"Then I don't know what can. We need more information like this to come out because when dealing with elections, the last thing we need--but apparently the opposition wants--is for some kind of shennanigans elecing the wrong person."
I don't know why so many people act like it's unthinkable to discard a flawed election and start over with a new one. In the case of a presidential election, the term expires, the Speaker of the House takes over, and stays in charge until a president and vice president is elected. Alternatively, if the election in a state is flawed, then the legislature of that state still has authority to choose its electors by any means they can agree on, provided they are not further constrained by state laws.
This is far from unthinkable, it's actually spelled out in the Constitution.
>The only way a good ol conspiracy vote could happen is if the hacker got a load of money from a candidate.
The conspiracy begins and ends with the company making these flawed voting systems being a major player in the politics of the currently dominant party.
>How many ways are there to say "this system sucks?"
Not enough to actually provoke election officials to not use them, now during the primaries, or in November during the elections. I think someone will have to *actually* exploit these machines to the point that a minor party candidate is elected to office as a result. Or, perhaps better, so that the results are so obviously flawed that the numbers *cannot* be accepted, and then some state has to deal with the fact that they have no representatives in Congress for a term.
Everybody who ever touched any phase of a voting machine design and development, should approach election day with *at least* the amount of concern for the success of their product -- and the future of their careers -- as a NASA flight crew.
Probably moreso. The people who worked on these voting machines should be going to prison for the rest of their lives because of their failure. That means *everybody*, not just the lackeys who were late picking up the corrupted memory cards or whatever happened in the Maryland primary.
As with any civil case, the cost of a defense tends to be *far* higher if you are guilty, that is, if the plaintiff has evidence that suggests you are actually responsible for the damage being claimed.
When you hear about expensive lawsuit defenses, where people try to scare you out of the idea of even *trying* to defend yourself, you generally do not hear it from someone who is clearly in no way responsible for the damage being claimed. In fact, you usually hear it from someone who is actually guilty but still wants to avoid the consequences of being found guilty.
"Well, where I come from, we invite the whole village for a feast that lasts 4 days. There is great rejoicing and festivity. Meals are prepared at home for the 400-odd people who turn up."
Wonderful; it sounds like fun.
Does it *require* taking a loan?
Do you universally frame it in terms of "getting your children married?"
Vietnam vets I know, and that includes a large number of people, tell me otherwise.
I agree the Tonkin Gulf incident was fabricated, but then, I think we should have really acted around the time of the Diem assassination.
As for the Iraq war being based on lies, do you maintain that Hussein had complied with all of the sixteen UN resloutions he was charged with violating? I do not agree with the manner in which the Iraq war has been conducted, but most of the arguments against it dive into territory where I do not agree.
For example, I don't follow your line of reasoning about members of Congress and impeachment. You would need to make a genuine case for impeachment and I have yet to see one. *Maybe* the wiretapping/FISA argument gets there. And just maybe, the whole secret-prisons-torture thing gets there as well.
But you lose me quickly if you ask me to accept the case for impeachment as a foregone conclusion. My standards for evidence are very high -- as they should be for a judge or a member of congress.
I know of no Congressperson who is genuinely enetertaining the prospect of introducing a bill to impeach the President. Do you? Are there even any *candidates* for Congress with broad appeal who have gone on record with such a plan?
Of course they had round trip tickets, but the situation was that they were *fired* weeks before their assignment was completed. But hotel and meal expenses are accrued and reimbursed -- which is a difficult enough process for *current* employees. So they had to either pay out-of pocket for lodging until their ticket date, or else pay out-of-pocket for an earlier ticket, and had exposed a lot of card debt for the trip already that had not been reimbursed.
To be fair, my friend did try to make a vacation out of the extra days he had to spend in HK, but he also had the opportunity cost of being suddenly out of work, and stuck in HK when he needed to be looking for the next job. I think it would have been appropriate to pay their expenses immediately, and to arrange for the return trip, but they did not. They were positively brutal about the whole thing.
Tell me, have you not read a dozen or more reports of the "screw your neighbor" culture that is Intel?
"Lol, I call bullshit. You're full of it, the idea that they would try to fire someone away on a business trip without paying return is nonsense, especially since return tickets would already have been purchased."
They did. It happened to a friend of mine in 2000. Believe it or don't, but I'm not going to name names. The guy it happened to is a longtime slashdotter, and if he wants to tell you his story, he can.
But it's not bullshit, it's the truth. I'm sure they were eventually compensated for their return trip, but they had to pay it from their own pockets initially. They had to decide between expensive short-notice tickets or expensive lodging to stay until their return ticket date.
