Was Lynn only told afterwards to keep quiet about what he found, or did do the security research under terms of a NDA? Cisco might well have gotten an NDA if they provided unusual access to IOS, such as source code. If so, then even if everything you say is true, Cisco may well have been correct in calling the disclosure illegal.
Whether it was ethical, of course, would remain a debatable proposition, but I would judge the burden of proof to shift to require showing that it was ethical, despite the unlawful nature of the act.
Web allows rapid deployment and there is no software for users to install. It's also much easier to make sure code runs on multiple browsers compared with multiple operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows.
Oh, really? So, why does Google Maps work not-at-all on Safari or IdiotExploder for Mac OS X?
Further, tax revenues were will above expectations this year.
True. Of course, there's still a 300-odd G$ deficit, and a seven-point-mumble T$ debt.
The US political system is so stable that nothing short of a nuclear holocaust could pull it apart
You obviously haven't read enough of the "Peak Oil" doomsday scenarios. The general theme: "Inadequate petroleum supplies impact fertilizer and fuel production; with reduced fertilizer availability and increased farm equipment operation (fuel) costs, crop yields go down while prices rise. Fuel costs increases also impact current (diesel trailer) transport systems, impeding local distribution of food supplies. Food shortages and rioting ensue." Enter "peak oil" and "food" into your favorite search engine for colorfully terrified elaborations.
Of course, there's the likelihood of a serious oil war (think "Fallout", not this current localized mess) breaking out when things get that hairy, and that might involve someone throwing nukes around, but "nuclear holocaust" would then be effect of (or shared effect with) the US political collapse, not the cause.
Anyone know the source (and original phrasing) of the quote: "Civilization is only three missed meals away from anarchy?"
Moore's Law type performance growth was relevant at one point to aviation, but that was long ago, and the doubling time was a bit more than 18 months. Moore's Law is an approximation describing the initial (exponential) part of what previous technological developments suggest will eventually be a rough Sigmoid Function. Aviation technology is well into the linear region.
Actually, I would say that the Peter Principle might be more relevant than Moore's Law, both in the organization running the shuttle and in the manner in which the shuttle itself is used. The accidents are merely signs that the shuttle design has been promoted to its level of incompetence. (No, this is not a good thing.)
Mutations occur, and when they occur in parallel for members of the same species, and those mutations survive into succeeding generations, you achieve speciation. End of story. What am I missing?
What mechanism causes the groups of descendents (with and without some mutation) to diverge to the point where they can no longer interbreed (like robins and ducks), rather than their descendants continuing to be able to interbreed (like chihuahuas and dobermans)?
Because it's a contract. The (legally binding) promises each party makes in a contract can be largely arbitrary.
Not really. They need to be equitable, otherwise there exists a basis for a court to void a contract. An explicit quid pro quo basis (I discussed one example over here) can help prevent that.
They also need to be legal-- IE, you can't promise to do something that would be unlawful in itself.
Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal?
Like any clause in any contract: by compensating the employee for what they are giving up.
This spring I eavesdropped on a presentation from a lawyer who specializes in this area of the law, given to a bunch of Engineering students in their last year of college. (IANAL) He mentioned a standard NCA clause he was recommending both to employees and to employers. Yes, the employee agrees not to work for a competitor or competing product without company approval for X months. Whether the employee quits or is terminated (weasel wording if felony charges get filed and yield a conviction), each month after leaving the (former) employee demonstrates that
they would be able to find work in their chosen profession if released from the NCA (EG: an offer from a competitor, easy enough to get if you mention when applying that "potentially no prior NCA would apply")
they are actively seeking employment in the field (shown by submitting to the Payroll department a written description of efforts every month)
they have been unable to find suitable employment in the field under the NCA constraints
...then the employer continues to pay them full salary and benefits. If the employee wants to take a month off not doing anything, no check that month. If the employer decides it's no longer worth it, they may send a notice at any time (prior to or with the regular monthly payment) that at the end of the current month, the employee is unconditionally released from the NCA. Failure to make the "salary" payment provides grounds for unilateral release. (And the earlier weasel wording: filing criminal charges means that regardless of effort to seek work, the payments must be made to escrow for the term of the NDA, and held until acquittal or conviction; a conviction reverts the money to the employer, acquittal turns escrow over to the employee.)
