A CxO is legally obligated to protect the company's financial interests.
Yes, but what those interests are partly depends upon what is actually true. If he is recognised as an expert in the field of security, his opinion is more likely to be valid than others in his company, and arguably, to be seen as part of a company with integrity is in his company's financial interests. It'll be interesting to see what happens next. If the company loses a lot of business, he might be able to argue unfair dismissal, in that the opinion of non-experts who weren't in a position to fully appreciate the company's interests threw him out.
You have a good point, but the counter-argument is that the corporate interest _is_ the public interest
I'm afraid that this is simply wrong. The reason why we have laws to promote competition is that cartels do not serve the interests of the population at large. Any pro-corporate law naturally biases towards existing corporations; if you're looking towards the public interest, you need to be looking beyond existing corporations, and towards a productive environment that produces quantities of new wealth. Pretty much all new ideas begin in the singular, so that a law that strengthens the individual as against the corporation in fact defends our long term better than the reverse.
Calculating Pi one digit at a time, means that your server doesn't need to be so huge (sorry for being so geeky), just compute it on the fly!
As for IP, it's an even worse nightmare for mathematicians than programmers. I don't know of any patented maths, but I know that people have tried. Arguably, maths is discovered rather than invented; I'd hope that maths and numbers could avoid copyright.
Just a thought: Does everything really need to be started to log in? The user needs to boot up (psychologically) too! "Hollow" processes could catch requests for when the relevent service is ready.
From 11 December it will be legal to send spam to the millions of hapless employees of British businesses (as long as each spammer gives each employee the opportunity to 'opt-out' of his individual spam campaign).
So which is right?
I'd assume that it is Spamhaus. Shame the BBC can't get their stories straight:-(
"At no time did BulletProof have access to either the source code or object code of the OpenRes program, and, hence, Navitaire's code was not copied," BulletProof says in its complaint.
If you want to listen to a fair range of music ("try before you buy"), iRATE radio is a good place to go. Legal downloads selected on the basis of your ratings given to what you've already downloaded, played randomly (biased by preference).
It seems to me that classic left/right dichotomy is preventing compromise here: vouchers would both promote competition and retain government funding for education. It worries me that so much politics is all-or-nothing.
Personally I'd both introduce vouchers and increase school funding, as school funding is clearly an investment in our futures, and we want the best possible returns. Is that left or right?
And - with a bit of a stretch - it could just as easily be used to prosecute those manufacturing cigarettes, alcohol, or gasoline.
I think that such a prosecusion on the part of civil libertarians would be an excellent move: show the law for the ass that it is. The trouble is that such cases are likely to be thrown out by the judge, as such laws were clearly not intended to be used to proscecute George Bush's friends.
No! The republicans and the democrats is one party with two names! Voting for one is just as bad as the other.
Yes, however you must vote for change. You can only affect either by putting them in fear for their jobs. Competition as a priciple also applies to parties; use it. Be(come) a 'floating' voter.
If you wanted, you could tally up your own trade balance by tracking which foreigners you do business with. I know my personal exports amount to about 95% of my personal GDP and my imports are much less than that. My debt payments are all domestic, so I'd guess I am running a fairly big trade surplus:-)
Expect for one thing: your currency doesn't get revalued relative to others'!
That's what a judge's job is, and I'm glad they do it. I'm not interested in figuring out how criminal skills can be "used to the good" so much as I am in seeing them limited, if not absolutely stopped.
Programming's a criminal skill? I suppose that it can be.
"Join society" is a problem for you? What is your alternative? Live like a lawless criminal, I suppose. But if you do that, and treat the rest of us with contempt, I don't see how you can complain when we treat you similarly.
It's not a problem for me; I just thought that the attitude lacks an appreciation of the human spirit. To have one's day disrupted is annoying, but somehow, our general drive to uniformity causes there to be less life in the first place. I see in this the dead hand of a judge reacting to something larger which this act is not part of (notably writing viruses). In saying "This whole business of computer hacking, viruses and so forth is getting very wearisome," Judge Hollows was making explicit that the penalty (of not being able to use computers) was for others' acts. The spirit of the judgement is of someone trying to tame an outsider by limiting them, not someone who was thinking of how his skills should instead be used to the good.
It seems to me that engineers view security breaches very differently from most people; we're used to having to fix all bugs, and it becomes natural to think of someone who's managed to break a system as having done good; the clean-up costs are not the costs of the breach, but the costs of the bug, as yet unforseen.
I get the impression that this is not how the average person thinks at all. When something fails, the most obvious culprit is the person that broke the system. There might be secondary concerns, but the first thing to do is to find blame.
By contrast, the engineer is almost grateful, at least once the bug's been fixed!
My thoughts are that people who break things without malice, although they might be in some sense "trespassing", deserve some protection, as egos do not deserve the protection of the law. The law should instead be structured so as to make secure systems more probably, ie. intelligent cost/benefit analysis is the order of the day, not ideological moaning about property and tresspass.