This is far from the only Intel horror story; why call "bullshit?"
Seems like it sometimes. I have a room filled with aquariums and a significant part of my life is devoted to the minutiae of water quality:-)
>How, exactly, does a private citizen go about legally ordering covert surveillance of another private citizen?
He does not! But this was not "covert surveillance" by any legally justifiable definition!
They were NOT wiretapping. They were mining data that they were entitled to inspect, by all accounts I've read so far.
Dunn is not being charged with any crime. When this changes, I will adjust my position accordingly.
>Would you feel differently if your employee decided to surveill your personal, out of work conversations?!
I would be offended. But be specific please: Would these records be lawfully in their possession, or would they have violated federal wiretap laws, or would my telephone service provider have violated their privacy policy by providing such data? If so, I would have a serious problem, and I would surely be demanding that the Attorney General press criminal charges. together with my own suit.
But if Dunn violated any law, please cite the law that was violated. No report that I have read so far, does any such thing.
The Newsweek article teases the subject with this: "Last week California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he has decided a crime was committed, though he hasn't concluded by whom."
But I want chapter and verse; this isn't good enough. I want to know if it's a federal or California law, if it's a felony, or if it's merely a damage that can be claimed in civil court.
Newsweek irresponsibly quotes the AG, and leaves it at that. Some people hear "capital crime of high treason", others hear "arguably actionable civil case between the customer and the phone company."
Which "crime" is it, specifically, what is the evidence, and who would be named as defendants? (These may be trivial details to some, but to me they are *everything* important about the case.)
It might be different if I owned any HP stock but my relationship with that company ended with the discontinuation of the HP32S.
>Well said, in fact under the UCMJ a soldier MUST disobey an illegal order (aka shoot the prisoners).
I've known former soldiers who have reported different experiences with this. Some, including an officer who had graduated from the US Military Academy, told me about drills that were more-or-less routine, where illegal orders would be given (with relatively mundane consequences) and if the cadet followed the order, he would have faile the test and would be disciplined for it.
Others have told me that the actual situation is that you follow orders, period, without question. So I basically have an artillery man in one ear with one story, and a commissioned officer in the other ear, with a completely different story.
I would expect the latter to be the more common case. The idea of refusing to follow an order certainly does not occur to the typical enlisted man, who would consider the consequences to be too severe to even entertain the notion, but then, it's not a situation the average enlisted man encounters anyway, My Lai's and Hadithas being vanishingly rare.
So by analogy, the issues raised by this subject don't matter, because nobody should really be hiring anyone in the first place?
What if my time is worth $200/hour? No matter how "technically inclined" I may happen to be, it is still rational to pay a professional specialist to fix something as nasty as a leaky sewer pipe. So you didn't really answer my question at all. Do you wait for his drug test and TRW to come in, while shit leaks all over your floor, or do you let him fix the damned pipe?
The young, let's say recent college grads, have maybe one or two large-ish debts. Older, mid-career guys -- and moreso for men than women -- have many more opportunities to miss a payment or default on a loan or go bankrupt or be unemployed for years at a stretch.
Women, believe it or not, frequently get married in their early twenties, and even though they generally work for a living, they often depend at least in part on their husband's income, and of course, the pressure of the debt often falls on the man.
So a credit check as a reason not to hire, discriminates with a bias against older males.
Now, I personally hope to not find myself interviewing for any job where they would be looking for reasons not to hire me after they had me on their hook. I know from experience as the one doing the hiring, that it is very expensive and time consuming to get someone good in the door. The more mature folks often have credit and tax issues. The more creative folks often wouldn't pass a drug test. Some of the most passionate workers are also people who would never be inclined to follow a dress code or even a strict schedule.
Here is a thought for you: Your sewer pipe is leaking and flooding your basement. The plumber is at the door. Do you spend the time to check his citizenship status, do a drug test, run his TRW, measure his hair length, and evaluate his tattoos, or do you let him fix your leaky sewer pipe?
A place that has the luxury of looking for reasons to disqualify otherwise qualified applicants, clearly doesn't need their help that badly to begin with... meaning, if they can drag their feet about hiring, they can also swiftly lay off... Think about it!
If my shop needed a sysadmin or a C programmer, it means we would be replacing someone with at least 15 years experience. We pay well, but even so, it is often very difficult to get someone qualified in the door. We may *wish* we had so much demand that we could look for arbitrary reasons to cut down the number of applicants, but it isn't ever the case. (I realize there will doubtless be a dozen slashdot posts from unemployed admins and C programmers with tons of experience, but where were you when my company was looking for you???)