This has the drawback that the company will be paying out real money on a regular basis to keep their trade secrets and market position safe. On the other hand, this gives the company the advantage that the explicit compensation for the NCA makes that part of the contract much less likely to be challenged in court, and all but unbreakable if challenged. For the employee, the added difficulty in finding new work is compensated for by the continued paycheck... each month they to show they are continuing to try to find work. It also means that the (former) employer will not casually assert the NCA to preclude the choice of a new job, because doing so will cost them money.
By creating an explicit Quid Pro Quo, you have the foundation for an equitable contract, to the end benefit of everyone involved.
He also once said (after becoming president) that a dictatorship would makes things much easier. He was joking, of course, but it's not comforting to have your leader say that.
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." --Ronald Reagan, 11 August 1984
In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part due to the policies Reagan initiated. (The cost to the US of said policies is another matter.)
Don't you find Bush's little joke much more humorous now?
U.N. is not just a bunch of incompetent politicians
Oh, no, they're not just that.
The U.N. IS a bunch of incompetent politicians, mind you; but they're several other things as well. And, being only human, there are limits to their incompetence. =)
*That* is why Google has to be ambiguous. If they don't, investors will start demanding hard (read: easy to understand) money making products.
Back in days of yore, Bell Labs and GE R&D did a lot of random research. Not a lot of what they researched made big money. Not all of it even ended up making money for the company that did the research-- many things fell by the wayside, and were picked up by others. But enough things made big money that they fed back into keeping the company profitable.
Google seems to be working in a similar mode. The good news is, this can make big bucks. The bad news is, there's a narrow operating region where this sort of thing works. But it's also very easy to kill. Investors who get too greedy and want to "focus on results", license-obsessed legal teams who think they should milk every dime out of every development instead of letting others who are willing to make innovations profitable also get rich by working really hard, managers who don't understand that if the guy who spends all but two days each year staring out the window admiring the birds also comes up with a billion dollar idea each year on those other two days then they should let the fucker STARE.
And it can be killed at the other end: employees who begin (or start of by) thinking the perks are the point instead of the work; the difficulty in thinning nice people who are not only unproductive but who distract the productive; the problems in maintaining a culture with staff who produce nifty shit, instead of just turning food into shit; and the difficulties of figuring out which ideas are billion dollar babies that should be kept in-house, which are multi-million dollar babies that should be licensed, and which are nifty stuff that you don't see what it's good for, but that you figure someone ought to be able to get rich off of it after enough work-- that you should let go.
They need to do three things:
1) Keep hiring brilliant people.
2) Keep the culture focused on invention and innovation, instead of slothful, litiginous, or short term payoff obsessed. This includes workers, managers, and stockholders.
3) Periodically identify ways to make some money off of some of what they're doing.
What they might do, if really clever, is hire some sociologists and specialists in the history of technology, have them go around and do cultural studies of successful and unsucessful innovation centers to try and isolate important factors, and try to figure out how to subtly encourage a culture that will continue to innovate, rather than turn and stagnate. Make a couple small spin-off research groups, and field test the ideas THERE, so they don't screw up the main company.
Is there a law against running a bulletin board for dealers and their available drugs?
IANAL, but a case might be made for aiding and abetting. Presumably, the Aussie judge felt something similar applied to this case.
Of course, the question in my mind is why the litigants didn't let this guy keep going for a while, and use his site as a list of targets to sue; get him as an acessory AFTER you have all of the other cases. I guess filing costs would be too high, probably.
Even with this, it's not clear that the ISP should be held responsible -- it was NOT clear that such hyperlinking was in fact a violation prior to this case.
Of course, as I noted, much of the problem is than it is not also true that anyone is necessarily up for rational debate.
[Faith] is the act of choosing to believe something where certainty is difficult or impossible and the probability of it being true is greater than it not being true, and is perfectly reasonable behavior.
As long as one keeps clear it's only a working hypothesis, and up for periodic re-examination as new evidence arrives, yes. I'd also be a little more cautious with acceptance and more frequent with re-examination where faith determines that others must be made to suffer, but that's a minor quibble. You are correct: it's the Blind faith that's most impeding to rational debate, compromise, and progress.
Now, since we're getting along so well, shall we next try to solve the problems of the Middle East?
I mean, that's really what sexual politics are all about nowadays, isn't it? It's just a bunch of people screaming at each other.
I wouldn't restrict it to only sexual politics.
