Prospective employee's WORK PERFORMANCE should be the measure of employment, not that person's PERSONAL life.
Unless the prospective employee has done something quite public like write a book, it's not possible to gauge their work performance. I have yet to see a bad recommendation from a previous employer, except for the guy that got fired for threatening his boss's wife with rape.
It seems to me like people are looking for a way out of being judged based upon their prior actions. It's not illogical to conclude that if someone is a bad person outside of work, he or she is probably not going to be a good person at work, either.
It's the employer's right to use all available and legal means to determine which employee is best for the job. Being disqualified for having a facebook album dedicated to killing puppies or binge drinking is much more preferable to being disqualified for, say, not being a minority.
Well, that point is covered. From what I understood, they will distribute your data across enough computers so that you'll have instant access to it 99.9999% of the time. That accounts for offline computers, etc.
One, you need a lot more than reasonable doubt in civil court.
Two, "reasonable doubt" is determined by a dozen members of the unwashed masses, who hopefully stayed awake for and believed the confusing ramblings of your expert witness on encryption.
I did, after the sentence you quoted. Or do you not believe that tax burdens and regulatory nonsense hamper free enterprise and market barrier to entry?
So, you want no taxation? Absolutely no regulation? That basically means no government. That's a bit absurd.
Now, don't just make up facts.
What does land size, population size and urban percentage have anything to do with the argument again?
government is only efficient at mobilizing an economy for a single purpose - waging war
The "Free market rules all, regulation is evil" statement that I hear so often on this site has no addressable points. What is the systemic problem that you're implying but not specifying?
Check out the wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article. Especially the telecom section. Its crazy.
Somalia is around 640,000 square kilometers, with a population of around 10 million. About a third of those people live in urban areas. Their private telecommunications rebuild was largely funded by the UN. I think you're comparing apples to oranges, if you're implying that starting up a functional and competitive telco in the U.S. would be anything even remotely close to doing the same in Somalia.
Which policy exactly has the FCC implemented that artificially keeps your text messages at obscene rates?
Or, do you honestly believe that Joe Sixpack will be able to magically skip the billions in infrastructure costs to make his own international network if the FCC wasn't around? Remember, without the FCC, many of these companies would abandon the "common carrier" status, as it would provide them no more benefit.
Information may not be illegal, but shouldn't MISinformation be? It is in some cases already. Shout FIRE in a crowded theater when there isn't one, for example.
That is quite the stretch, there. The crowded theater argument is a poorly worded statement by a judge many years ago that was intended to show that speech could not be protected if the act of speaking it posed imminent danger to those around you.
Google did not provide misinformation. They linked to a story, which was dated to 2002. If I search for anything on the web, chances are half of my results will be at least that old. Nothing on their site states when the stories occurred, only when they were published or updated.
You seem to be trying to place blame on anyone OTHER than the traders. Why? Are you personally involved with the traders who nearly ruined a company through their own greed and negligence?
Should those who "screwup" and cause huge monetary losses to a large number of people be exempt from punishment for that screwup?
I'm not sure if you can attribute the cause of the money loss to anyone but nervous day traders.
Suppose you know that a piece of metal of a certain diameter and thickness will be accepted by a vending machine as a quarter. Are you guilty of a crime if you act upon that information? Of course. You cannot argue that the vending machine is at fault for accepting slugs to secure your innocence.
You also cannot argue that the manufacturer of the piece of metal is at fault.
Slashdot Mirror
It's about as foreign as the NSA's recent wiretapping, I'm sure.
That's what us Americans thought about the Constitution.
Well, those of us who still pay attention.
child porn is not a civil matter.
I was going for the "or something" part mentioned in the GGGP. Such as, I don't know, music and/or movies.
You win.
Pop quiz: What does the kernel use to access hard disks, memory, and whatever other hardware is in your system?
That's the nice thing about having an obscenely common name.
I doubt an HR flunky would even bother Googling "John Smith" or "Bob Jones."
Prospective employee's WORK PERFORMANCE should be the measure of employment, not that person's PERSONAL life.
Unless the prospective employee has done something quite public like write a book, it's not possible to gauge their work performance. I have yet to see a bad recommendation from a previous employer, except for the guy that got fired for threatening his boss's wife with rape.