Enough of this, I gotta go prune my mesquite trees.
You think it's easy to move to one of these healthcare utopias, get resident status sufficient to benefit from the infrastructure, or even get a job there? It's almost impossible! It's hardly a *choice* that someone born in the US, stays in the US.
In this world of cheap international shipping, instantaneous global communication, and simple payment systems, how is it even possible to release a product into one market and not have it reach another?
If they release in the USA, and people in Europe want it, what stops them from simply mail ordering from some US retailer, or for that matter, simply travelling to the US, picking it up in a store, and going home?
Also, won't Vista be on MSDN? Just get a MSDN subscription. Problem solved.
"Difference is that Vista is a replacement for their current product. When someone wants to buy an OS from MS, Vista is the thing they will get."
I think it's premature and inaccurate to predict the disappearance of the Server products or even XP.
There are more installed copies of Windows XP right now, than there had ever been copies of all other desktop OS's put together before XP. (I'm not sure which embedded system currently has the overall title for that.)
"This isn't a beta; this is a release candidate. Despite the feedback from beta testers who wanted a Beta 3 or at least an RC2, Microsoft has released RC1 and already forked an RTM branch off of it. It's full-steam ahead with this thing."
Let's keep in mind that this is the company that survived after releasing Bob and Windows ME.
>It's a nice upscale facility. (that, according to the state of california, may cause cancer).
It would be more useful if the warning specified the chemical. Probably asbestos? At least Prop65 required disclosure. Before that you could make infant toys out of the whole Actinide series and not be required to disclose it...
"maybe I can interest you in a 100 acre farm that's off the grid"
Do you think your way of unplugging from society and civil infrastructure could be part of what's prevented you from gaining citizenship or permanent resident status?
Slashdot Mirror
On just about every show, these guys do stuff with shop tools without safety glasses, essentially documenting an OSHA violation and broadcasting it.
"Then I don't know what can. We need more information like this to come out because when dealing with elections, the last thing we need--but apparently the opposition wants--is for some kind of shennanigans elecing the wrong person."
I don't know why so many people act like it's unthinkable to discard a flawed election and start over with a new one. In the case of a presidential election, the term expires, the Speaker of the House takes over, and stays in charge until a president and vice president is elected. Alternatively, if the election in a state is flawed, then the legislature of that state still has authority to choose its electors by any means they can agree on, provided they are not further constrained by state laws.
This is far from unthinkable, it's actually spelled out in the Constitution.
You are assuming that the person in charge of contracting Diebold for voting machines actually *wants* tamperproof, accountable systems.
>The only way a good ol conspiracy vote could happen is if the hacker got a load of money from a candidate.
The conspiracy begins and ends with the company making these flawed voting systems being a major player in the politics of the currently dominant party.
>How many ways are there to say "this system sucks?"
Not enough to actually provoke election officials to not use them, now during the primaries, or in November during the elections. I think someone will have to *actually* exploit these machines to the point that a minor party candidate is elected to office as a result. Or, perhaps better, so that the results are so obviously flawed that the numbers *cannot* be accepted, and then some state has to deal with the fact that they have no representatives in Congress for a term.
Everybody who ever touched any phase of a voting machine design and development, should approach election day with *at least* the amount of concern for the success of their product -- and the future of their careers -- as a NASA flight crew.
Probably moreso. The people who worked on these voting machines should be going to prison for the rest of their lives because of their failure. That means *everybody*, not just the lackeys who were late picking up the corrupted memory cards or whatever happened in the Maryland primary.
As with any civil case, the cost of a defense tends to be *far* higher if you are guilty, that is, if the plaintiff has evidence that suggests you are actually responsible for the damage being claimed.
When you hear about expensive lawsuit defenses, where people try to scare you out of the idea of even *trying* to defend yourself, you generally do not hear it from someone who is clearly in no way responsible for the damage being claimed. In fact, you usually hear it from someone who is actually guilty but still wants to avoid the consequences of being found guilty.
"Well, where I come from, we invite the whole village for a feast that lasts 4 days. There is great rejoicing and festivity. Meals are prepared at home for the 400-odd people who turn up."
Wonderful; it sounds like fun.
Does it *require* taking a loan?
Do you universally frame it in terms of "getting your children married?"
>But today, getting children married requires taking a loan.
What? I think in most states the license fee is on the order of $50.
A minister will usually charge something between $100 and $200.
If you desire more, you are so entitled, but you should try to remain within your means.
>The entire nam war was one big my lai
Vietnam vets I know, and that includes a large number of people, tell me otherwise.