This story makes me sad. The judge had a "last minute" idea, "Oh yeah, let's ban him from using computers", probably the only thing that really gave purpose to the life of a tramp. Getting a "real" job cannot be a substitute, and as The Register points out, Adrian wasn't exactly writing viruses. Quote:
Following the recommendation of a federal pretrial services officer who interviewed the hacker in custody, Hollows ordered Lamo to obtain full-time employment or enroll in college pending trial. The ban on computer use was the judge's idea.
"This whole business of computer hacking, viruses and so forth is getting very wearisome," said Hollows, explaining his thinking from the bench.
There is something depressing about the whole "join society" ethos, that is, conform to everyday mediocrity.
If person A shoots person B, is person a not 100% responsible for his actions? Then how much responsibility is left over for the gun maker?
Responsibility isn't additive. Joint and several liability recognises this.
Recognising this simple point is the beginning of rational decision making IMO.
The thou shalt not kill commandment is better translated as: Thou shalt not shed innocent blood.
But of course, actual research might upset your carefully crafted anti-Christian bigotry.
I know that this wasn't directed towards me, but I feel impelled to point out that this Commandment in in the Old Testament, and has been in any case superceeded for Christians by "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you", "Do not judge, lest you be judged", and "Turn the other cheek".
This makes the other comments anti-Jewish bigotry, rather than anti-Christian bigotry!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but what those interests are partly depends upon what is actually true. If he is recognised as an expert in the field of security, his opinion is more likely to be valid than others in his company, and arguably, to be seen as part of a company with integrity is in his company's financial interests. It'll be interesting to see what happens next. If the company loses a lot of business, he might be able to argue unfair dismissal, in that the opinion of non-experts who weren't in a position to fully appreciate the company's interests threw him out.
LOL this link is better, anyway :-)
This link is better.
Time again to post an article on The Broken Windows fallacy.
Words fail me.
They've all been patented.
I'm afraid that this is simply wrong. The reason why we have laws to promote competition is that cartels do not serve the interests of the population at large. Any pro-corporate law naturally biases towards existing corporations; if you're looking towards the public interest, you need to be looking beyond existing corporations, and towards a productive environment that produces quantities of new wealth. Pretty much all new ideas begin in the singular, so that a law that strengthens the individual as against the corporation in fact defends our long term better than the reverse.
I think that you in fact have it back-to-front.
Me neither. I read the articles too fast; I aknowledge this in my reply to rokzy.
Still, It's funny how employees don't count as individuals!
Calculating Pi one digit at a time, means that your server doesn't need to be so huge (sorry for being so geeky), just compute it on the fly!
As for IP, it's an even worse nightmare for mathematicians than programmers. I don't know of any patented maths, but I know that people have tried. Arguably, maths is discovered rather than invented; I'd hope that maths and numbers could avoid copyright.
[AOL]Me too![/AOL]
Just a thought: Does everything really need to be started to log in? The user needs to boot up (psychologically) too! "Hollow" processes could catch requests for when the relevent service is ready.
I'm glad to be protected as a private individual, mind, but "employees are not individuals" seems incoherent, somehow.
Whereas Spamhaus say:
So which is right?
I'd assume that it is Spamhaus. Shame the BBC can't get their stories straight
Here's some SPAM Haiku. Interestingly, Spam is not an acronym at all!
Fsck Windows, anyone?
If you want to listen to a fair range of music ("try before you buy"), iRATE radio is a good place to go. Legal downloads selected on the basis of your ratings given to what you've already downloaded, played randomly (biased by preference).
It seems to me that classic left/right dichotomy is preventing compromise here: vouchers would both promote competition and retain government funding for education. It worries me that so much politics is all-or-nothing. Personally I'd both introduce vouchers and increase school funding, as school funding is clearly an investment in our futures, and we want the best possible returns. Is that left or right?
It seems to me that engineers view security breaches very differently from most people; we're used to having to fix all bugs, and it becomes natural to think of someone who's managed to break a system as having done good; the clean-up costs are not the costs of the breach, but the costs of the bug, as yet unforseen.
I get the impression that this is not how the average person thinks at all. When something fails, the most obvious culprit is the person that broke the system. There might be secondary concerns, but the first thing to do is to find blame.
By contrast, the engineer is almost grateful, at least once the bug's been fixed!
My thoughts are that people who break things without malice, although they might be in some sense "trespassing", deserve some protection, as egos do not deserve the protection of the law. The law should instead be structured so as to make secure systems more probably, ie. intelligent cost/benefit analysis is the order of the day, not ideological moaning about property and tresspass.
Recognising this simple point is the beginning of rational decision making IMO.
This makes the other comments anti-Jewish bigotry, rather than anti-Christian bigotry!