No, you're the one making invalid comparisons between two different types of people in very different circumstances: Americans to Somalians. Parent is comparing Americans to Americans. This isn't divorce court; we're not talking about "what makes them happy" or their "accustomed standard of living," we're talking about affording food and shelter. The basic cost of not starving to death under a freeway overpass is the same for Warren Buffett as it is for Joe Sixpack.
But then, you know all about hanging around under a bridge, don't you...
"I wonder if this guy running towards me screaming and waving a cricket bat is really mad at me. There's a chance it's some sort of performance art. In fairness, I should just stand here and not make any assumptions whatsoever."
Granted, that's a gross exaggeration, but there is a reason people make judgements based on outward appearances. The trouble is that some people aren't all that great at picking up the subtle cues that would hint that no, this isn't a malevolent gangsta looking for trouble, it's just some teenager. And that their reactions to their assumptions go too far. But to deny that there are subcultures and social groups that identify themselves through some commonality of mannerism or dress is myopically naïve. If you see a fat dude with a dirty beard wearing a Confederate flag bandanna sitting on a certain style of Harley, you know that he's either an "outlaw biker"... or a guy who doesn't mind being mistaken for one. That doesn't mean you should go ahead and assume he's a meth dealer, but you can pretty much rule out Olympic Sprinter or Air Force General.
Without any supporting evidence, it's quite a jump from "they have the power do it" to "they have done it." Your unfounded assumption is that anyone who has the power of an entire country at his disposal will use it mainly to enrich himself. Accumulation of personal wealth is not everyone's primary motivator.
By comparing the savage inequalities of power and wealth in communist nations such as Cuba and North Korea with "income inequality" non-issues of freer nations, I can only conclude that you're mentally ill.
You're willfully uninformed, delusional, or both. Even the most ardent anticommunist would agree that whatever criticisms might legitimately be levelled against Cuba and North Korea, a gross imbalance of wealth is not among them.
I don't know how common it is to use audio cues for data presentation, but there's an interesting example of it here. (Cassini/Huygens probe's descent to Titan.)
That's a gross misapplication of statistics. Being arrested isn't a random event. You'd have to compare the number of arrests to the number of online dissidents, not to the entire population. Even then, there are myriad other factors to take into consideration.
62 arrests may not be a huge number, but it's about 62 too many.
You're totally missing the point. Even a fired employee is still subject to any NDA he signed beforehand. NDAs don't generally expire with the termination of a contract. The trade secret is not the fact that the leaker has been fired, it's the confidential information he got fired for leaking. Furthermore, unauthorized dissemination of trade secrets can easily be considered an act of industrial espionage, which is against the law in the US.
So every article about a subject should include mention of every single thing the subject has influenced or been influenced by. Why don't you write that article about IF yourself? I'm sure plenty of people will care to wade through all 700 pages of it.
Okay, fine, how often do adult novelty places disguise themselves as "Tasty Treat" candy stores and allow children to browse their wares? And if they ever did, how do you think the community would react? Mind you, I'm not in favor of these restrictions -- I'm playing devil's advocate to a large degree, but you have to bolster the argument with better mojo than that.
So what if McDonald's advertises "FREE QUARTER POUNDERS" and gives you a free lump of poisoned shit? There's no theft since no money changed hands, just as no money changes hands when your kid clicks on Dora The Explorer only to find Dora The Whora. Whether a child inadvertently being exposed to pornography constitutes an actionable offense is open to debate, unlike poisoning burger eaters or intentionally giving someone AIDS, but broadly speaking I don't believe free speech protections ought to cover malicious deception.
That said, I suspect that this story is at least somewhat of a boogeyman. How many paying porn consumers are going to be searching on these innocent strings, and how does it benefit the porn providers to manipulate search results in that way? Even if I do happen to be in the market for Teletubby porn, I'm not just going to google "teletubbies," I'm going to specify "teletubby anal creampies" or what have you. Porn providers don't make any money off of emotionally scarred five year olds.
So you'd be okay with walking into a McDonald's, ordering a Quarter Pounder, and being fed a lump of poisoned shit on a bun. After all, it's their property, they get to decide how to run things, right?
I don't think Gonzalez' idea here is worth a minute's consideration, but the rights of "sovereignty" do not include deception or fraud.