I agree the Tonkin Gulf incident was fabricated, but then, I think we should have really acted around the time of the Diem assassination.
As for the Iraq war being based on lies, do you maintain that Hussein had complied with all of the sixteen UN resloutions he was charged with violating? I do not agree with the manner in which the Iraq war has been conducted, but most of the arguments against it dive into territory where I do not agree.
For example, I don't follow your line of reasoning about members of Congress and impeachment. You would need to make a genuine case for impeachment and I have yet to see one. *Maybe* the wiretapping/FISA argument gets there. And just maybe, the whole secret-prisons-torture thing gets there as well.
But you lose me quickly if you ask me to accept the case for impeachment as a foregone conclusion. My standards for evidence are very high -- as they should be for a judge or a member of congress.
I know of no Congressperson who is genuinely enetertaining the prospect of introducing a bill to impeach the President. Do you? Are there even any *candidates* for Congress with broad appeal who have gone on record with such a plan?
>Important safety tip: Buy round-trip tickets. :^)
Of course they had round trip tickets, but the situation was that they were *fired* weeks before their assignment was completed. But hotel and meal expenses are accrued and reimbursed -- which is a difficult
enough process for *current* employees. So they had to either pay out-of pocket for lodging until their ticket date, or else pay out-of-pocket for an earlier ticket, and had exposed a lot of card debt for the trip already that had not been reimbursed.
To be fair, my friend did try to make a vacation out of the extra days he had to spend in HK, but he also had the opportunity cost of being suddenly out of work, and stuck in HK when he needed to be looking for the next job. I think it would have been appropriate to pay their expenses immediately, and to arrange for the return trip, but they did not. They were positively brutal about the whole thing.
Tell me, have you not read a dozen or more reports of the "screw your neighbor" culture that is Intel?
"Lol, I call bullshit. You're full of it, the idea that they would try to fire someone away on a business trip without paying return is nonsense, especially since return tickets would already have been purchased."
They did. It happened to a friend of mine in 2000. Believe it or don't, but I'm not going to name names.
The guy it happened to is a longtime slashdotter, and if he wants to tell you his story, he can.
But it's not bullshit, it's the truth. I'm sure they were eventually compensated for their return trip, but they had to pay it from their own pockets initially. They had to decide between expensive short-notice tickets or expensive lodging to stay until their return ticket date.
This is far from the only Intel horror story; why call "bullshit?"
>Do you live in a fishbowl?
:-)
Seems like it sometimes. I have a room filled with aquariums and a significant part of my life is devoted to the minutiae of water quality
>How, exactly, does a private citizen go about legally ordering covert surveillance of another private citizen?
He does not! But this was not "covert surveillance" by any legally justifiable definition!
They were NOT wiretapping. They were mining data that they were entitled to inspect, by all accounts I've read so far.
Dunn is not being charged with any crime. When this changes, I will adjust my position accordingly.
>Would you feel differently if your employee decided to surveill your personal, out of work conversations?!
I would be offended. But be specific please: Would these records be lawfully in their possession, or would they have violated federal wiretap laws, or would my telephone service provider have violated their privacy policy by providing such data? If so, I would have a serious problem, and I would surely be demanding that the Attorney General press criminal charges. together with my own suit.
But if Dunn violated any law, please cite the law that was violated. No report that I have read so far, does any such thing.
The Newsweek article teases the subject with this:
"Last week California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he has decided a crime was committed, though he hasn't concluded by whom."
But I want chapter and verse; this isn't good enough. I want to know if it's a federal or California law, if it's a felony, or if it's merely a damage that can be claimed in civil court.
Newsweek irresponsibly quotes the AG, and leaves it at that. Some people hear "capital crime of high treason", others hear "arguably actionable civil case between the customer and the phone company."
Which "crime" is it, specifically, what is the evidence, and who would be named as defendants? (These may be trivial details to some, but to me they are *everything* important about the case.)
It might be different if I owned any HP stock but my relationship with that company ended with the discontinuation of the HP32S.
>Well said, in fact under the UCMJ a soldier MUST disobey an illegal order (aka shoot the prisoners).
I've known former soldiers who have reported different experiences with this. Some, including an officer who had graduated from the US Military Academy, told me about drills that were more-or-less routine, where illegal orders would be given (with relatively mundane consequences) and if the cadet followed the order, he would have faile the test and would be disciplined for it.
Others have told me that the actual situation is that you follow orders, period, without question.
So I basically have an artillery man in one ear with one story, and a commissioned officer in the other ear, with a completely different story.
