I want incorrect, out of date or otherwise objectionable material removed from the Internet (yes, I know that's a tall order). So I depend on search engines like Google to find it for me. And then I can go after the sites hosting it. If you break Google (and other public search engines), people will still be able to find the information.
It doesn't take that much effort to find sites that host personal data and then search within each of them to look up dirt on someone. And there are aggregator sites that compile such data.
IANAL, but the process would be something like this: Copyright owner sends take down notice. Service owner fails to comply. Copyright owner files civil suit and court orders civil penalties, including an order to take content down. Service owner still doesn't comply and can now be held in contempt of court (criminal offense).
Some sort of structure that, when placed in the path of wind, produces a clockwise rotation in it (opposite that of cyclonic rotation). Ideally, these could be built as earthworks in the path tornadoes take to approach high value targets (towns, etc). If the earthworks could be built low and wide, the land could still be used for agriculture.
I'll leave the details to actual mechanical and civil engineers. And collect my patent fees per the usual USPTO process.
... I'd drag the broadcasters into court for cutting off a potential group of customers from my content.
The broadcaster want it all their way: Tell the networks and producers that they don't have the viewers so they can hold the price down on content. And then collect fees from people who come up with schemes to increase the viewer base. Meanwhile, sell ad time to local businesses based on the largest viewer base estimate possible.
I have a Gray Hoverman UHF antenna on my house. I can pick up stations as far away as 75 miles. And I've installed a few of these for some friends. Broadcasters should be lining up to sue me and keep me from increasing their viewer base.
Not true at all for the FBI.
The FBI locks people up
Minor distinction: The FBI (and local cops) apprehend suspects. And place them in custody on behalf of the court system. The courts are the ones who officially 'lock them up'. Or release them.
But the cops' primary metric is arrests. If the prosecutor can't make a case, they just blame it on soft judges and sympathetic juries. Of course, the police and prosecutor work for the same politicians. So send enough bad cases to the court and eventually the city council will have to dope slap the chief of police.
I know of a guy who is on our local police department's 'watch list'. Because he pissed off someone on the city council and they told the police chief to lean on him. Now the cops are never going to build a case (most of them know the case is bogus). But according to my cop source, they get credit for keeping this guy on the books. So they do. There are no points taken off for putting a name on a list and not being able to develop a case for 10 years. On the other hand, they can get budget based on the length of that list.
Give them a dump of cell phone records and they could probably justify an entire department chasing down babysitter's phone numbers.
Oh, and the NSA doesn't kill people. They subcontract that out to the CIA. So if someone fucks up, the NSA didn't pull the trigger. And the CIA can just blame it on devective intel.
The NSA, FBI and local cops are well beyond caring about what the courts or Congress thinks. If our legal system had any teeth in it, this might be different. But if all the courts are going to do is say, "We have ruled. Fail to comply and we will issue another ruling." the cops are just going to ROTFL.
In my experience, telecommuters as a whole are only a fraction as productive as in-office workers. Notice I said as a whole - there is the rare telecommuter who is more productive. But most are not. So I completely understand corporate policy that lights fires under telecommuters' butts. It's what I would do if I were the boss.
Perhaps that is a shortcoming of your management. If they can't measure workers productivity effectively then they can't cut the slackers. But in my experience, this problem applies to those in an office as well as telecommuters.
There are more distractions at home. There is a natural tendency to spread the work over a larger period of time because you can, and because the aforementioned distractions make that appealing.
Maybe so. But this is a matter of time management. Its my day and I'll use it as I see fit. If I need a break while at home, I'll do some house work or go shopping. But its up to me to budget my time. The upside being that I don't have some boss wondering what I'm up to at the moment.
The upside of telecommuting is that, assuming management can weed out the underperformers, those that are left have only their work output to speak for themselves. None of the social pecking order and politics that "the spirit of comeraderie" implies. So that makes a broader spectrum of employees available to the organization. There is no need to fit in on a day to day basis. Nobody cares if I don't participate in the office football pool.
everyone gives you the stink-eye, if you head for the door before 6PM.
Look at Yahoo! and their recent policy on telecommuting. It used to be you'd get your assignment done. Whether it takes you 30, 40 or 50 hours per week, nobody will know. Now, you've got to make your appearance at the office where everyone judges you by seat time instead of productivity.
You can land the best job, but when some asshat takes over as boss, it's all over.
Like Seattle. Jack up prices on public parking. Convert it to bike lanes. When some businessman wants to paint a few white lines on his already paved property, turn him down*. And then when parking becomes scarce, let the Private Parking Mafia grab up evey vacant lot and set up business there.
*City council got bit in the ass some years back when an (infamous) businesman paid them $30K under the table for a permit. They got caught, he got is $30K back, a slap on the hand and the permit he wanted anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Potpourri is evil.
I want incorrect, out of date or otherwise objectionable material removed from the Internet (yes, I know that's a tall order). So I depend on search engines like Google to find it for me. And then I can go after the sites hosting it. If you break Google (and other public search engines), people will still be able to find the information.
It doesn't take that much effort to find sites that host personal data and then search within each of them to look up dirt on someone. And there are aggregator sites that compile such data.