The "Moral Majority" and other religious groups have substantial influence over right wing Republican politics. Furthermore, their position on issues is often dictated by the doctrine of their faith, which by the very nature of the matter cannot be the subject of rational debate. This in turn leads to many liberals dismissing right wing positions because of the nature of the arguments used to support them, not because the positions are without merit. (Liberals also hold irrational and inarguable attachments to some of their positions, but less often as points of personal religious faith.)
I also feel the situation is further worsened by the religious doctrinal basis for the Religious Right's black-and-white positions, in that it seems to render many of their members incapable of accepting any lesser shades-of-gray compromise position.
I believe there was an article in that hotbed of conservativism, The Atlantic Monthly, that covered the research many years back. [...] Current subscription to TAM required to read online, but I bet your local library has a microfiche or dead-tree version hanging around somewhere.
As far as I can see, the article makes no reference to the need for strong role models per se for both genders. Rather, the emphasis is on the disproportionate impacts on the children for single parents, divorced parents, and the effect of stepparents, as opposed to a stable two-parent household. The first two groups are irrelevant to the question of gay marriage-- although definitely relevant to the larger social debate. I freely concede that a two parent household has major advantanges over single or separate parent households for the raising of children.
The stepparent impact is a more analogous situation, and a more reasonable concern. The case of Gay couples, however, may be somewhere between this and adoptive heterosexual parents who are otherwise unable to have children. A comparison study on how children adopted in infancy turn out versus non-adoptive children might be a useful counter-reference-- and if such a study hasn't been done yet, every sociologist on the planet should be taken out and shot. Now.
In turn, I can't provide an on-line citation, as my recollection was of coverage from a Nightline or similar news show segment on a study about children of gay parents. I suspect the study it covered was either Rafkin or Saffron -- probably the former, from my recollection of the timing. However, the main Google references to these are by various right-wing to a re-analysis by the less-than-impartial "Family Research Institute" -- who were recently classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate group". However, even the excepts given from their respin are not inconsistent with my impressions from that way-back news program, to wit...
First: a stable two parent family is more important than the gender of the parents. Single/divorced parents mean more problems.
Second: yes, children of homosexuals will have to deal with problems from society at large as a result of their parents' homosexuality. I consider bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance to be a problem with society, not with a family per se; saying homosexuals should not marry for this reason is easily analagous to saying interracial couples should not marry for such reasons.
Third: once you factor in economic brackets, the kids turned out much the same as their peers. Homosexuality and bisexuality were more common than with their peers, but still a minority result-- maybe 20%? (Consideration of orientation was universal.)
The teenagers on the show seemed about as well adjusted as any other pack of teens. Of course, how much of that is the magic of television (editing) is an open question.
The legal foundation for discrimination instead of equal protection is "compelling state interest"-- Bradwell v. Illinois, IIR. If reasonably conclusive evidence can be obtained that children of gay marriages turn out worse than hetero marriages, all other factors equal, then a legal foundation can be made to prohibit gay marriage. Lacking that, 14th amendment protection on liberty makes such prohibition... problematic.
Fortunately (?), Canada legalized gay marriage a few years back (2000?). So, there will probably exist an opportunity for better data gathering in a decade or so. In the meanwhile, everyone gets to keep screaming at each other.
And on that second topic, unfortunately the Religious Right's crowing about "Family Values" is right on target.
Mostly on target. Their obsession with heterosexuality gives a narrow miss. When raising kids, it doesn't matter as much the form of the family unit, as that it is a stable and self-sufficient familty unit.
Of course, the tricky part of punishing the irresponsible is making sure that the punishment affects the parent without impeding the development of the child....
Women's naughtier bits are also less obvious than Men's naughty bits, and easier to hide with a slight shift of the leg or an undertrimmed public region.
Boobs gets you at least a PG13 rating; enough of them, on screen sex, or "full frontal" female nudity tends to get an R. Show genitals (penis or labia), you're going to get an NC17 or X rating unless it's really short and nonsexual in context-- in which case you might get away with an R.
Yes, we Americans are, on average, completely whacko. And we invented nuclear weapons! Why the hell haven't the rest of you invented interstellar travel yet???
all content, regardless of how it is accessed must be submitted for rating
Of course, the content in question is not "accessible" by the game being sold, technically. It's only accessible in an (unauthorized?) patched version of the game. Thus, the exact phrasing of that requirement in ESRB rules matters greatly.