It seems to me like people are looking for a way out of being judged based upon their prior actions. It's not illogical to conclude that if someone is a bad person outside of work, he or she is probably not going to be a good person at work, either.
It's the employer's right to use all available and legal means to determine which employee is best for the job. Being disqualified for having a facebook album dedicated to killing puppies or binge drinking is much more preferable to being disqualified for, say, not being a minority.
I'd still rather hire someone who didn't drop acid on camera 5 years ago.
HR isn't accounting - if they have a good reason to access social networks they'll most likely get it.
They'll get something, alright.
"Why am I constantly forwarded to Nicole Richie's Myspace page?!?"
"I Told you that MySpace was bad, didn't I?"
Microsoft debugged it on a vista box
Fixed that for you. Signed drivers, and all.
The only thing that should be able to cause a full system crash is a driver. These drivers are signed, so they must have been tested.
The special drivers are still signed by Microsoft. If they weren't it would be quite obvious due to the many "Arte you SURE?" messages.
Well, that point is covered. From what I understood, they will distribute your data across enough computers so that you'll have instant access to it 99.9999% of the time. That accounts for offline computers, etc.
Why would CP freaks use this service? Why not just use TrueCrypt?
Well, there are two caveats to that:
One, you need a lot more than reasonable doubt in civil court.
Two, "reasonable doubt" is determined by a dozen members of the unwashed masses, who hopefully stayed awake for and believed the confusing ramblings of your expert witness on encryption.
Perhaps you missed this.
I doubt whoever watches inbound websites will want to hear you explain your worms.
I did, after the sentence you quoted. Or do you not believe that tax burdens and regulatory nonsense hamper free enterprise and market barrier to entry?
So, you want no taxation? Absolutely no regulation? That basically means no government. That's a bit absurd.
Now, don't just make up facts.
What does land size, population size and urban percentage have anything to do with the argument again?
government is only efficient at mobilizing an economy for a single purpose - waging war
Why did I even bother?
Or, what if you're in the U.K.?
Police: "We want your encryption keys"
Joe: "I don't have them, they're not my files!"
Police: "Think it over in solitary confinement."
It's like RAID for online storage.
Sounds great, but what happens when a massive worm outbreak occurs?
It's not ONE policy, it's and entire system.
The "Free market rules all, regulation is evil" statement that I hear so often on this site has no addressable points. What is the systemic problem that you're implying but not specifying?
Check out the wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article. Especially the telecom section. Its crazy.
Somalia is around 640,000 square kilometers, with a population of around 10 million. About a third of those people live in urban areas. Their private telecommunications rebuild was largely funded by the UN. I think you're comparing apples to oranges, if you're implying that starting up a functional and competitive telco in the U.S. would be anything even remotely close to doing the same in Somalia.
Which policy exactly has the FCC implemented that artificially keeps your text messages at obscene rates?
Or, do you honestly believe that Joe Sixpack will be able to magically skip the billions in infrastructure costs to make his own international network if the FCC wasn't around? Remember, without the FCC, many of these companies would abandon the "common carrier" status, as it would provide them no more benefit.
It's double or triple the cost to send it reliably, at most.
Remember, uncompressed user channels on a POTS land line run at 64kbps.
Information may not be illegal, but shouldn't MISinformation be? It is in some cases already. Shout FIRE in a crowded theater when there isn't one, for example.
That is quite the stretch, there. The crowded theater argument is a poorly worded statement by a judge many years ago that was intended to show that speech could not be protected if the act of speaking it posed imminent danger to those around you.
Google did not provide misinformation. They linked to a story, which was dated to 2002. If I search for anything on the web, chances are half of my results will be at least that old. Nothing on their site states when the stories occurred, only when they were published or updated.
You seem to be trying to place blame on anyone OTHER than the traders. Why? Are you personally involved with the traders who nearly ruined a company through their own greed and negligence?
Should those who "screwup" and cause huge monetary losses to a large number of people be exempt from punishment for that screwup?
I'm not sure if you can attribute the cause of the money loss to anyone but nervous day traders.
Suppose you know that a piece of metal of a certain diameter and thickness will be accepted by a vending machine as a quarter. Are you guilty of a crime if you act upon that information? Of course. You cannot argue that the vending machine is at fault for accepting slugs to secure your innocence.
You also cannot argue that the manufacturer of the piece of metal is at fault.