Before buying anything in this arena, you really owe it to yourself to spend some time perusing Doug Ritter's Equipped to Survive site. Honest, objective reviews of all the hardware. I'm not affiliated with him in any way.
While the Globe's writeup may be "solid", it implies that a new major ("course") was created 29 years ago, and that's misleading. Yeah, like anybody here cares. But "Linguistics and Philosophy" was just a merger of the pre-existing "Linguistics" and "Philosophy" departments, each with their own major ("course"). Philosophy was 24, I don't remember what Linguistics was. The last completely new major was, I think, well before then.
They may have the ability to track how long it takes from one toll booth to another, but I'd want to see proof of a speeding ticket. I travel the Mass Pike a lot, particularly the western half, where as anyone knows, if you're only going 75mph you better stay to the right and not block traffic, and I've never gotten a ticket the old-fashioned or new-fangled way. I think you'd have to be averaging over 90 to be concerned on that road.
Then it certainly merits a serious answer. I would prefer you not to worship anything, but to consider cases like this on their merits. Consider the general principles, but also think about the implications of those principles in the specific case, particularly where there are apparent conflicts between two ideas that each have some merit in isolation.
This becomes problematic, in the specific case, with implications I certainly am uncomfortable with. What Apple is looking to do is to find who's violating a private contract between itself and (presumably) an employee by going after someone with whom it doesn't have any relationship. But how far does that extend? What if the ThinkSecret guy tells you, and you tell me, and I publish it as a "rumor"? Can they go after you? Me? At what point does that "reasonable expectation" that someone violated a contract evaporate? Ever?
That's why I, for one, prefer, not necessarily worship, the Constitution. It is clear. Yes, I am a strict constructionist. Yes, I recognize that the Founding Fathers probably didn't anticipate trade secrets being spread via the Internet, but to argue that the position they took is somehow irrelevant because of techniological developments is, I think, incorrect. I'd argue that Thomas Paine, for instance, had more in common with today's bloggers that with today's NY Times or Time/Warner. And his sort of journalism is most assuredly what the Founding Fathers were trying to protect.
"Guaranteeing" the reporter sources in the future helps assure that I, as a citizen, will be better informed about the workings of my government. The information that Taricani broadcast was a surveillance videotape showing a highly-placed city employee taking an envelope full of cash from a contractor to assure favorable treatment. The mayor and several of his appointees have been convicted of felonies related to this matter. I have a right to know about this.
(6) "Professional journalist" shall mean one who, for gain or livelihood, is engaged in gathering, preparing, collecting, writing, editing, filming, taping or photographing of news intended for a
newspaper, magazine, news agency, press association or wire service or other professional medium or agency which has as one of its regular
functions the processing and researching of news intended for dissemination to the public; such person shall be someone performing said function either as a regular employee or as one otherwise
professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication.
Freedom of speech also includes the freedom to shut up.
Unfortunately, it doesn't any more, and certainly not in Federal cases. Just ask Jim Taricani, of the NBC affiliate station in Providence, RI, who is now serving six months' house arrest for not revealing a source after being ordered to do so by a Federal judge. The only reason Taricani is not in jail is because he received a heart transplant about 10 years ago and the prison facilities can't adequately guarantee his health. The judge, Ernest Torres, didn't feel comfortable sentencing him to what could be death.
Note that Taricani violated no law, gag order or confidentiality agreement of any kind; his source did, in a case involving governmental corruption.
With a precedent like that, which is about as clear a case as the Founding Fathers could have anticipated, forget any protections any more.
So I know I'm replying to an AC, and a day late, thus there's no chance anybody will ever read this, but I have to set the record straight. What I said in the GP post is correct. I suggest you read, for instance, the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press summary of state and Federal laws on this subject, found here.
As I said, in many jurisdictions in the US it is legal to record telephone conversations with the consent of only one party. If I'm talking to you on the phone (intra-state) in many cases I can legally record the conversation without saying a word to you about it.
In most jurisdictions in the US a phone call can be recorded if at least one of the parties consents to the recording. Assuming you're doing the recording, you probably consent to that. The other side doesn't have to give you permission.
The aforementioned article requires a paid subscription to view, so in the interests of convenience, I'll reproduce it here.