Of course, the howling mob will probably try to legislate matters. What ought to happen in a halfway sane and reasonable world is the ESRB should require a more thorough examination of RockStar products for the next couple years, and probably re-write the meaning of "accessible" to preclude this sort of thing. (And in a truly sane and reasonable world, parents would be less offended by the consensual sex than the massive violence in the game. I know for damn certain which I'd rather have my kids fooling with....)
So to clarify, running over people, shooting people, killing police officers, stealing cars, etc. are all okay if you're 17. Consensual sex, on the other hand, you have to be 18 for.
Isn't that more or less how the court system works here in the US?
And they say these games don't reflect society....
Can you be certain that will be true if there's no negative consequence for not doing it?
There are lesser punishments than outright termination. A 30 day unpaid suspension, for example. And perhaps a suspension should also be arranged for whoever was responsible for the deployment of a system that didn't make it difficult to make this sort of costly mistake in the first place.
This is a meaningless gesture, and that will not improve the long-term quality of the organization. Discipline should not be applied with the axe, but the scalpel.
...Third, I haven't seen anything but Brad's claim to date this piece back to 1999; the earliest appearance on the Wayback machine is in 2001, right about when BitTorrent was introduced. If he put both screed and software up on the website at the same time, that somewhat speaks to a present intention.
Can anyone find anything else suggesting this predated 2001?
Slashdot Mirror
Was Lynn only told afterwards to keep quiet about what he found, or did do the security research under terms of a NDA? Cisco might well have gotten an NDA if they provided unusual access to IOS, such as source code. If so, then even if everything you say is true, Cisco may well have been correct in calling the disclosure illegal.
Whether it was ethical, of course, would remain a debatable proposition, but I would judge the burden of proof to shift to require showing that it was ethical, despite the unlawful nature of the act.
Oh, really? So, why does Google Maps work not-at-all on Safari or IdiotExploder for Mac OS X?
True. Of course, there's still a 300-odd G$ deficit, and a seven-point-mumble T$ debt.
The US political system is so stable that nothing short of a nuclear holocaust could pull it apart
You obviously haven't read enough of the "Peak Oil" doomsday scenarios. The general theme: "Inadequate petroleum supplies impact fertilizer and fuel production; with reduced fertilizer availability and increased farm equipment operation (fuel) costs, crop yields go down while prices rise. Fuel costs increases also impact current (diesel trailer) transport systems, impeding local distribution of food supplies. Food shortages and rioting ensue." Enter "peak oil" and "food" into your favorite search engine for colorfully terrified elaborations.
Of course, there's the likelihood of a serious oil war (think "Fallout", not this current localized mess) breaking out when things get that hairy, and that might involve someone throwing nukes around, but "nuclear holocaust" would then be effect of (or shared effect with) the US political collapse, not the cause.
Anyone know the source (and original phrasing) of the quote: "Civilization is only three missed meals away from anarchy?"
Moore's Law type performance growth was relevant at one point to aviation, but that was long ago, and the doubling time was a bit more than 18 months. Moore's Law is an approximation describing the initial (exponential) part of what previous technological developments suggest will eventually be a rough Sigmoid Function. Aviation technology is well into the linear region.
Actually, I would say that the Peter Principle might be more relevant than Moore's Law, both in the organization running the shuttle and in the manner in which the shuttle itself is used. The accidents are merely signs that the shuttle design has been promoted to its level of incompetence. (No, this is not a good thing.)
Perhaps you haven't been following the news for the last several years. Sounds perfectly fundable under the present US administration.
Judging by the way my ceremonial can-o-Spam reacts to a magnet, I would say Irony.
What mechanism causes the groups of descendents (with and without some mutation) to diverge to the point where they can no longer interbreed (like robins and ducks), rather than their descendants continuing to be able to interbreed (like chihuahuas and dobermans)?
Answer: see the article for one such mechanism.
The problem is that they tend by nature also to be moderate in volume.
Not really. They need to be equitable, otherwise there exists a basis for a court to void a contract. An explicit quid pro quo basis (I discussed one example over here) can help prevent that.
They also need to be legal-- IE, you can't promise to do something that would be unlawful in itself.
Like any clause in any contract: by compensating the employee for what they are giving up.
