely to be more profitable than those that leave.
What about keeping a worker is certainly better than giving a worker to the competition. Especially a worker that already knows how your business works. Do you want him working for you or the competition?
What about the costs of retraining new employees later when the company starts to expand again?
How about this, while the company is throwing away perfectly good workers instead of using them to explore new concepts and product lines you lose market share to the competition who just hired your old employees and developed the new Wireless high speed Widget 5000+ w/BBQ flavor. It's something you could have had but lost, it's something your competition has. And it's something that loses you to lose out your marketshare for Old Widget 2000 w/no flavoring because everyone would rather get a Widget/BBQ seasoning combination Widget.
Meanwhile, your employees that you desperately need to keep on start jumping ship because they worry they are next to get axed (since they can't count on loyalty, neither can the business). Then they go work for the competition, or as in the case of Handspring, become the competition.
None of this is good for shareholders. It's bad for the economy, bad for workers, bad for innovation, certainly bad for stock holders in the long term. They only people it helps are high level management waiting on the big fat bonus for "looking out for stockholder's interests".
That makes it sound a little better, but lets imagine it with this scenario. You own a CD. You try to sell the CD on eBay. You list the songs, title, and performer. Well, in describing the materials you are trying to sell you said the song names which are copywrited. The performer probably has his name Trademarked. I get ads everyday that have a picture of the materials being sold. You can't legally use a picture of an item you own to sell a product any more? I think it could easily be stated that it is clear that Monsterpants would not want someone to use those pictures to avoid buying an original pattern. Isn't Monsterpants trying to sell these originals?
What? Are you evil? Monsterpatterns hasn't violated any copywrites. If they have, why don't you tell us how? If it's cheaper for McCalls to have the materials placed in the public domain (physical material, not IP) than have it destroyed, then they have no case to attack another business that takes advantage of their waste. If McCalls wants the material destroyed, let them destroy it, instead of tying up the courts on bogus lawsuits. There is clearly no copywrite violation here, just misuse of the DMCA. And trying to make DMCA even more evil than it was intended to be is pretty difficult, but thanks to McCalls for proving it could be done.
Unless you were referring to the previous post referring to trash as public domain. The poster did not suggest that discarding hard copies made the IP contained in the materials public domain. He was saying that the physical trash itself was public domain. In other words, the trash that sits at the curb belongs to no one and everyone. It is the collective property of the citizens of the USA. Of course, don't plan on them helping you clean it up if the dog gets into it.
Haven't you been reading any of this. No one is saying the copyrights are no longer valid. The argument is that the dumpster divers have done nothing to violate the copyright. And clearly they have not. They have made no copies at all, merely sold originals.
IANAL.... If the dumpster sits in the parking lot? I imagine that the store expects people to use the parking lot, therefor, being in the parking lot shouldn't be trespassing. I wouldn't think jumping into a dumpser (aka trash receptacle) on property where you are allowed would be considered trespassing.
It's times like this when I have to wonder if the person is incredibly funny or remarkably clueless. He's not AC so I'll vote for funny. I work primarily with stupid people, so it takes me awhile to remember not everyone was a crack baby.
I wouldn't do a damn thing. I don't know how old the models are, I don't know if they were edited on photo shop, I don't know if it's really midget porn. Saying anything would seem to make me open to a lot more liability. Especially, what if I think I find something, is it my right or job to dig into it and explore further? I'm pretty sure it isn't and would leave me vulnerable there. If I don't know for sure, since I didn't dig into it, then what if I reported suspicious, but ultimately, non-illegal materials to a manager or police to check into further? If there wasn't a policy in place saying that is my job, then I've just exposed a coworker to harrassment and ridicule, costing them their job, marriage?, etc. Then I get sued by my coworker and lose my job by getting my company sued also.
Basically, that's a pretty messed up situation and I'd hope if I was in that position there would be some solid policies in place so that my ass was covered. I think it is a good thing this article came out to point out the catch-22 HelpDesk operators might be in, and start discussions of how to avoid it.
I'd definitely want policies in place saying what I was allowed to access in ordinary duties, HelpDesk duties and I'd want employees signing a form that they knew what kind of access to files was allowed to the Help Desk.
Then of course I'd want solid guidelines for what happens should I find something.