Yeah, uh, I think there's a reason behind the "paid subscription" requirement. If the publishers were interested in your "convenience" they wouldn't have restricted it. I think that's called "copyright".
we should be able to mod articles as well as comments. Start with a half-true myth about QWERTY, then lead right into a naked press release. Puh-leez. What a piece of crap, just like the stupid keyboard that "anonymous" (no wonder) is shilling for.
Replying to myself to amplify, since I rushed the prior post. It's the International Code Council. My mistake, it's non-profit. But if you want, say, the applicable plumbing code for your city or town, there's an extremely high probability it's the ICC's version, which you can only get by paying them.
Well, all (almost all) municipal building and fire codes are like this. It's the law that you build according to code, but the actual codes are published by (and only available from) a profit-making company.
Reminds me of this story, probably apocryphal, that said that Daniel Webster of "Webster's Dictionary"
Not apocryphal, wrong. The Webster of dictionary fame was Noah, not Daniel. Daniel was a congressman from New Hampshire, then from Massachusetts, then Senator from Massachusetts, and later Secretary of State for both (W.H.) Harrison and Fillmore. He was a noted orator, but never wrote a dictionary. Noah was from Connecticut. But "Webster's" as a name in the dictionary sense has long since lost trademark protection, so we can start a flame war about copyrights and trademarks and the RIAA and all that good stuff now.
Our systems did not power cycle, and ran on battery power for 24 hours, but your assertion that "your infrastructure should be such that it never power cycles" is ridiculous
Not at all ridiculous, that's what generators are for. As I said, our data center has lost power once in 20 years.
The right answer is not to simply say that it will never happen.
Read my other post. I never argued that, otherwise I wouldn't have a diesel generator as backup to my UPS, with two different failover mechanisms. Or 24x7 security guards with two different phone systems and printed (on paper, in a binder) emergency instructions in both of the buildings on the property, with a list of contacts ordered by distance from the building and skill set. Or.... you get the picture. The guy I was responding to wasn't talking about contingency planning, he was talking about spending every weekend compensating for crappy servers. That's not "mission-critical", that's a bunch of toys.
Slashdot Mirror
Before buying anything in this arena, you really owe it to yourself to spend some time perusing Doug Ritter's Equipped to Survive site. Honest, objective reviews of all the hardware. I'm not affiliated with him in any way.
While the Globe's writeup may be "solid", it implies that a new major ("course") was created 29 years ago, and that's misleading. Yeah, like anybody here cares. But "Linguistics and Philosophy" was just a merger of the pre-existing "Linguistics" and "Philosophy" departments, each with their own major ("course"). Philosophy was 24, I don't remember what Linguistics was. The last completely new major was, I think, well before then.
They may have the ability to track how long it takes from one toll booth to another, but I'd want to see proof of a speeding ticket. I travel the Mass Pike a lot, particularly the western half, where as anyone knows, if you're only going 75mph you better stay to the right and not block traffic, and I've never gotten a ticket the old-fashioned or new-fangled way. I think you'd have to be averaging over 90 to be concerned on that road.
This becomes problematic, in the specific case, with implications I certainly am uncomfortable with. What Apple is looking to do is to find who's violating a private contract between itself and (presumably) an employee by going after someone with whom it doesn't have any relationship. But how far does that extend? What if the ThinkSecret guy tells you, and you tell me, and I publish it as a "rumor"? Can they go after you? Me? At what point does that "reasonable expectation" that someone violated a contract evaporate? Ever?
That's why I, for one, prefer, not necessarily worship, the Constitution. It is clear. Yes, I am a strict constructionist. Yes, I recognize that the Founding Fathers probably didn't anticipate trade secrets being spread via the Internet, but to argue that the position they took is somehow irrelevant because of techniological developments is, I think, incorrect. I'd argue that Thomas Paine, for instance, had more in common with today's bloggers that with today's NY Times or Time/Warner. And his sort of journalism is most assuredly what the Founding Fathers were trying to protect.
I've posted elsewhere in this topic, but there are ample definitions in the law. Here's one from NY State. Scroll down to Section 79-h (a)(6).
