He sent the email to something@gmail.com without a contract with google whom he doesn't have a contract with so they can do what the fuck they want with it. If I say how I know a friend loves hot chocolate to him in Starbucks and the barrista overhears and mentions that they do in fact sell hot chocolate I'd get laughed out of court for trying to sue him for it.
Such a BS lawsuit.Hopefully Google will let him piss away his cash and the court will tell him where to get off.
If I were American there's a lot of things I'd be annoyed about; if the UN offered to help fund decent rural broadband, but on the condition that the provider needed to be selected fairly and openly, and the government said yes it certainly wouldn't be added to the list.
I'm yet to speak to someone who spouts nonsense about all censorship being wrong who actually understands and accepts the consequences that come with it. You'll never talk them round because they've taken an ideological position, without real consideration, so they're not the kind of people who are going to accept a contrary, yet rational, position.
Sorry, I missed a detail. Although she did post something that caused offence I don't think it came anywhere near justifying that either a post or account be deleted. There seems to be a lack of clarity over what was actually ordered and when in the coverage so far. The judge likely didn't order her to 'delete' her facebook account for shits and giggles, and some people are saying the original order related to content not the entire account.
The big deal is that a court is ordering the deletion of an account which they have no business doing. I'd think it was bad enough if the judge ordered her not to use Facebook, let alone asking her to delete her account. I could imagine in some cases, for example stalking, a ban on using a system would be justified. I could also imagine that requiring the deletion of a specific post, or potentially account created to cause offence, could be targetted. This is not one of those situations.
The AC has a fair point. Insurance will, collectively, cost more than not insuring (that's how they pay for admin and profits). Consider your use. Are you a higher risk than average (but aren't being charged as such) and can you afford to comfortably replace the device if you don't insure it? If you are more likely to break the phone than average or can't afford to replace the device then insurance is probably worth getting; if not, then you're likely to be better off without it.
My household insurance included phone cover (I didn't buy it for that reason) so my phone is insured; however I wouldn't have bought a separate policy if it wasn't.
Good unions certainly exist (within the US and elsewhere) but that doesn't mean all Unions are. I know of a couple of very poor Unions within the UK, in fact my general perspective on Unions (again in the UK) is that many make donating to the Labour party easier, but if you actually want support when it hits the fan it's a crap shoot if they'll support you and how well.
On the original article question. I know a company in the UK that does this, personally I don't think it should be stopped as there are clear cases of abuse of breaks. That said a company needs to consider the downsides in moral of implementing this kind of policy and of enforcing it badly or misusing the data. The UK has very strong protections for workers with medical issues so it isn't like a company could use that as a reason to fire someone anyway.
Yes there is; well at least their is if you mean doing work worth much more than someone else, rather than just taking longer to do it which is a pointless measure.
You could take 20 mediocre scientists and you'd never get the kind of insight or scientific advancement that Einstein generated. Anyone who thinks business is somehow different clearly doesn't understand how it operates.
A CEO who pushes for better targeted compensation and training for his employees, because he did the research and testing to show that it improves performance and results, could create massive value for the company and isn't 'exploiting' anyone. What you seem to ignore is that being 1% better at being a director can be the difference between being competitive and going bankrupt; in the same way that 1 second is the difference between the guy who wins gold in the 100 metres and not even being able to get into the Olympics in the first place (even though that time is probably better than 99.9% of the population could manage).
You've made this point a couple of times on this story and I'll be honest, I really don't see the justification. Unless you need, and are in a location with LTE, then the iPhone 5 really isn't a vast improvement on the 4. Sure it is better, and if you've got an upgrade coming up and have already decided that you want to get an iPhone then why not. An extra row of icons and a screen that has gone from pitifully small to small in an odd shape for a phone.
First let me say I think it's a little unfair that your first post has been modded flamebait, though frankly I do think it was naive. The problem with your argument is that your assuming that Nintendo can do everything they already need to release the console in Japan at that time, while also doing a massive amount more (production, distribution, support, promotion) in all the other regions of the world at the same time. It is highly unlikely they can do that, and if they could they would, so the only way to go for a global launch would be to delay the Japanese launch until later, and also probably delay the US release to later so that they all happened at the same time as the release in the Maldives.