First of all, without the ability to track down the source of a trade secret leak, trade secret law has exactly zero teeth. Anyone can violate it with impunity simply by anonymously releasing the information to a third party for publication instead of putting it on their own website. (The "journalist/citizen blogger" distinction is a red herring, utterly irrelevant.) If you want to argue that there should be no such thing as trade secret protection, go ahead and argue that, but this position that "trade secrets should be protected but not in any way that's actually enforceable" is untenably absurd.
Secondly: Third parties outside the employer-employee NDA do indeed have a legal obligation, namely to not entice said employees to violate the law. Whether O'Grady actually engaged in such enticement, directly or indirectly, is for a court to decide, but there is no question that such enticement is itself illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
But then, you know all about hanging around under a bridge, don't you...
Proud? Do you see even one post here scored above zero that evinces anything but dismay at the sorry state of our legislated data protection?
You say a lot about what isn't "programming" but nothing about what is.
Granted, that's a gross exaggeration, but there is a reason people make judgements based on outward appearances. The trouble is that some people aren't all that great at picking up the subtle cues that would hint that no, this isn't a malevolent gangsta looking for trouble, it's just some teenager. And that their reactions to their assumptions go too far. But to deny that there are subcultures and social groups that identify themselves through some commonality of mannerism or dress is myopically naïve. If you see a fat dude with a dirty beard wearing a Confederate flag bandanna sitting on a certain style of Harley, you know that he's either an "outlaw biker"... or a guy who doesn't mind being mistaken for one. That doesn't mean you should go ahead and assume he's a meth dealer, but you can pretty much rule out Olympic Sprinter or Air Force General.
Okay, now do Castro. (And please confine yourself to sources that don't use the word "reportedly" without saying who exactly is doing that reporting.)
Without any supporting evidence, it's quite a jump from "they have the power do it" to "they have done it." Your unfounded assumption is that anyone who has the power of an entire country at his disposal will use it mainly to enrich himself. Accumulation of personal wealth is not everyone's primary motivator.
Cite, please.
A republic is a form of democracy.
You're willfully uninformed, delusional, or both. Even the most ardent anticommunist would agree that whatever criticisms might legitimately be levelled against Cuba and North Korea, a gross imbalance of wealth is not among them.
That's a trick question -- nobody walks in LA.
I don't know how common it is to use audio cues for data presentation, but there's an interesting example of it here. (Cassini/Huygens probe's descent to Titan.)
62 arrests may not be a huge number, but it's about 62 too many.
No. Out-of-court settlements are not binding precedent.
You're totally missing the point. Even a fired employee is still subject to any NDA he signed beforehand. NDAs don't generally expire with the termination of a contract. The trade secret is not the fact that the leaker has been fired, it's the confidential information he got fired for leaking. Furthermore, unauthorized dissemination of trade secrets can easily be considered an act of industrial espionage, which is against the law in the US.
Try "bring criminal charges and/or civil action."
So every article about a subject should include mention of every single thing the subject has influenced or been influenced by. Why don't you write that article about IF yourself? I'm sure plenty of people will care to wade through all 700 pages of it.
Easy. The same way you write an article about Mesoamerican archaeology without mentioning Egyptian pyramids.
former alum [sic] of the Kobra MUD
Do you even know what "alumnus" means? You can't be a "former alum" unless maybe they rescinded your Kobradiploma or something.
It does get itchy sitting in one place for so long.
It's the name of a TV show, on the Discovery Channel I think.
A constant proportion is still proportionate.
Okay, fine, how often do adult novelty places disguise themselves as "Tasty Treat" candy stores and allow children to browse their wares? And if they ever did, how do you think the community would react? Mind you, I'm not in favor of these restrictions -- I'm playing devil's advocate to a large degree, but you have to bolster the argument with better mojo than that.
Linear and geometric and volumetric (etc etc) ratios are still "proportionate to its size" but not exponential. Btw, that show sucks.
That said, I suspect that this story is at least somewhat of a boogeyman. How many paying porn consumers are going to be searching on these innocent strings, and how does it benefit the porn providers to manipulate search results in that way? Even if I do happen to be in the market for Teletubby porn, I'm not just going to google "teletubbies," I'm going to specify "teletubby anal creampies" or what have you. Porn providers don't make any money off of emotionally scarred five year olds.
I don't think Gonzalez' idea here is worth a minute's consideration, but the rights of "sovereignty" do not include deception or fraud.
Secondly: Third parties outside the employer-employee NDA do indeed have a legal obligation, namely to not entice said employees to violate the law. Whether O'Grady actually engaged in such enticement, directly or indirectly, is for a court to decide, but there is no question that such enticement is itself illegal.