Now, the program does do much good for the truly handicapped people, but there are very few people who have anything wrong with them, except for their work ethic. paint with a wide brush much?
honestly that's the longest, well ordered list of whiney bullshit I have ever read. enough with the anecedotal feigned outrage and fatalism. Honestly, I respect that your dad is a teacher but you've turned the end-of-the-day venting of a tired man into some kind of fatalistic rant on why teaching is hopeless.
before you get mad at me for calling you out on it, reread your post with tone in mind and try and discern the over all argument.
Anyways, in the interest of saying something positive, I think this program is good intentioned but they need to be really careful to implement it correctly. there is nothing wrong with paying teachers to train as well as higher pay for the subjects that there is a shortage of, but they need to be sure the incentive isnt so big as to be polarizing.
it happens from time to time but slashdot has pretty good system to keep the mods honest (unlike digg or some other such nonsense sites). The karma system hands out mod points to those with good karma more often than those without, as well as the meta moderating which (i think) performfs a similar function. wrongs tend to get righted quickly, and overall it's probably one of the better systems anyone could come up with imho.
thanks for the clarification, I'm curious about those state laws, I think I may have a look on findlaw.com if i get some time. It seems to make sense to me that this would be considered a criminal enterprise(and I can see why they used it) if the act of distributing someone else IP is a crime, though I disagree that copyright infringment should be anything more than a civil offense at best.
I would think confiscation would be something that they do but auctioning someone's property before a conviction would be grounds for a constitutional challange to the law wouldn't it?
You're assuming this was not his first offense, that fact is disputed by the parties involved. Honestly I really don't know, there are so many possible mitigating circumstances here. It wasnt porn, it was a chat room, someone else sat down at his machine to discover TEXT that was objectionable, other employees alledgedly had received different treatment, he was 6 months from retirement, has PTSD, and so on and so fourth. Personally, I dont know what to think, to side with this guy or not. But my guess is he has few friends at the moment because of knee jerk reactions from people who are like "well shit i would have been canned in 0.02 seconds for watching midget pr0n." That isnt the facts of this case and it's willfully ignorant. Personally I hope the facts come out and justice prevails but i find it a shitty thing to do to someone to take away thier retirement savings. after 20 years I would expect a little UNDERSTANDING and LOYALTY from a company I had devoted my life to. This isnt an episode of The Appretice. people arent perfect, and perhaps this guy screwed up, but can you honestly say this is what he deserved?
Nevertheless, my post wasnt so much about this specific situation as the great grandparent's post saying that companies should troll thier employees close to retirement to screw them out of pensions for stealing a stapler.
I think it's important to let the punishment fit the crime. If violating a computer use policy is all that it takes to get fired and lose a pension, then that isnt a very nice company in my opinion. I'm not saying this guy is correct, but I dont think I would ever want to work for a company that cheats people out of thier pensions for minor infractions and watches them closely at the end of thier career for any little slip up. That's just plain wrong.
um ok karma police. the AC below mine regarding moderation is me but the others arent. but that's because i didnt wanna get double whammy of downwards moderation for the one comment, either way this is now pretty rediculous and offtopic and wouldn't have a proplem with it being moderated as such. But hey, thanks for taking time out of your sunday for the accusation.
Accoring to the article he was discovered by a fellow employee but I think questions still remain and the case isnt as open and shut (and funny) as it first appears.
Well I think your right in that IBM has a legal advantage here but I feel bad for this guy. It's pretty rough to lose a pension for entering a chat room after 19 years of service. It may not be that he wasnt doing his job either, because he may have done it durring lunch break. The point I was making is that, on the surface i thought this was pretty funny too, but it's important not to jump to conclusions based on how rediculous a case sounds. I think the PTSD is legally a weak argument but if IBMs policy states you cant visit pornagraphy websites, and he was on yahoo chat, then it isnt obvious he was violating any policy. Suppose he was visiting wired sex tech article, or a sex-relationship blog without pictures? Just food for thought. I'm not saying the guy is right, just let's not lynch him before all the evidence is in.
Not only did you misrepresent the defense of the man stated in the article (it was sexually explicit chat rooms, not pr0n) but im glad our legal system doesnt have a "if it fails the straight face test" clause.