"Guaranteeing" the reporter sources in the future helps assure that I, as a citizen, will be better informed about the workings of my government. The information that Taricani broadcast was a surveillance videotape showing a highly-placed city employee taking an envelope full of cash from a contractor to assure favorable treatment. The mayor and several of his appointees have been convicted of felonies related to this matter. I have a right to know about this.
Bzzzt. No, sorry, but thanks for playing.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech, or of the press ... "
Doesn't cover any particular subject matter, does it?
What would you prefer that we worship? This is a serious question, not a troll.
(6) "Professional journalist" shall mean one who, for gain or livelihood, is engaged in gathering, preparing, collecting, writing, editing, filming, taping or photographing of news intended for a newspaper, magazine, news agency, press association or wire service or other professional medium or agency which has as one of its regular functions the processing and researching of news intended for dissemination to the public; such person shall be someone performing said function either as a regular employee or as one otherwise professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication.
New York State Consolidated Laws, Article 7, Section 79-h (a) (6)
Unfortunately, it doesn't any more, and certainly not in Federal cases. Just ask Jim Taricani, of the NBC affiliate station in Providence, RI, who is now serving six months' house arrest for not revealing a source after being ordered to do so by a Federal judge. The only reason Taricani is not in jail is because he received a heart transplant about 10 years ago and the prison facilities can't adequately guarantee his health. The judge, Ernest Torres, didn't feel comfortable sentencing him to what could be death.
Note that Taricani violated no law, gag order or confidentiality agreement of any kind; his source did, in a case involving governmental corruption.
With a precedent like that, which is about as clear a case as the Founding Fathers could have anticipated, forget any protections any more.
As I said, in many jurisdictions in the US it is legal to record telephone conversations with the consent of only one party. If I'm talking to you on the phone (intra-state) in many cases I can legally record the conversation without saying a word to you about it.
In most jurisdictions in the US a phone call can be recorded if at least one of the parties consents to the recording. Assuming you're doing the recording, you probably consent to that. The other side doesn't have to give you permission.
Yeah, uh, I think there's a reason behind the "paid subscription" requirement. If the publishers were interested in your "convenience" they wouldn't have restricted it. I think that's called "copyright".
SNOBOL is on the bottom of the chart, begetting Icon and Scheme, which sounds about right.
How will this affect my 1934 Leica? Not very much, I'd bet, so please remove the tin-foil hat.
I've found it helps to spell correctly.
we should be able to mod articles as well as comments. Start with a half-true myth about QWERTY, then lead right into a naked press release. Puh-leez. What a piece of crap, just like the stupid keyboard that "anonymous" (no wonder) is shilling for.
Ever hear of "Statistics"? It's a subject you can study in "College". Ever hear of that?
References, please?
Replying to myself to amplify, since I rushed the prior post. It's the International Code Council. My mistake, it's non-profit. But if you want, say, the applicable plumbing code for your city or town, there's an extremely high probability it's the ICC's version, which you can only get by paying them.
Well, all (almost all) municipal building and fire codes are like this. It's the law that you build according to code, but the actual codes are published by (and only available from) a profit-making company.
Not apocryphal, wrong. The Webster of dictionary fame was Noah, not Daniel. Daniel was a congressman from New Hampshire, then from Massachusetts, then Senator from Massachusetts, and later Secretary of State for both (W.H.) Harrison and Fillmore. He was a noted orator, but never wrote a dictionary. Noah was from Connecticut. But "Webster's" as a name in the dictionary sense has long since lost trademark protection, so we can start a flame war about copyrights and trademarks and the RIAA and all that good stuff now.
Not at all ridiculous, that's what generators are for. As I said, our data center has lost power once in 20 years.
"Worrying"? This sounds like a code violation. An electrician can lose his license.
Read my other post. I never argued that, otherwise I wouldn't have a diesel generator as backup to my UPS, with two different failover mechanisms. Or 24x7 security guards with two different phone systems and printed (on paper, in a binder) emergency instructions in both of the buildings on the property, with a list of contacts ordered by distance from the building and skill set. Or.... you get the picture. The guy I was responding to wasn't talking about contingency planning, he was talking about spending every weekend compensating for crappy servers. That's not "mission-critical", that's a bunch of toys.