This spring I eavesdropped on a presentation from a lawyer who specializes in this area of the law, given to a bunch of Engineering students in their last year of college. (IANAL) He mentioned a standard NCA clause he was recommending both to employees and to employers. Yes, the employee agrees not to work for a competitor or competing product without company approval for X months. Whether the employee quits or is terminated (weasel wording if felony charges get filed and yield a conviction), each month after leaving the (former) employee demonstrates that
This has the drawback that the company will be paying out real money on a regular basis to keep their trade secrets and market position safe. On the other hand, this gives the company the advantage that the explicit compensation for the NCA makes that part of the contract much less likely to be challenged in court, and all but unbreakable if challenged. For the employee, the added difficulty in finding new work is compensated for by the continued paycheck... each month they to show they are continuing to try to find work. It also means that the (former) employer will not casually assert the NCA to preclude the choice of a new job, because doing so will cost them money.
By creating an explicit Quid Pro Quo, you have the foundation for an equitable contract, to the end benefit of everyone involved.
Don't you find Bush's little joke much more humorous now?
Oh, no, they're not just that.
The U.N. IS a bunch of incompetent politicians, mind you; but they're several other things as well. And, being only human, there are limits to their incompetence. =)
Back in days of yore, Bell Labs and GE R&D did a lot of random research. Not a lot of what they researched made big money. Not all of it even ended up making money for the company that did the research-- many things fell by the wayside, and were picked up by others. But enough things made big money that they fed back into keeping the company profitable.
Google seems to be working in a similar mode. The good news is, this can make big bucks. The bad news is, there's a narrow operating region where this sort of thing works. But it's also very easy to kill. Investors who get too greedy and want to "focus on results", license-obsessed legal teams who think they should milk every dime out of every development instead of letting others who are willing to make innovations profitable also get rich by working really hard, managers who don't understand that if the guy who spends all but two days each year staring out the window admiring the birds also comes up with a billion dollar idea each year on those other two days then they should let the fucker STARE.
And it can be killed at the other end: employees who begin (or start of by) thinking the perks are the point instead of the work; the difficulty in thinning nice people who are not only unproductive but who distract the productive; the problems in maintaining a culture with staff who produce nifty shit, instead of just turning food into shit; and the difficulties of figuring out which ideas are billion dollar babies that should be kept in-house, which are multi-million dollar babies that should be licensed, and which are nifty stuff that you don't see what it's good for, but that you figure someone ought to be able to get rich off of it after enough work-- that you should let go.
They need to do three things:
1) Keep hiring brilliant people.
2) Keep the culture focused on invention and innovation, instead of slothful, litiginous, or short term payoff obsessed. This includes workers, managers, and stockholders.
3) Periodically identify ways to make some money off of some of what they're doing.
What they might do, if really clever, is hire some sociologists and specialists in the history of technology, have them go around and do cultural studies of successful and unsucessful innovation centers to try and isolate important factors, and try to figure out how to subtly encourage a culture that will continue to innovate, rather than turn and stagnate. Make a couple small spin-off research groups, and field test the ideas THERE, so they don't screw up the main company.
And once they isolate the formula,Pinky, they can proceed to take over the world!
IANAL, but a case might be made for aiding and abetting. Presumably, the Aussie judge felt something similar applied to this case.
Of course, the question in my mind is why the litigants didn't let this guy keep going for a while, and use his site as a list of targets to sue; get him as an acessory AFTER you have all of the other cases. I guess filing costs would be too high, probably.
Even with this, it's not clear that the ISP should be held responsible -- it was NOT clear that such hyperlinking was in fact a violation prior to this case.
Check out 64.233.179.104 -- there's all sorts of neat stuff there. Better hurry before the cops shut it down.
"No it isn't! =)
Of course, as I noted, much of the problem is than it is not also true that anyone is necessarily up for rational debate.
[Faith] is the act of choosing to believe something where certainty is difficult or impossible and the probability of it being true is greater than it not being true, and is perfectly reasonable behavior.
As long as one keeps clear it's only a working hypothesis, and up for periodic re-examination as new evidence arrives, yes. I'd also be a little more cautious with acceptance and more frequent with re-examination where faith determines that others must be made to suffer, but that's a minor quibble. You are correct: it's the Blind faith that's most impeding to rational debate, compromise, and progress.
Now, since we're getting along so well, shall we next try to solve the problems of the Middle East?
I wouldn't restrict it to only sexual politics.