Well he denies the previous warning and I imagine the "im a victim of internet addiction" is a little bit of legal smoke and mirrors but it's not impossible for someone with PTSD. Either way though this guy was 6 months shy of retirement and with IBM's track-record of less than perfect dealings with retirees pensions, I think there is more to this story than we can gather from the CNN article. I think it would be interesting to know if someone reported him because they were bothered by what they saw on his screen or if some HR manager asked IT to troll through his internet connection logs looking for something incriminating.
The article seems to be a tool for CIOs to educate CEOs. But I like your "I-didn't-read-the-article-but- im-going-to-feign-indignance-anyways" thing you got going there.
Who says the free market leads to freedom? It leads to competition, which in theory leads to the highest productivity and, also in theory, the overall standard of living improves. I'm not saying these are correct theories, but if anyone is telling you that X economic theory leads to Y political benefit, then they are comparing apples to oranges with smoke and mirrors;)
Still, your comment, and most of the replies, remind me of Marxism (who im just now reading for the first time). One of the things that strikes me about it, is that it's very poetic and philisophical (like your post) and emotionaling riling, but the details, the practical methods seem lacking. So my question to you is this: what would be a viable alternative to free markets? bonus points if you can say it in a short simple statement.
Whoever modded you offtopic is an idiot. period. what the fuck is going on where people claim to identify pipe bombs in 1st grade are getting modded insightful?
as far as i know you can call me a big doo doo head all you want. but what you cant say is that my post is "killing babies in 3rd world contries" (who knew my post had that kind of power?). The point is though just because the lawsuits would be baseless if the spammer really -did- spam, that isnt something that has prevented someone from suing and pretending they arent a spammer to win damages and intimidate the anti-spam community.
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. In criminal law, he or she is presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; whereas in civil law, he or she is presumed innocent until the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities. However, in defamation tort, this burden of proof is reversed: the defendant has the burden to prove the truth of the defamatory communication. The plaintiff only has the burden of proving that the publisher made the statement and that the statement was defamatory, the untruth of that statement is then presumed.
# Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.
I wonder if it's just a matter of time before someone sues them for defamation. But still a good thing they are doing. the more pressure on spammers the better.
Well one of the touted benefits of such a system is that if a person is rushed into an emergency room without thier chip/whatever, having a centralized database could inform the doctor that they are allergic to penicilan or some such simlimar scenario. I'm not saying I agree that this is a true and fully realized benefit though. just submitting this as a question... (basically devil's advocate curiosity) wondering how that need is balanced versus privacy.
i think a bot is just a virus/trojan/rootkit in terms of dectection/removal. I think it's named "bot" is more because of it's function. ex: sleeping and waiting for commands from the bad guy to start spamming email.
What makes this better than me simply typing my credit card number into the secure web site of an online store (or have I missed the intended purpose)?
it lets you enter your card into that phishing site you fell for faster
Slashdot Mirror
Can I skip all that complicated stuff and just "Fester about the injustice." ?
honestly that's the longest, well ordered list of whiney bullshit I have ever read. enough with the anecedotal feigned outrage and fatalism. Honestly, I respect that your dad is a teacher but you've turned the end-of-the-day venting of a tired man into some kind of fatalistic rant on why teaching is hopeless.
before you get mad at me for calling you out on it, reread your post with tone in mind and try and discern the over all argument.
Anyways, in the interest of saying something positive, I think this program is good intentioned but they need to be really careful to implement it correctly. there is nothing wrong with paying teachers to train as well as higher pay for the subjects that there is a shortage of, but they need to be sure the incentive isnt so big as to be polarizing.
it happens from time to time but slashdot has pretty good system to keep the mods honest (unlike digg or some other such nonsense sites). The karma system hands out mod points to those with good karma more often than those without, as well as the meta moderating which (i think) performfs a similar function. wrongs tend to get righted quickly, and overall it's probably one of the better systems anyone could come up with imho.
thanks for the clarification, I'm curious about those state laws, I think I may have a look on findlaw.com if i get some time. It seems to make sense to me that this would be considered a criminal enterprise(and I can see why they used it) if the act of distributing someone else IP is a crime, though I disagree that copyright infringment should be anything more than a civil offense at best.
I would think confiscation would be something that they do but auctioning someone's property before a conviction would be grounds for a constitutional challange to the law wouldn't it?
and ironicly, not unlike the posts you are replying too.