If you accept those constraints and still 'demand' that America is first on the release schedule then it means someone else has to be delayed.
That's not fanboyism, but it is a pretty damning case of immature thinking. Who really cares if Nintendo releases it a week earlier in Japan. If they won't have the stock, and support to do a global release on that date, then your point only stacks up if you're basically saying they should screw their own strong market to prioritise the US which makes very little sense.
The Asian, and global non-American game markets are huge. The Asian gaming market has revenues equivalent to that of North America so acting like they are cutting their nose off by not prioritising Americans over-inflated sense of self-importance is pretty naive.
Do a pole of his constituents and ask them "Do you think that 'vile' descriptions of child abuse should be banned"? and I'd bet you'd get an overwhelming majority for it. Doing what your constituents want is hardly moronic. No opponent can challenge his position without intrinsically being labelled as defending child abusers
Sure it's nice to blame politicians but again and again we see evidence that they are on average more 'liberal' than the voters. In the UK the majority of voters would like to see the death penalty brought back for certain crimes; MPs are overwhelmingly against it. We're ruining things because our representatives do what we want; which is hardly shocking as they wouldn't be our representative if they didn't.
This is ridiculous, unless you like work for the mafia or something.
There's been plenty of work done studying it and it disagrees with your assertion. People who take counter-offers have lower job satisfaction, are less likely to be promoted and have a tendency to leave for a different company within a short window of accepting it. The only thing that is ridiculous is you thinking you can somehow make a definitive statement on this.
Having said that it doesn't mean that it is never beneficial to accept counter-offers, that every company is the same etc. One fundamental point is that many of the cases where the counter-offer worked out badly are where the person disliked their job, boss, company culture etc so simply adding more money didn't solve the underlying issue.
You raise a fair point. Once you're earning enough that any more is largely an exercise in vanity (you can support your family, save for retirement and generally not worry about money) you can afford to be more picky about weighing up money, fun etc. If you're struggling to pay the bills, not saving for the future etc then money becomes a much more vital consideration.
I've been lucky and get paid well enough to do something I enjoy. I'd even consider moving to a lower wage role (for a period) if I decided that a career change would be more fulfilling. If I was the only earner, with debts and a family then the answer would likely be different.
Some teachers who have tried using Khan Academy in the classroom (I read about it offline so no link, sorry) said they thought the best advantage wasn't that the presented material was better but that it freed them up from presenting the information so they could give more personal assistance.
Imagine that in maths class rather than the teacher standing at the board for 30 mins explaining an example they could let a small group watch the video while helping another small group who just finished watching it. Alternatively the time freed up could be used to customise homework to stretch those at the top and bring up the quality of those at the bottom.
Finally add additional functionality on and allow access to the vids at any-time and anyone struggling with 'integration' could look back over that video description, perhaps access an online/skype-esque tutor service and/or post what they are stuck on for the teacher who could arrange very brief one-to-one sessions to address specific issues.
I think way too much focus on these courses is on how they 'replace' teachers. Sure there is some scope for that but I think we can get far more benefit by augmenting classroom teaching.
As frustrating as it is, the behaviour is hardly surprising. If a well publicised crime isn't solved it makes the people investigating look far worse than if it's some 'nobody'. Also, given the political slant, there's a very real risk of people claiming a lack of thorough investigation was politically motivated.
The fact of the matter is it makes rational sense to focus more resources on certain cases, expecting them to do otherwise is naive. It's the same depressing logic that makes complaining on twitter more effective than in private email; and worse, that makes people with lots of followers more likely to get a satisfactory (or better) resolution than us mere mortals.
As for tax returns, many countries see this as public information
Which is relevant why? Maybe you should change your laws but until you do don't go pretending that what other countries do is an argument to defend breaching someone's privacy. Stoning is included in the laws of 7 countries, that does not mean it is less wrong if I stone someone to death in a country that doesn't allow it.