The "Moral Majority" and other religious groups have substantial influence over right wing Republican politics. Furthermore, their position on issues is often dictated by the doctrine of their faith, which by the very nature of the matter cannot be the subject of rational debate. This in turn leads to many liberals dismissing right wing positions because of the nature of the arguments used to support them, not because the positions are without merit. (Liberals also hold irrational and inarguable attachments to some of their positions, but less often as points of personal religious faith.)
I also feel the situation is further worsened by the religious doctrinal basis for the Religious Right's black-and-white positions, in that it seems to render many of their members incapable of accepting any lesser shades-of-gray compromise position.
Compromise is necessary in politics, unless continued by other means.
Google search skills are your friends -- reprint.
As far as I can see, the article makes no reference to the need for strong role models per se for both genders. Rather, the emphasis is on the disproportionate impacts on the children for single parents, divorced parents, and the effect of stepparents, as opposed to a stable two-parent household. The first two groups are irrelevant to the question of gay marriage-- although definitely relevant to the larger social debate. I freely concede that a two parent household has major advantanges over single or separate parent households for the raising of children.
The stepparent impact is a more analogous situation, and a more reasonable concern. The case of Gay couples, however, may be somewhere between this and adoptive heterosexual parents who are otherwise unable to have children. A comparison study on how children adopted in infancy turn out versus non-adoptive children might be a useful counter-reference-- and if such a study hasn't been done yet, every sociologist on the planet should be taken out and shot. Now.
In turn, I can't provide an on-line citation, as my recollection was of coverage from a Nightline or similar news show segment on a study about children of gay parents. I suspect the study it covered was either Rafkin or Saffron -- probably the former, from my recollection of the timing. However, the main Google references to these are by various right-wing to a re-analysis by the less-than-impartial "Family Research Institute" -- who were recently classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate group". However, even the excepts given from their respin are not inconsistent with my impressions from that way-back news program, to wit...
The teenagers on the show seemed about as well adjusted as any other pack of teens. Of course, how much of that is the magic of television (editing) is an open question.The legal foundation for discrimination instead of equal protection is "compelling state interest"-- Bradwell v. Illinois, IIR. If reasonably conclusive evidence can be obtained that children of gay marriages turn out worse than hetero marriages, all other factors equal, then a legal foundation can be made to prohibit gay marriage. Lacking that, 14th amendment protection on liberty makes such prohibition... problematic.
Fortunately (?), Canada legalized gay marriage a few years back (2000?). So, there will probably exist an opportunity for better data gathering in a decade or so. In the meanwhile, everyone gets to keep screaming at each other.
Mostly on target. Their obsession with heterosexuality gives a narrow miss. When raising kids, it doesn't matter as much the form of the family unit, as that it is a stable and self-sufficient familty unit.
Of course, the tricky part of punishing the irresponsible is making sure that the punishment affects the parent without impeding the development of the child....
As opposed to unsafe and irresponsible VIOLENCE ?!?
Boobs gets you at least a PG13 rating; enough of them, on screen sex, or "full frontal" female nudity tends to get an R. Show genitals (penis or labia), you're going to get an NC17 or X rating unless it's really short and nonsexual in context-- in which case you might get away with an R.
Yes, we Americans are, on average, completely whacko. And we invented nuclear weapons! Why the hell haven't the rest of you invented interstellar travel yet???
Of course, the content in question is not "accessible" by the game being sold, technically. It's only accessible in an (unauthorized?) patched version of the game. Thus, the exact phrasing of that requirement in ESRB rules matters greatly.
Of course, the howling mob will probably try to legislate matters. What ought to happen in a halfway sane and reasonable world is the ESRB should require a more thorough examination of RockStar products for the next couple years, and probably re-write the meaning of "accessible" to preclude this sort of thing. (And in a truly sane and reasonable world, parents would be less offended by the consensual sex than the massive violence in the game. I know for damn certain which I'd rather have my kids fooling with....)
Isn't that more or less how the court system works here in the US?
And they say these games don't reflect society....
There are lesser punishments than outright termination. A 30 day unpaid suspension, for example. And perhaps a suspension should also be arranged for whoever was responsible for the deployment of a system that didn't make it difficult to make this sort of costly mistake in the first place.
This is a meaningless gesture, and that will not improve the long-term quality of the organization. Discipline should not be applied with the axe, but the scalpel.
Can anyone find anything else suggesting this predated 2001?