I really want the RIAA to sue me. First day in court I'd show up dressed like a pirate, eye patch and all. Then I'd play a song and tell the jury that since they didn't pay to hear it that they'd be next. I'd start selling official GeekBot the Pirate eyepatches on eBay and start making guest appearances. Before long I'd be on Letterman making the RIAA walk the plank in effigy.
Madonna can ask whatever the fuck she wants. But if she uses deception, fraud, to get me to listen to her, and to get 1000's of others to listen to her, then yes, I'd say that's probably fucking illegal. If she deceives 1000's of people into wasting their time, bandwidth, hard drive space, electricity, into downloading her publicity stunt sound bite I would definitely say that's illegal. Especially when those resources she is tricking an American citizen into wasting are used as a marketing ploy to get people to buy her CD's, or in other words, wasting your money to make some for her. If I started a newspaper, sold you a copy for 10 cents, put on the front page that inside I had pictures of Madonna naked, then when you opened it I had a political rant and no naked pictures, I would have been using fraud to deceive you into spending your money in order to make money myself.
Now, I wouldn't have bought Madonna's CDs in any case, so Madonna isn't out a dime if I've listened to her music. However, many fans of Madonna that downloaded her song were cheated out of their system resources and time. Of course, any real fan would end up buying her CD anyway, whether they had the MP3 or not. Madonna knows this. The MP3's are just advertising, something she could expect to get mixed into a song. That's why she had a cute sound bite instead of a boring speech, or a blank file altogether. Fortunately for me, I'd never listen to her songs, even for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to associate casual file sharing with something like big time gangsters and flaunting criminal laws like the USA's old alcohol prohibition period. But I'm going to do just that. What an excellent example of a vocal minority flaunting its abuse of power, of passing laws eliminating citizens rights, creating laws to turn respectable law abiding citizens into criminals, and all the problems that errupted from it. Why do politicians feel they have the right to destroy the trust of the citizens they represent.
Oh, that's right, because some corporation donates millions of dollars to keep them in power. Who would care if it was just some corporation moaning about their terrible victimization at the hands of 15 year old kids? Not anyone if they didn't get our elected representatives to attack the citizens of America over things so petty. To protect a corporation's un-American rights to control distribution channels, what you see and hear, and the public domain they stole from the American people, our government has completely sold us out. Anyone who doesn't want their children labeled criminals and attacked by their government to protect unreasonable demands by corporations should be insulted and view those dishonest politicians as enemies of the people, and traitors to the USA. That's right Orin Hatch, as far as I'm concerned you sold out every American citizen to get your name in the paper, to get re-elected, to serve your party's interest over that of the American people and you did it for a bunch of multinational corporations. As far as I'm concerned you're a traitor to your country and should be put on the next boat out of here.
While I'm sure IBM has enough money to pay someone to fuck everyone at SCO in the ass, I hope they decide to fight. It's probably even a better deal for them to give in to 100 scammers demands. But all the same, I'd like to see a company with the resources to do something about this step up to the plate and swing the bat instead of taking the hit for a walk to first.
I guess I can see SCO's strategy in making IBM's customers and shareholders worried. But I don't see it as a solid plan. They are pissing off some big players saying they wont have source code and assumably SCO would try bullying those customers to pay SCO for a license. I would love to see IBM see this through. I think their stockholders believe IBM will not cave as their stock is not doing well. Pouring a bunch of corporate resources into this, alienating nix customers, and creating a terrible public image cannot be good for a company and if I was a stock holder I would be pissed.
If IBM sees this through it should scare stockholders enough that companies will think twice about this sue to riches type business plan.
They chose TV, they wanted it, they got it. I think if a culture is changing rapidly, decides to go get TV's, etc, that you can't really say it is the effect of whatever they are choosing that is causing the culture to change. If they have already decided to get some western programming I think it is apparent that their culture was already changing. You might just as well say it was the millenium that caused this change instead of TV. The case for either is just correlation and totally ignoring the obvious evidence that changes in their culture was already taking place.
Also, whenever I hear someone talk about how terrible it is for a people to "lose their culture" I always wonder why they can't accept that someone's culture will always change. I think it would be much more terrible for a culture just to stay stagnant. This kind of thing makes me think of when the eco's are all running around about how other countries are cutting down their rainforests. We cut down our forests and did so willingly for our civilization, way of life, industry, etc. We certainly don't have much of a leg to stand on when we see another country following our same path.
