It's not in your interest, on balance, to have a career-level technical job and opt for non-exempt status. Be careful what you ask for, because the same status that requires things like overtime pay, has some serious downsides as well.
>Read about the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.
Yes. Whatever conditions exist that cause divisions among the people, must be so pervasive that the divisions also run through the chain of command of the military. If you envision a bunch of citizens with deer rifles going up against a fully mechanized army, put that out of your mind. Envision a scenario where the division between factions is so fundamental that even the military structure breaks down, and even the financial and industrial means are divided. This has been the case in almost every military civil war and revolution.
So with that in mind, what issue do you supposed exists in the US that would be so divisive to cause entire military organizations, together with large swaths of industry, to take a stand against the established government?
For all the talk of us heading toward civil war or revolution, little is said about what the issues actually are.
And what "generation" would that be? Those born since 1980 or so?
Why do you make such a blanket statement? What research have you done to support your premise? I see so much pure idealism today that I consider it to be a problem because people have unrealistic expectations.
>>If the president hijacks Air Force One and plows it into the White House, then I'm not gonna vote for him >>in the next election. Just sayin'. > >Well the President maybe, but Cheney would probably get away with it.
Until the majority of people recognize that oppression has become intolerable enough that they become willing to kill or die in order to end it... it's probably not time.
The fact that people generally tolerate things is at least an indication that a call to revolution is not going to succeed.
I know people who have lived under martial law and genuine oppression. I laugh at Americans who seem to actually believe there is a spirit sufficient to outright spark a revolution.
I want you to read the "PATRIOT Act" before you try to discuss it with me. It's Public Law 107-56, easy to find, and not a difficult read.
I want you to tell me, specifically, what sections you disagree with, and why.
For the record, I have a few problems with the surveillance provisions, but it is a bigger problem that people who have not even read the Act, make comments about it as if it is somehow the source of all evil in the government. Such talk only serves to complicate things for those of us who take anti-government positions on various issues. And few of the pundits on either side of the argument seem to have much of a grasp on what the PATRIOT Act does or does not contain.
>No, in theory, you can choose to not sign it, and go somewhere else. (however, pretty much everywere requires it).
Indeed they do not. They will allow you to sign, they will present it as though it is routine, and they will accept it. They will not require it. And if they push for it hard enough, it can lead to bankrupting civil fines, prison time for the executives, and restitution to the victims.
It is much easier to challenge authority, especially when it comes to confidentiality issues in healthcare, than many people seem to believe.
Have you had a different experience? My employer and my insurance (through my employer) are entirely separate, disinterested parties. My insurer has never asked for any kind of disclosure, nor asked for any access to my medical history, and to the contrary, has made the policy on privacy and disclosure very clear.
>Maybe I'm missing something and there's a loop-hole, but AFAIK In Canada selling this information is illegal
Yes, I am really hoping that someone commits a blatant HIPAA violation against me, so I can retire with all the assets of some insurance company and the net worth of a few of the families of their highest level employees.
I'll bet you a donut to your paycheck that if the legislature passed a resolution that the shortfall would come out of that person's budget until it was resolved, you would start hearing about solutions instead of excuses.
>having unencrypted data of 33,000 of your customers on that laptop is a crime.
It is a crime, and the person responsible, and anyone that knew or should have known that person had this data on a laptop, should be treated *precisely*, literally, as an enemy of the state, an enemy combatant during wartime, and the incident should be approached with strong suspicion that the loss was no accident. The people responsible will protest their innocence, as do all traitors, and we should be deaf to that.
This may have been an accident, but it is still the kind of accident that costs your freedom, if not your life.
>So, if something isn't guaranteed (privacy), then it should be perfectly legal to do so?
Yes, as long as you have a legal right to be where you are, what you witness is perfectly acceptable.
I know there are gray areas like looking into windows from the road, and so on. But if you have a legal right to be where you are, what you witness from there is acceptable, and can be used as evidence.
If you do your "email snooping" while burglarizing an office, that's a crime.
>can Blizzard legally prevent them from Open Sourcing the software?
If you have First Amendment protected activity, it's a pretty tough thing for some company to argue that the state should abridge the First Amendment protections. The doctrine is not based on "protection of a corporation's revenue stream", but rather on "a compelling state interest."
Can they show that the security of the People or keeping the Peace, is dependent on the revocation of several Constitutional Rights?
Unless the Glider folks don't actually have the copyright, there is little that Blizzard can do about it. One thing they might succeed with, is to make transfer of the intellectual property (the exclusive copyright to Glider) to them, as part of a settlement for damages -- but in order to do that, they would have to set a value on Glider, which would be negotiated.