Hungarian bubble sort
This is stretching the definition of charitable.
Yes. Here you go
"TheJudgeWasInOnIt"
My encrypted volume password: "IPleadTheFifth".
IANAL, but the process would be something like this: Copyright owner sends take down notice. Service owner fails to comply. Copyright owner files civil suit and court orders civil penalties, including an order to take content down. Service owner still doesn't comply and can now be held in contempt of court (criminal offense).
No new law needed.
Some sort of structure that, when placed in the path of wind, produces a clockwise rotation in it (opposite that of cyclonic rotation). Ideally, these could be built as earthworks in the path tornadoes take to approach high value targets (towns, etc). If the earthworks could be built low and wide, the land could still be used for agriculture.
I'll leave the details to actual mechanical and civil engineers. And collect my patent fees per the usual USPTO process.
The broadcaster want it all their way: Tell the networks and producers that they don't have the viewers so they can hold the price down on content. And then collect fees from people who come up with schemes to increase the viewer base. Meanwhile, sell ad time to local businesses based on the largest viewer base estimate possible.
I have a Gray Hoverman UHF antenna on my house. I can pick up stations as far away as 75 miles. And I've installed a few of these for some friends. Broadcasters should be lining up to sue me and keep me from increasing their viewer base.
Internet connected smart home devices solve this problem.
PtP connected devices make more sense. I don't need a middleman to turn my home's thermostat down.
n/a
Not true at all for the FBI.
The FBI locks people up
Minor distinction: The FBI (and local cops) apprehend suspects. And place them in custody on behalf of the court system. The courts are the ones who officially 'lock them up'. Or release them.
But the cops' primary metric is arrests. If the prosecutor can't make a case, they just blame it on soft judges and sympathetic juries. Of course, the police and prosecutor work for the same politicians. So send enough bad cases to the court and eventually the city council will have to dope slap the chief of police.
I know of a guy who is on our local police department's 'watch list'. Because he pissed off someone on the city council and they told the police chief to lean on him. Now the cops are never going to build a case (most of them know the case is bogus). But according to my cop source, they get credit for keeping this guy on the books. So they do. There are no points taken off for putting a name on a list and not being able to develop a case for 10 years. On the other hand, they can get budget based on the length of that list.
Give them a dump of cell phone records and they could probably justify an entire department chasing down babysitter's phone numbers.
Oh, and the NSA doesn't kill people. They subcontract that out to the CIA. So if someone fucks up, the NSA didn't pull the trigger. And the CIA can just blame it on devective intel.
They didn't have enough power to push that article off the Reuters server out to Slashdot until now.
The NSA, FBI and local cops are well beyond caring about what the courts or Congress thinks. If our legal system had any teeth in it, this might be different. But if all the courts are going to do is say, "We have ruled. Fail to comply and we will issue another ruling." the cops are just going to ROTFL.
Although there is often the "shit, video conference in 5 minutes, no trousers" moment.
Sit behind a desk. Shirt, tie, and nobody needs to know what's down below. Or what isn't.
In my experience, telecommuters as a whole are only a fraction as productive as in-office workers. Notice I said as a whole - there is the rare telecommuter who is more productive. But most are not. So I completely understand corporate policy that lights fires under telecommuters' butts. It's what I would do if I were the boss.
Perhaps that is a shortcoming of your management. If they can't measure workers productivity effectively then they can't cut the slackers. But in my experience, this problem applies to those in an office as well as telecommuters.
There are more distractions at home. There is a natural tendency to spread the work over a larger period of time because you can, and because the aforementioned distractions make that appealing.
Maybe so. But this is a matter of time management. Its my day and I'll use it as I see fit. If I need a break while at home, I'll do some house work or go shopping. But its up to me to budget my time. The upside being that I don't have some boss wondering what I'm up to at the moment.
The upside of telecommuting is that, assuming management can weed out the underperformers, those that are left have only their work output to speak for themselves. None of the social pecking order and politics that "the spirit of comeraderie" implies. So that makes a broader spectrum of employees available to the organization. There is no need to fit in on a day to day basis. Nobody cares if I don't participate in the office football pool.
Whoo, hoo! Co-ed locker rooms!
everyone gives you the stink-eye, if you head for the door before 6PM.
Look at Yahoo! and their recent policy on telecommuting. It used to be you'd get your assignment done. Whether it takes you 30, 40 or 50 hours per week, nobody will know. Now, you've got to make your appearance at the office where everyone judges you by seat time instead of productivity.
You can land the best job, but when some asshat takes over as boss, it's all over.
Like Seattle. Jack up prices on public parking. Convert it to bike lanes. When some businessman wants to paint a few white lines on his already paved property, turn him down*. And then when parking becomes scarce, let the Private Parking Mafia grab up evey vacant lot and set up business there.
*City council got bit in the ass some years back when an (infamous) businesman paid them $30K under the table for a permit. They got caught, he got is $30K back, a slap on the hand and the permit he wanted anyway.
You can't sell something you don't own.
Well, there goes my idea for this neat innovation I was going to call short stock sales.