Television to a large extent reflects a culture, more than changes it independantly. We have all kinds of TV in America that I wouldn't watch because it represents people with viewpoints and ways of life totally different than my own that I find either offensive or just boring. I doubt those in other countries would be viewing programs that they take offense to. If these people are watching the shows at all, doesn't it show that the situations portrayed are something that the people there find acceptable and familiar?
I'm glad to know that things such as the earth being flat and the sun revolving around the earth that people accepted as undeniable fact a short time ago are proven wrong. I can look at an apple and say it is red. I can touch it and say it is solid. I can taste it and say it is sweet. All of these are true depending on how I am looking at that apple. It doesn't feel red though. It doesn't look sweet.
Science and religion are very similar things. They are attempts to understand everything and where we fit in. The difference between the two is that science is generally believed to be able to prove beyond a doubt what is true. And religion admits that we're not going to figure it out because it is beyond our capabilities. I know everyone thinks we've just about got it all figured out now, but it wouldn't be the first time for that.
Science can help us understand a lot of things. There are things it can't help us understand and that's what religion is for.
since you responded to my comment about trespassing with "so, logically, you won't mind if i take stuff from your car through the opened window." I would assume that you are comparing tresspassing to theft. don't mix them up. We were discussing whether or not it would be trespassing to get into a dumpster. Not whether or not it would be theft. Whether you are trespassing or not to reach into my vehicle and take my posessions I think anyone here can figure out that is theft, and of course someone would mind. Stuff in my car couldn't be safely assumed to be garbage and taking it would clearly be theft. I have no idea if just entering my physical property, in this case a car, would be "trespassing". Pay closer attention to the threads you are responding to.
------
That's very much the reason, just add the word fairly to supporting.
------
Fair is somewhat misleading. It is very difficult to see who is being treated unfairly.
You say "European companies have to pay VAT when they sell online services. As these American companies apparently do not, they would have a clear unfair advantage in competition."
However, a company located in the EU doesn't have to worry about paying its workers for health insurance, that is paid for by taxes. In the USA since companies typically provide health insurance for employees, this eats into their profits and therefor expenses are higher and products would be sold costing more. Doesn't this say that companies in the EU have an unfair advantage over American companies? So while American companies will pay %25 taxes into a tax base, they will reap no commercial benefit from it.
Both sides have some pretty valid points and I don't think that a simple taxation issue really addresses the flaws in a semi-world-wide economy. Instead, this has pointed a great big laser pointer at the problems that will come of a world wide internet business model and provides no real answers.
Problem is, people are stupid. Management is twice as stupid. They do not care if your replacements can't do the job, will do it slower than you, and eat up X dollars in training.
Instead you might want to go to them and spell it out for them that in order to save money they have simply asked people to do more work for no extra compensation. Spell it out how much money you are saving the company by doing that work. And make it clear how much work is going to suffer if they continually put unrealistic goals on a group. They'll tell you to be a team player. You tell them the star pitcher doesn't pitch the whole game by himself. You need to show them in detail that they are either not going to save any money with their stupid new ideas about how to run the department or if they really are going to save a ton of money, that they had better start compensating the people that are saving them the money (ie workers, not management).
If none of that works, you are in deep. You can go over their heads and try to get a meeting with the board. Make a very professional presentation to the president. If you get on good terms with the board or president over this you'll have some protection, but either way, if you go over the heads of immediate management they will be out for blood.
Same situation if you sue for back compensation.
Basically, you had better start looking for another job. When you leave give your resignation to someone above the short sighted managers immediately above you. List your reasons and make it clear that management was not only dooming you to failure, but the department and the company overall. Try leaving stuff in a situation that the managers over your managers will have to hire you back as consultants just to explain how everything works. And no, it's not your job to train your replacements. If they don't have any idea, then that's managements job. If management doesn't know what's going on...too bad for them.
Personally, I think until you find that better job that you'd do well to slow down and stop working overtime. If they need you to start coming in X hours of overtime a week ask them to put it in writing and a reason why. Remember that if there are not enough people around to get the job done that it is managements fault, not yours.