>That may be technically true, but if the terms are not enforcable in a court of law, then AT&T has absolutely no way to hold you to to it.
I assure you, the clause that says the customer is liable for a termination fee if the company terminates the contract according to its terms, is perfectly enforceable. Your lawyer will tell you the same thing. It's not even vague or obfuscated. Check it out.
>In other words, if you sign a contract agreeing to let me murder your wife, it's not enforceable.
Yes, but it's perfectly legal to enter into a contract that says you will be responsible for fees if the other party terminates (not breaches) the contract. The conditions for termination are spelled out, and you agree to those also. It's a contract of adhesion and in some states there are arguments that a party can make based on the fact that consumers do not get an opportunity to negotiate terms, the deal is, sign the contract as the company has written it, or walk away. But no court is going to find that it was illegal for you to agree to pay fees if the company terminated your contract for cause. The "cause" might not be just, but that's a separate issue.
>Just because its in the contract doesn't make it legal.
Unless you can show that it is illegal to agree to a clause in a contract, that clause is legal. Certainly there's nothing illegal for spelling out who pays for what in a breach. What do you think could possibly be wrong with that? Granted, it's a contract of adhesion and the consumer does not get much of an opportunity to negotiate terms, so in a state with a doctrine of reasonable expectations there might be an argument about the contract, if it is open to multiple reasonable explanations.
>surely if they cancel the contract they can't charge you the early termination fee
You'd better read the contract. There's nothing illegal about such a clause.
>that's like me murdering someone, and then the corpse being charged with murder...
No, it isn't. In fact, it is a fundamentally different kind of law. You certainly can agree to a contract that specifies things like who will pay for what in a breach situation.
Good. We need a primary driver for some real cryptographic scheme so people are protected from their "service" providers.
Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war...
on
NASA Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
>>i ve seen the space shuttle ass hole it definetly landed on the moon do some research... > >Actually it was the Apollo Lunar Lander which landed on the Moon, after being launched with a Saturn V rocket.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not in your interest, on balance, to have a career-level technical job and opt for non-exempt status.
Be careful what you ask for, because the same status that requires things like overtime pay, has some serious downsides as well.
> Woosh yourself.
Vote for him in the next election then, if you like him so much...
>Read about the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.
Yes. Whatever conditions exist that cause divisions among the people, must be so pervasive that the divisions also run through the chain of command of the military. If you envision a bunch of citizens with deer rifles going up against a fully mechanized army, put that out of your mind. Envision a scenario where the division between factions is so fundamental that even the military structure breaks down, and even the financial and industrial means are divided. This has been the case in almost every military civil war and revolution.
So with that in mind, what issue do you supposed exists in the US that would be so divisive to cause entire military organizations, together with large swaths of industry, to take a stand against the established government?
For all the talk of us heading toward civil war or revolution, little is said about what the issues actually are.
>Today's generation doesn't believe in ideals.
And what "generation" would that be? Those born since 1980 or so?
Why do you make such a blanket statement? What research have you done to support your premise?
I see so much pure idealism today that I consider it to be a problem because people have unrealistic expectations.
Sounds like somebody has gotten through their first year of business school, and is on a high where they think they know stuff that others don't.
>>If the president hijacks Air Force One and plows it into the White House, then I'm not gonna vote for him
>>in the next election. Just sayin'.
>
>Well the President maybe, but Cheney would probably get away with it.
*whoosh*
Until the majority of people recognize that oppression has become intolerable enough that they become willing to kill or die in order to end it... it's probably not time.
The fact that people generally tolerate things is at least an indication that a call to revolution is not going to succeed.
I know people who have lived under martial law and genuine oppression. I laugh at Americans who seem to actually believe there is a spirit sufficient to outright spark a revolution.
I want you to read the "PATRIOT Act" before you try to discuss it with me.
It's Public Law 107-56, easy to find, and not a difficult read.
I want you to tell me, specifically, what sections you disagree with, and why.
For the record, I have a few problems with the surveillance provisions, but it is a bigger problem that people who have not even read the Act, make comments about it as if it is somehow the source of all evil in the government. Such talk only serves to complicate things for those of us who take anti-government positions on various issues. And few of the pundits on either side of the argument seem to have much of a grasp on what the PATRIOT Act does or does not contain.
>The optimist in me says maybe it's like the way the Eskimo language has 15 different words for "snow."
I've never understood what was supposed to be strange about that. Don't you know any snowboarders? They have different words for snow too.
>No, in theory, you can choose to not sign it, and go somewhere else. (however, pretty much everywere requires it).
Indeed they do not. They will allow you to sign, they will present it as though it is routine, and they will accept it.
They will not require it. And if they push for it hard enough, it can lead to bankrupting civil fines, prison time for the executives, and restitution to the victims.