There's plenty of reasons to think this should be public; none of it excuses this, nor means it shouldn't be condemned. It's amazing how hypocritical many readers are when it comes to thinking 'anything' they do should be private and yet having no qualms about defending those who out private information about others.
One issue with IT security is that policies and security measures like this are only one small part of the picture. My partner works in a government affiliated company and has to use FDE for all PCs. Because of how they have implemented it they virtually all still use the default key (which wasn't random) and if you change it then you thwart the original intent of having quasi-hotdesks.
Passwords written on desks, stuck to the screen etc are common in many places. Sending files off-network to places like dropbox or email to get around security 'hassles' is widespread. The owner of my current firm wants to use an iPad, because we won't let it on network he does most email from a web email account!
FDE with rubbish passwords is entirely pointless as anyone with motivation to get in can. If you start requiring complex passwords the risk of people writing it down and storing it with the PC increases. We need to stop thinking about security as a technical issue and work out how to produce 'secure enough' systems which users don't subvert or misuse.
If removing security breaches is worth nearly $5k a year then surely using some kind of RFID security card that must be near the PC/Laptop to unlock would be cost effective. I could keep it in my wallet or as a keyring. Even better would be combine it with a RSA style password device for two-factor authentication when providing a password (thus making less complex passwords less of an issue).
How dare you finish reading my posts, and worse use that deviant behaviour to correct someone who in the finest/. tradition got bored after a sentence and wandered off!;)
There is no national plan to cover the whole road network in these cameras which makes saying there are 'gaps' in coverage a little misleading (it even says so in the article). It may well be a hint that universal coverage is a de facto goal of many involved in deploying these cameras. Weird and wacky driving may help you avoid detection but in many cases the bahaviour would draw attention to you and would be counter-productive.
How is that different to anything else? First class transport led to a decrease in the quality of economy transport (along with a drop in price).
Insurance is based on transferring a large personal risk to another entity at a cost you can afford. In the UK the insurance market is very competitive, there are hundreds of suppliers. If it works out that a young new driver can get insurance for £1,600 rather than £2,000 if they are willing to provide more information. If someone is willing to make that 'sacrifice' why shouldn't they be able get that discount and if you value your privacy enough that you are willing to pay not to share more information then so be it.
It won't happen but you aren't considering the bigger picture. If Britain completely disrespects a South American country then this could help Argentina form a stronger block of South American powers to 'force' Britain to release the Falklands; this would be very costly politically for the UK government. Ecuador and the UK may well be escalating the rhetoric so that Ecuador can 'backdown' without losing face.
Then everyone would look at you and wonder how you entirely missed the point that is being made. Samsung aren't trying to get Apple sued by this guy for copying him, they are using him to show that Apple shouldn't have the patents in the first place. Whether he has sued anyone or not in the past really doesn't tell us anything, he may not care about others using it but takes offence at people ripping him off and then suing others for doing the same thing.
They will obviously ask what he is being paid; that's basically SOP in these kinds of cases now.
Slashdot Mirror
He sent the email to something@gmail.com without a contract with google whom he doesn't have a contract with so they can do what the fuck they want with it. If I say how I know a friend loves hot chocolate to him in Starbucks and the barrista overhears and mentions that they do in fact sell hot chocolate I'd get laughed out of court for trying to sue him for it.
Such a BS lawsuit.Hopefully Google will let him piss away his cash and the court will tell him where to get off.
If I were American there's a lot of things I'd be annoyed about; if the UN offered to help fund decent rural broadband, but on the condition that the provider needed to be selected fairly and openly, and the government said yes it certainly wouldn't be added to the list.
I'm yet to speak to someone who spouts nonsense about all censorship being wrong who actually understands and accepts the consequences that come with it. You'll never talk them round because they've taken an ideological position, without real consideration, so they're not the kind of people who are going to accept a contrary, yet rational, position.
Sorry, I missed a detail. Although she did post something that caused offence I don't think it came anywhere near justifying that either a post or account be deleted. There seems to be a lack of clarity over what was actually ordered and when in the coverage so far. The judge likely didn't order her to 'delete' her facebook account for shits and giggles, and some people are saying the original order related to content not the entire account.