"Apple's g may very well be more expensive than comprable ones, but you didn't make relevant comparisions"
It was very relevant. Isn't this guy's stated mission to find a Wi-Fi solution for the masses? If so, it doesn't matter if Apple Airport Extreme is 11g. If the same job can be done with x which cost $70 as y which cost $250, then it doesn't matter how y compares with similar models. The issue is that y and x can both be used to get the job done, but x can do it 3 times cheaper, almost 4 times cheaper.
For instance, if he was writing an article on how to get to work each day and said the perfect solution is the Lamborgini because it is advertised with the purpose of getting to work each day and doing it quickly (for examples sake). Well, the Lamborgini certainly will get you to work. However, the Lamborgini involves more work than the Honda Accord. I doubt the Lamborgini is any safer. And considering traffic, I doubt the Lamborgini will actually get you from point A to point B much faster than the Accord, if at all. And the Accord is certainly cheaper.
I'm not off base by comparing the Airport Extreme to the 11b in cost any more than I would be by pointing out the difference in cost between an Accord and Lamborgini for getting to work. The Lamborgini and the Airport Extreme both have particular benefits and uses.
In the case of the Airport Extreme being used as a best situation option for in-home Wi-Fi those benefits are outweighed by several factors including cost and convenience.
Why do people always think we need a new law for something that happens online instead of offline. It's the same thing, the same crime.
Would it be acceptable to tape up a poster with pictures of naked women advertising sex services in front of a school, at the mall? Certainly children would be exposed to it. Just because the spammer doesn't know specifically who will see the sign does not mean that he does not know that children will see the materials.
It is not non-intentional, it is completely intentional. The spammer knows he will reach children and chooses to do so anyway.
There doesn't need to be a new law, spammers should be punished exactly the same as someone who hands out adult materials to children in person. He should be charged in every municipality where he commits the crime for every instance of the crime committed. If 500 people come forward saying their children were sent indecent materials by the spammer then he should be charged with 500 counts of contributing to the deliquency of a minor or whatever charge best fits.
On a side note, while this topic was specifically oriented towards children viewing this material, it would be just as innappropriate for a person to go down to McDonalds and start performing sex acts or even flashing people. That person would certainly be charged. Spammers should face the same consequences. We don't need new laws, we need enforcement of current laws and an understanding that rights, responsibilities, and law apply to activities conducted with a computer just as much as anywhere else.
I'm not one bit against nudity or pornography on the internet, no more than in person or hard copy. However, I wouldn't expect to walk into a store named McDonads with the same golden arches and find a strip club. I wouldn't expect to open mail post marked from my friend Bill to find it was really just some scammer using his name to trick me into opening the mail and end up finding porn inside. I get my Playboy because I ordered it. I know what it is when it comes to me, it's wrapped so no one can see what is inside lest it offend their personal beliefs, etc.
Could you please send me a copy of that? My address is billclinton@hornybastard.com.
That's what it refers to. But G is backwards compatible with B so the .11b can still connect to the airport extreme. The extreme costs more because it will get better speeds (and because it's Apple). However, 802.11b is going to be more than sufficient for pretty near everyone's home websurfing needs and abilities. So I don't really see how the cost is justified. I sincerely doubt this guy has 802.11g in his laptops and desktops.
And furthermore, if he is claiming to try to find a solution for the masses, he has failed miserably if they have to call their Mac buddy to come over and set up the network to get it going, expand the network, or for whatever reason to change the setup.
The cost is certainly unjustified for a Wi-Fi for the masses solution. I just got a 802.11b for $70. If it doesn't cover my entire house, I'll go get a WAP for like what? $70? Certainly under $195. 802.11g is fine if you need high speed wireless networking to the point that cost is trivial. But starting at $450 to install one wireless router and additional access point just to surf the web is nuts.
They have this place called Crossroads village by me. Supposedly showing what the area was like many many years ago. They have a little school there and on the blackboard were lessons such as "How many horses in 6 teams of horses?" and "How many apples in 2 pints of preserves?" or something along those lines. My point here is that students no longer need to know how many horses are in a team, they no longer need to know how long to bake apples to make preserves. In fact, the schools would be extremely negligent if they wasted our children's time on such outdated subjects when far more relevent subjects exists that students actually need.
/. told us all messages had to be printed in heiroglyphics it doesn't show a NEED for heiroglyphics, rather it shows the need for heavy psychological counseling.