It is much easier to challenge authority, especially when it comes to confidentiality issues in healthcare, than many people seem to believe.
Have you had a different experience? My employer and my insurance (through my employer) are entirely separate, disinterested parties. My insurer has never asked for any kind of disclosure, nor asked for any access to my medical history, and to the contrary, has made the policy on privacy and disclosure very clear.
>Maybe I'm missing something and there's a loop-hole, but AFAIK In Canada selling this information is illegal
Yes, I am really hoping that someone commits a blatant HIPAA violation against me, so I can retire with all the assets of some insurance company and the net worth of a few of the families of their highest level employees.
I'll bet you a donut to your paycheck that if the legislature passed a resolution that the shortfall would come out of that person's budget until it was resolved, you would start hearing about solutions instead of excuses.
>having unencrypted data of 33,000 of your customers on that laptop is a crime.
It is a crime, and the person responsible, and anyone that knew or should have known that person had this data on a laptop, should be treated *precisely*, literally, as an enemy of the state, an enemy combatant during wartime, and the incident should be approached with strong suspicion that the loss was no accident. The people responsible will protest their innocence, as do all traitors, and we should be deaf to that.
This may have been an accident, but it is still the kind of accident that costs your freedom, if not your life.
>So, if something isn't guaranteed (privacy), then it should be perfectly legal to do so?
Yes, as long as you have a legal right to be where you are, what you witness is perfectly acceptable.
I know there are gray areas like looking into windows from the road, and so on. But if you have a legal right to be where you are, what you witness from there is acceptable, and can be used as evidence.
If you do your "email snooping" while burglarizing an office, that's a crime.
>"Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House
And if they had managed to persuade half of the members of Congress to do so, they could have had their time.
Why did they fail to even meet that simple requirement?
>Yeah if you have enough money.
Repeal of both the First Amendment AND Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 would take more than merely breathtaking amounts of money.
You simply cannot acquire someone's copyright without due process.
>can Blizzard legally prevent them from Open Sourcing the software?
If you have First Amendment protected activity, it's a pretty tough thing for some company to argue that the state should abridge the First Amendment protections. The doctrine is not based on "protection of a corporation's revenue stream", but rather on "a compelling state interest."
Can they show that the security of the People or keeping the Peace, is dependent on the revocation of several Constitutional Rights?
Unless the Glider folks don't actually have the copyright, there is little that Blizzard can do about it. One thing they might succeed with, is to make transfer of the intellectual property (the exclusive copyright to Glider) to them, as part of a settlement for damages -- but in order to do that, they would have to set a value on Glider, which would be negotiated.
>That may be technically true, but if the terms are not enforcable in a court of law, then AT&T has absolutely no way to hold you to to it.
I assure you, the clause that says the customer is liable for a termination fee if the company terminates the contract according to its terms,
is perfectly enforceable. Your lawyer will tell you the same thing. It's not even vague or obfuscated. Check it out.
>In other words, if you sign a contract agreeing to let me murder your wife, it's not enforceable.
Yes, but it's perfectly legal to enter into a contract that says you will be responsible for fees if the other party terminates (not breaches) the contract. The conditions for termination are spelled out, and you agree to those also. It's a contract of adhesion and in some states there are arguments that a party can make based on the fact that consumers do not get an opportunity to negotiate terms, the deal is, sign the contract as the company has written it, or walk away. But no court is going to find that it was illegal for you to agree to pay fees if the company terminated your contract for cause. The "cause" might not be just, but that's a separate issue.
>Just because its in the contract doesn't make it legal.
Unless you can show that it is illegal to agree to a clause in a contract, that clause is legal.
Certainly there's nothing illegal for spelling out who pays for what in a breach. What do you think
could possibly be wrong with that? Granted, it's a contract of adhesion and the consumer does
not get much of an opportunity to negotiate terms, so in a state with a doctrine of reasonable expectations
there might be an argument about the contract, if it is open to multiple reasonable explanations.
>surely if they cancel the contract they can't charge you the early termination fee
You'd better read the contract. There's nothing illegal about such a clause.
>that's like me murdering someone, and then the corpse being charged with murder...
No, it isn't. In fact, it is a fundamentally different kind of law. You certainly can agree to a contract that specifies things like who will pay for what in a breach situation.
Good. We need a primary driver for some real cryptographic scheme so people are protected from their "service" providers.
>>i ve seen the space shuttle ass hole it definetly landed on the moon do some research...
>
>Actually it was the Apollo Lunar Lander which landed on the Moon, after being launched with a Saturn V rocket.
woosh.
The first rule of Sensitive Data is you don't talk about Sensitive Data.
"I don't think you CAN do this..."