The big deal is that a court is ordering the deletion of an account which they have no business doing. I'd think it was bad enough if the judge ordered her not to use Facebook, let alone asking her to delete her account. I could imagine in some cases, for example stalking, a ban on using a system would be justified. I could also imagine that requiring the deletion of a specific post, or potentially account created to cause offence, could be targetted. This is not one of those situations.
Perhaps by actually giving them some help, not arresting them under a terrorism related charge.
The AC has a fair point. Insurance will, collectively, cost more than not insuring (that's how they pay for admin and profits). Consider your use. Are you a higher risk than average (but aren't being charged as such) and can you afford to comfortably replace the device if you don't insure it? If you are more likely to break the phone than average or can't afford to replace the device then insurance is probably worth getting; if not, then you're likely to be better off without it. My household insurance included phone cover (I didn't buy it for that reason) so my phone is insured; however I wouldn't have bought a separate policy if it wasn't.
Good unions certainly exist (within the US and elsewhere) but that doesn't mean all Unions are. I know of a couple of very poor Unions within the UK, in fact my general perspective on Unions (again in the UK) is that many make donating to the Labour party easier, but if you actually want support when it hits the fan it's a crap shoot if they'll support you and how well.
On the original article question. I know a company in the UK that does this, personally I don't think it should be stopped as there are clear cases of abuse of breaks. That said a company needs to consider the downsides in moral of implementing this kind of policy and of enforcing it badly or misusing the data. The UK has very strong protections for workers with medical issues so it isn't like a company could use that as a reason to fire someone anyway.
Yes there is; well at least their is if you mean doing work worth much more than someone else, rather than just taking longer to do it which is a pointless measure.
You could take 20 mediocre scientists and you'd never get the kind of insight or scientific advancement that Einstein generated. Anyone who thinks business is somehow different clearly doesn't understand how it operates.
A CEO who pushes for better targeted compensation and training for his employees, because he did the research and testing to show that it improves performance and results, could create massive value for the company and isn't 'exploiting' anyone. What you seem to ignore is that being 1% better at being a director can be the difference between being competitive and going bankrupt; in the same way that 1 second is the difference between the guy who wins gold in the 100 metres and not even being able to get into the Olympics in the first place (even though that time is probably better than 99.9% of the population could manage).
You've made this point a couple of times on this story and I'll be honest, I really don't see the justification. Unless you need, and are in a location with LTE, then the iPhone 5 really isn't a vast improvement on the 4. Sure it is better, and if you've got an upgrade coming up and have already decided that you want to get an iPhone then why not. An extra row of icons and a screen that has gone from pitifully small to small in an odd shape for a phone.
First let me say I think it's a little unfair that your first post has been modded flamebait, though frankly I do think it was naive. The problem with your argument is that your assuming that Nintendo can do everything they already need to release the console in Japan at that time, while also doing a massive amount more (production, distribution, support, promotion) in all the other regions of the world at the same time. It is highly unlikely they can do that, and if they could they would, so the only way to go for a global launch would be to delay the Japanese launch until later, and also probably delay the US release to later so that they all happened at the same time as the release in the Maldives.
If you accept those constraints and still 'demand' that America is first on the release schedule then it means someone else has to be delayed.
That's not fanboyism, but it is a pretty damning case of immature thinking. Who really cares if Nintendo releases it a week earlier in Japan. If they won't have the stock, and support to do a global release on that date, then your point only stacks up if you're basically saying they should screw their own strong market to prioritise the US which makes very little sense. The Asian, and global non-American game markets are huge. The Asian gaming market has revenues equivalent to that of North America so acting like they are cutting their nose off by not prioritising Americans over-inflated sense of self-importance is pretty naive.