My wife is a school teacher, and when I saw the kids still learning cursive, I asked her what the point is. She didn't have a good answer for me and I doubt anyone here does short of it's tradition. Printing can be used in the case of any need to use cursive. Some of you will say, "but on this form/test it says I have to use cursive". Well, if the only need for cursive is because someone arbitrarily chooses it over printing, then there isn't really any need for it, is there? If
I work at a school that goes from Kindergarten to 8th grade. We have a 7 computer lab. Next year we will have 30 laptops to go with the old lab. In the USA new laws state that every child, every school, in every state must be computer literate by the end of 8th grade. These kids will have skills for programming, web design, office applications, that most of us don't have. And they wont even be in high school. I can't remember ever having to turn in a single thing at any job in cursive instead of typed. Do you think these kids will turn in cursive work, or typed? They'll have their reports in 7 fonts with pictures in graphs by 9th grade. In college those reports will be imbedded in multimedia presentations. When they go to work in an office EVERYTHING will be done on Word, Email, IM, or whatever is new then. For those who don't work in an office, anything they turn in might as well be printed. After all, their bosses probably wont have used cursive since third grade.
The last time I tried addressing an envelope it looked pretty lame as my penmenship is awful awful awful. So I grabbed some labels from the office, threw them in the laser printer, and fired up Word. My doctor can't write legibly and he probably makes $200,000 a year. I don't see it's importance. I'd rank it somewhere below Phys Ed.
Umm, so logically, you think that stealing is the same thing as trespassing? So if I come into your house and take stuff perhaps I am just trespassing?
/. would have law degrees or any useful experience to back it up. I certainly don't.
I am hardly making a legal argument, but we were discussing whether or not it was "trespassing" to get into the dumpster. As in, it's not a copywrite violation to own a legal copy of something, so what other laws would prohibit it.
And as for if they have the right to retrieve it at the last second, I sincerely doubt you have the legal research to back that up. I know it is common practice for PI's to grab garbage from the street. Even cops can do it (and do).
As for stealing, I imagine they could argue that the trash wasn't at curbside and was protected by more than a thin plastic bag and therefor they had an expectation that materials from the dumpster would not be taken, but I still don't see how that comes up to a theft charge. The materials were still in a dumpster, which one might reasonably conclude means the contents are garbage, and that the owners have thrown it away. I would think this is something that would be covered by state law or even municipalities, so for most of us here it's just a matter of guessing what might be going on. Not to mention few of us on
I think most of us on here can figure this out. He's talking about property that is up for grabs. Your argument is trivial, such as spelling correction posts.
Wow, a special kind of jerk I think we have here. This is short sighted business sense you show. The kind of thing that is putting America behind other countries. You only consider the immediate cash consequences.
What about worker loyalty, those who stay with the company for longer periods of time are more likely to be more profitable than those that leave.
What about keeping a worker is certainly better than giving a worker to the competition. Especially a worker that already knows how your business works. Do you want him working for you or the competition?
What about the costs of retraining new employees later when the company starts to expand again?
How about this, while the company is throwing away perfectly good workers instead of using them to explore new concepts and product lines you lose market share to the competition who just hired your old employees and developed the new Wireless high speed Widget 5000+ w/BBQ flavor. It's something you could have had but lost, it's something your competition has. And it's something that loses you to lose out your marketshare for Old Widget 2000 w/no flavoring because everyone would rather get a Widget/BBQ seasoning combination Widget.
Meanwhile, your employees that you desperately need to keep on start jumping ship because they worry they are next to get axed (since they can't count on loyalty, neither can the business). Then they go work for the competition, or as in the case of Handspring, become the competition.
None of this is good for shareholders. It's bad for the economy, bad for workers, bad for innovation, certainly bad for stock holders in the long term. They only people it helps are high level management waiting on the big fat bonus for "looking out for stockholder's interests".
That makes it sound a little better, but lets imagine it with this scenario. You own a CD. You try to sell the CD on eBay. You list the songs, title, and performer. Well, in describing the materials you are trying to sell you said the song names which are copywrited. The performer probably has his name Trademarked.
I get ads everyday that have a picture of the materials being sold. You can't legally use a picture of an item you own to sell a product any more?
I think it could easily be stated that it is clear that Monsterpants would not want someone to use those pictures to avoid buying an original pattern. Isn't Monsterpants trying to sell these originals?
