Was anything more discovered from this?
I would assume the incidents are unrelated, and if we don't hear anything about the SEC packages, they were false alarms.
Not to mention when it's contractors coming and going, new contractor has to seek out previous incumbent for source. The guy who had those files doesn't work for that company anymore.
Surely the same if you get in a car accident in a rental car and are deemed by police to be at fault? You're not responsible for any damage, how dare that rental car company try to come after me for money! How dare they infringe on my rights as a citizen.
Is there potential legal repercussion for reading these documents? I remember the Wikileaks files were off limits because they were still classified, and anyone reading them would be potentially in breach of their clearance.
Would the person who released these be held responsible for any judicial action? Or just the person who obtained them?
Maybe it's just a Monday, and I'm tired, but imagine getting a live feed of these things touring the caves, while listening to some real atmospheric ambient music. I'd post what I'm listening to now, it'd be perfect but I don't want it to be misinterpreted as some kind of plug. Music is one of the few things rarely linked here.
Not quite sure why you lost mod points here. For once we read about a judge doing the ethical thing, just very unfortunate that it is our loss. We can't win huh.
WOOHOOO!!!
I don't really care about the karma here, but there's been so much bad news lately this is rather refreshing.
I'll let the critics speak and explain why this is not as good as it sounds, but FTS it's inspiring.
I agree. Perhaps it was the lack of "direct" competition that let Best Buy relax so much that they didn't realize their business being swept out from under them. Changing technology, online sales, along with poor customer service was surely ignored by the top levels of the organization.
It ends at him expressing beliefs not directly associated with, or contrary to the business paying him. I thought that was pretty clear?
Take for example a pro-athlete, who is paid by a professional sports organization, and who has become rich and famous using the brand of that organization. They acquire millions of devoted followers (think twitter) who are almost obsessed with everything that athlete tweets, hundreds of times per week. Now let's say that athlete tweets something extremely offensive to thousands of people. Is that sports organization not supposed to punish the athlete for his/her comments? Should brands continue endorsing? Otherwise wouldn't it show that by continuing to support this athlete, it somehow aligns with the intentions of the company? Never mind if it wasn't published through an official medium such as a team press release. The association is implied.
I think $200 is a little much. I wish I could subscribe to MLB, NHL streaming for just my local teams for $50/month. NFL games are always broadcast on one of the basic network channels, those come in free. Sports are the main reason I keep paying for cable. $200 / year is ridiculous though because I would much rather go spend money at a bar and watch the game for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Was anything more discovered from this? I would assume the incidents are unrelated, and if we don't hear anything about the SEC packages, they were false alarms.
The ones with blow holes?
But then I'll actually have to work :(
Not to mention when it's contractors coming and going, new contractor has to seek out previous incumbent for source. The guy who had those files doesn't work for that company anymore.
Simple. Hire corporate umpires!
So many rules...
Surely the same if you get in a car accident in a rental car and are deemed by police to be at fault? You're not responsible for any damage, how dare that rental car company try to come after me for money! How dare they infringe on my rights as a citizen.
And those who do know / care already use it.
We need some kind of wedge.
And of course a bit more on the religious fanatic side, abortions etc. Universal healthcare doesn't seem to be in their agenda either.
Is there potential legal repercussion for reading these documents? I remember the Wikileaks files were off limits because they were still classified, and anyone reading them would be potentially in breach of their clearance. Would the person who released these be held responsible for any judicial action? Or just the person who obtained them?
Maybe it's just a Monday, and I'm tired, but imagine getting a live feed of these things touring the caves, while listening to some real atmospheric ambient music. I'd post what I'm listening to now, it'd be perfect but I don't want it to be misinterpreted as some kind of plug. Music is one of the few things rarely linked here.
Not quite sure why you lost mod points here. For once we read about a judge doing the ethical thing, just very unfortunate that it is our loss. We can't win huh.
WOOHOOO!!!
I don't really care about the karma here, but there's been so much bad news lately this is rather refreshing.
I'll let the critics speak and explain why this is not as good as it sounds, but FTS it's inspiring.
I think the ruling was that clients are responsible for the losses.
As a disclaimer he did write "No kidding."
I hope they bring blankets!
Ah yes. I see exactly what you're talking about now.
There was that episode where Marge started hanging out with those "Real housewives" or something. Turns out they were just closet lesbians.
Shocking!
AskJeebes
I agree. Perhaps it was the lack of "direct" competition that let Best Buy relax so much that they didn't realize their business being swept out from under them.
Changing technology, online sales, along with poor customer service was surely ignored by the top levels of the organization.
It ends at him expressing beliefs not directly associated with, or contrary to the business paying him. I thought that was pretty clear? Take for example a pro-athlete, who is paid by a professional sports organization, and who has become rich and famous using the brand of that organization. They acquire millions of devoted followers (think twitter) who are almost obsessed with everything that athlete tweets, hundreds of times per week. Now let's say that athlete tweets something extremely offensive to thousands of people. Is that sports organization not supposed to punish the athlete for his/her comments? Should brands continue endorsing? Otherwise wouldn't it show that by continuing to support this athlete, it somehow aligns with the intentions of the company? Never mind if it wasn't published through an official medium such as a team press release. The association is implied.
If you don't have any kids you may be on your own, especially if your computer dies before you do.
FTFY.
I think $200 is a little much. I wish I could subscribe to MLB, NHL streaming for just my local teams for $50/month. NFL games are always broadcast on one of the basic network channels, those come in free. Sports are the main reason I keep paying for cable. $200 / year is ridiculous though because I would much rather go spend money at a bar and watch the game for free.