Nevertheless, my post wasnt so much about this specific situation as the great grandparent's post saying that companies should troll thier employees close to retirement to screw them out of pensions for stealing a stapler.
very well said
I think it's important to let the punishment fit the crime. If violating a computer use policy is all that it takes to get fired and lose a pension, then that isnt a very nice company in my opinion. I'm not saying this guy is correct, but I dont think I would ever want to work for a company that cheats people out of thier pensions for minor infractions and watches them closely at the end of thier career for any little slip up. That's just plain wrong.
um ok karma police. the AC below mine regarding moderation is me but the others arent. but that's because i didnt wanna get double whammy of downwards moderation for the one comment, either way this is now pretty rediculous and offtopic and wouldn't have a proplem with it being moderated as such. But hey, thanks for taking time out of your sunday for the accusation.
Accoring to the article he was discovered by a fellow employee but I think questions still remain and the case isnt as open and shut (and funny) as it first appears.
Well I think your right in that IBM has a legal advantage here but I feel bad for this guy. It's pretty rough to lose a pension for entering a chat room after 19 years of service. It may not be that he wasnt doing his job either, because he may have done it durring lunch break. The point I was making is that, on the surface i thought this was pretty funny too, but it's important not to jump to conclusions based on how rediculous a case sounds. I think the PTSD is legally a weak argument but if IBMs policy states you cant visit pornagraphy websites, and he was on yahoo chat, then it isnt obvious he was violating any policy. Suppose he was visiting wired sex tech article, or a sex-relationship blog without pictures? Just food for thought. I'm not saying the guy is right, just let's not lynch him before all the evidence is in.
Not only did you misrepresent the defense of the man stated in the article (it was sexually explicit chat rooms, not pr0n) but im glad our legal system doesnt have a "if it fails the straight face test" clause.
Thanks for the insight, Anonymous Coward.
Well he denies the previous warning and I imagine the "im a victim of internet addiction" is a little bit of legal smoke and mirrors but it's not impossible for someone with PTSD. Either way though this guy was 6 months shy of retirement and with IBM's track-record of less than perfect dealings with retirees pensions, I think there is more to this story than we can gather from the CNN article. I think it would be interesting to know if someone reported him because they were bothered by what they saw on his screen or if some HR manager asked IT to troll through his internet connection logs looking for something incriminating.
I just can't buy your argument here that anyone would ever willingly pirate Epic Movie.
78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The article seems to be a tool for CIOs to educate CEOs . But I like your "I-didn't-read-the-article-but- im-going-to-feign-indignance-anyways" thing you got going there.
Still, your comment, and most of the replies, remind me of Marxism (who im just now reading for the first time). One of the things that strikes me about it, is that it's very poetic and philisophical (like your post) and emotionaling riling, but the details, the practical methods seem lacking. So my question to you is this: what would be a viable alternative to free markets? bonus points if you can say it in a short simple statement.
+1 funny ass ninja maybe but insightful? pfft.
as far as i know you can call me a big doo doo head all you want. but what you cant say is that my post is "killing babies in 3rd world contries" (who knew my post had that kind of power?). The point is though just because the lawsuits would be baseless if the spammer really -did- spam, that isnt something that has prevented someone from suing and pretending they arent a spammer to win damages and intimidate the anti-spam community.
for more on defamation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
Burden of proof on the defendantIn most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. In criminal law, he or she is presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; whereas in civil law, he or she is presumed innocent until the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities. However, in defamation tort, this burden of proof is reversed: the defendant has the burden to prove the truth of the defamatory communication. The plaintiff only has the burden of proving that the publisher made the statement and that the statement was defamatory, the untruth of that statement is then presumed.
# Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.I wonder if it's just a matter of time before someone sues them for defamation. But still a good thing they are doing. the more pressure on spammers the better.
Well one of the touted benefits of such a system is that if a person is rushed into an emergency room without thier chip/whatever, having a centralized database could inform the doctor that they are allergic to penicilan or some such simlimar scenario. I'm not saying I agree that this is a true and fully realized benefit though. just submitting this as a question... (basically devil's advocate curiosity) wondering how that need is balanced versus privacy.
i think a bot is just a virus/trojan/rootkit in terms of dectection/removal. I think it's named "bot" is more because of it's function. ex: sleeping and waiting for commands from the bad guy to start spamming email.
it lets you enter your card into that phishing site you fell for faster