I would expect the latter to be the more common case. The idea of refusing to follow an order certainly does not occur to the typical enlisted man, who would consider the consequences to be too severe to even entertain the notion, but then, it's not a situation the average enlisted man encounters anyway, My Lai's and Hadithas being vanishingly rare.
>"would you be ok if this decision was on the front page of the WSJ or Newsweek?"
Well, Dunn seems to have made Newsweek so what's the problem?
Did she break any law, exactly? I have read nowhere that she did.
So by analogy, the issues raised by this subject don't matter, because nobody should really be hiring anyone in the first place?
What if my time is worth $200/hour? No matter how "technically inclined" I may happen to be, it is still rational to pay a professional specialist to fix something as nasty as a leaky sewer pipe.
So you didn't really answer my question at all. Do you wait for his drug test and TRW to come in, while shit leaks all over your floor, or do you let him fix the damned pipe?
The young, let's say recent college grads, have maybe one or two large-ish debts.
Older, mid-career guys -- and moreso for men than women -- have many more opportunities
to miss a payment or default on a loan or go bankrupt or be unemployed for years at a stretch.
Women, believe it or not, frequently get married in their early twenties, and even though they generally work for a living, they often depend at least in part on their husband's income, and of course, the pressure of the debt often falls on the man.
So a credit check as a reason not to hire, discriminates with a bias against older males.
Now, I personally hope to not find myself interviewing for any job where they would be looking for reasons not to hire me after they had me on their hook. I know from experience as the one doing the hiring, that it is very expensive and time consuming to get someone good in the door. The more mature folks often have credit and tax issues. The more creative folks often wouldn't pass a drug test. Some of the most passionate workers are also people who would never be inclined to follow a dress code or even a strict schedule.
Here is a thought for you: Your sewer pipe is leaking and flooding your basement. The plumber is at the door. Do you spend the time to check his citizenship status, do a drug test, run his TRW, measure his hair length, and evaluate his tattoos, or do you let him fix your leaky sewer pipe?
A place that has the luxury of looking for reasons to disqualify otherwise qualified applicants, clearly doesn't need their help that badly to begin with... meaning, if they can drag their feet about hiring, they can also swiftly lay off... Think about it!
If my shop needed a sysadmin or a C programmer, it means we would be replacing someone with at least 15 years experience. We pay well, but even so, it is often very difficult to get someone qualified in the door. We may *wish* we had so much demand that we could look for arbitrary reasons to cut down the number of applicants, but it isn't ever the case. (I realize there will doubtless be a dozen slashdot posts from unemployed admins and C programmers with tons of experience, but where were you when my company was looking for you???)
Enough of this, I gotta go prune my mesquite trees.
You think it's easy to move to one of these healthcare utopias, get resident status sufficient to benefit from the infrastructure, or even get a job there? It's almost impossible! It's hardly a *choice* that someone born in the US, stays in the US.
In this world of cheap international shipping, instantaneous global communication, and simple payment systems, how is it even possible to release a product into one market and not have it reach another?
If they release in the USA, and people in Europe want it, what stops them from simply mail ordering from some US retailer, or for that matter, simply travelling to the US, picking it up in a store, and going home?
Also, won't Vista be on MSDN? Just get a MSDN subscription. Problem solved.
>I wonder what they got on me? I know they looked, but I don't know to what extent.
How do you know? And just out of curiousity, and respectfully, what makes you interesting to the HP Board?
"Difference is that Vista is a replacement for their current product. When someone wants to buy an OS from MS, Vista is the thing they will get."
I think it's premature and inaccurate to predict the disappearance of the Server products or even XP.
There are more installed copies of Windows XP right now, than there had ever been copies of all other desktop OS's put together before XP. (I'm not sure which embedded system currently has the overall title for that.)
Am I the only one who read that as "scour porn?"
"This isn't a beta; this is a release candidate. Despite the feedback from beta testers who wanted a Beta 3 or at least an RC2, Microsoft has released RC1 and already forked an RTM branch off of it. It's full-steam ahead with this thing."
Let's keep in mind that this is the company that survived after releasing Bob and Windows ME.
>It's a nice upscale facility. (that, according to the state of california, may cause cancer).
It would be more useful if the warning specified the chemical. Probably asbestos?
At least Prop65 required disclosure. Before that you could make infant toys out of the whole Actinide series and not
be required to disclose it...
"maybe I can interest you in a 100 acre farm that's
off the grid"
Do you think your way of unplugging from society and civil infrastructure could be part of what's prevented
you from gaining citizenship or permanent resident status?