What? Are you evil? Monsterpatterns hasn't violated any copywrites. If they have, why don't you tell us how? If it's cheaper for McCalls to have the materials placed in the public domain (physical material, not IP) than have it destroyed, then they have no case to attack another business that takes advantage of their waste. If McCalls wants the material destroyed, let them destroy it, instead of tying up the courts on bogus lawsuits. There is clearly no copywrite violation here, just misuse of the DMCA. And trying to make DMCA even more evil than it was intended to be is pretty difficult, but thanks to McCalls for proving it could be done.
Unless you were referring to the previous post referring to trash as public domain. The poster did not suggest that discarding hard copies made the IP contained in the materials public domain. He was saying that the physical trash itself was public domain. In other words, the trash that sits at the curb belongs to no one and everyone. It is the collective property of the citizens of the USA. Of course, don't plan on them helping you clean it up if the dog gets into it.
Haven't you been reading any of this. No one is saying the copyrights are no longer valid. The argument is that the dumpster divers have done nothing to violate the copyright. And clearly they have not. They have made no copies at all, merely sold originals.
IANAL....
If the dumpster sits in the parking lot? I imagine that the store expects people to use the parking lot, therefor, being in the parking lot shouldn't be trespassing. I wouldn't think jumping into a dumpser (aka trash receptacle) on property where you are allowed would be considered trespassing.
It's times like this when I have to wonder if the person is incredibly funny or remarkably clueless. He's not AC so I'll vote for funny. I work primarily with stupid people, so it takes me awhile to remember not everyone was a crack baby.
"How do you launch a cyber-war with no IP infrastructure?"
In related news, the US Legislature will be opening a University for training politicians in ethics.
I wouldn't do a damn thing. I don't know how old the models are, I don't know if they were edited on photo shop, I don't know if it's really midget porn. Saying anything would seem to make me open to a lot more liability.
Especially, what if I think I find something, is it my right or job to dig into it and explore further? I'm pretty sure it isn't and would leave me vulnerable there.
If I don't know for sure, since I didn't dig into it, then what if I reported suspicious, but ultimately, non-illegal materials to a manager or police to check into further? If there wasn't a policy in place saying that is my job, then I've just exposed a coworker to harrassment and ridicule, costing them their job, marriage?, etc. Then I get sued by my coworker and lose my job by getting my company sued also.
Basically, that's a pretty messed up situation and I'd hope if I was in that position there would be some solid policies in place so that my ass was covered. I think it is a good thing this article came out to point out the catch-22 HelpDesk operators might be in, and start discussions of how to avoid it.
I'd definitely want policies in place saying what I was allowed to access in ordinary duties, HelpDesk duties and I'd want employees signing a form that they knew what kind of access to files was allowed to the Help Desk.
Then of course I'd want solid guidelines for what happens should I find something.
I really want the RIAA to sue me. First day in court I'd show up dressed like a pirate, eye patch and all. Then I'd play a song and tell the jury that since they didn't pay to hear it that they'd be next. I'd start selling official GeekBot the Pirate eyepatches on eBay and start making guest appearances. Before long I'd be on Letterman making the RIAA walk the plank in effigy.
Madonna can ask whatever the fuck she wants. But if she uses deception, fraud, to get me to listen to her, and to get 1000's of others to listen to her, then yes, I'd say that's probably fucking illegal. If she deceives 1000's of people into wasting their time, bandwidth, hard drive space, electricity, into downloading her publicity stunt sound bite I would definitely say that's illegal. Especially when those resources she is tricking an American citizen into wasting are used as a marketing ploy to get people to buy her CD's, or in other words, wasting your money to make some for her.
If I started a newspaper, sold you a copy for 10 cents, put on the front page that inside I had pictures of Madonna naked, then when you opened it I had a political rant and no naked pictures, I would have been using fraud to deceive you into spending your money in order to make money myself.
Now, I wouldn't have bought Madonna's CDs in any case, so Madonna isn't out a dime if I've listened to her music. However, many fans of Madonna that downloaded her song were cheated out of their system resources and time. Of course, any real fan would end up buying her CD anyway, whether they had the MP3 or not. Madonna knows this. The MP3's are just advertising, something she could expect to get mixed into a song. That's why she had a cute sound bite instead of a boring speech, or a blank file altogether. Fortunately for me, I'd never listen to her songs, even for free.