Do a pole of his constituents and ask them "Do you think that 'vile' descriptions of child abuse should be banned"? and I'd bet you'd get an overwhelming majority for it. Doing what your constituents want is hardly moronic. No opponent can challenge his position without intrinsically being labelled as defending child abusers
Sure it's nice to blame politicians but again and again we see evidence that they are on average more 'liberal' than the voters. In the UK the majority of voters would like to see the death penalty brought back for certain crimes; MPs are overwhelmingly against it. We're ruining things because our representatives do what we want; which is hardly shocking as they wouldn't be our representative if they didn't.
There's been plenty of work done studying it and it disagrees with your assertion. People who take counter-offers have lower job satisfaction, are less likely to be promoted and have a tendency to leave for a different company within a short window of accepting it. The only thing that is ridiculous is you thinking you can somehow make a definitive statement on this.
Having said that it doesn't mean that it is never beneficial to accept counter-offers, that every company is the same etc. One fundamental point is that many of the cases where the counter-offer worked out badly are where the person disliked their job, boss, company culture etc so simply adding more money didn't solve the underlying issue.
You raise a fair point. Once you're earning enough that any more is largely an exercise in vanity (you can support your family, save for retirement and generally not worry about money) you can afford to be more picky about weighing up money, fun etc. If you're struggling to pay the bills, not saving for the future etc then money becomes a much more vital consideration.
I've been lucky and get paid well enough to do something I enjoy. I'd even consider moving to a lower wage role (for a period) if I decided that a career change would be more fulfilling. If I was the only earner, with debts and a family then the answer would likely be different.
Some teachers who have tried using Khan Academy in the classroom (I read about it offline so no link, sorry) said they thought the best advantage wasn't that the presented material was better but that it freed them up from presenting the information so they could give more personal assistance.
Imagine that in maths class rather than the teacher standing at the board for 30 mins explaining an example they could let a small group watch the video while helping another small group who just finished watching it. Alternatively the time freed up could be used to customise homework to stretch those at the top and bring up the quality of those at the bottom.
Finally add additional functionality on and allow access to the vids at any-time and anyone struggling with 'integration' could look back over that video description, perhaps access an online/skype-esque tutor service and/or post what they are stuck on for the teacher who could arrange very brief one-to-one sessions to address specific issues.
I think way too much focus on these courses is on how they 'replace' teachers. Sure there is some scope for that but I think we can get far more benefit by augmenting classroom teaching.
As frustrating as it is, the behaviour is hardly surprising. If a well publicised crime isn't solved it makes the people investigating look far worse than if it's some 'nobody'. Also, given the political slant, there's a very real risk of people claiming a lack of thorough investigation was politically motivated.
The fact of the matter is it makes rational sense to focus more resources on certain cases, expecting them to do otherwise is naive. It's the same depressing logic that makes complaining on twitter more effective than in private email; and worse, that makes people with lots of followers more likely to get a satisfactory (or better) resolution than us mere mortals.
Which is relevant why? Maybe you should change your laws but until you do don't go pretending that what other countries do is an argument to defend breaching someone's privacy. Stoning is included in the laws of 7 countries, that does not mean it is less wrong if I stone someone to death in a country that doesn't allow it.
There's plenty of reasons to think this should be public; none of it excuses this, nor means it shouldn't be condemned. It's amazing how hypocritical many readers are when it comes to thinking 'anything' they do should be private and yet having no qualms about defending those who out private information about others.
One issue with IT security is that policies and security measures like this are only one small part of the picture. My partner works in a government affiliated company and has to use FDE for all PCs. Because of how they have implemented it they virtually all still use the default key (which wasn't random) and if you change it then you thwart the original intent of having quasi-hotdesks.
Passwords written on desks, stuck to the screen etc are common in many places. Sending files off-network to places like dropbox or email to get around security 'hassles' is widespread. The owner of my current firm wants to use an iPad, because we won't let it on network he does most email from a web email account!
FDE with rubbish passwords is entirely pointless as anyone with motivation to get in can. If you start requiring complex passwords the risk of people writing it down and storing it with the PC increases. We need to stop thinking about security as a technical issue and work out how to produce 'secure enough' systems which users don't subvert or misuse.
If removing security breaches is worth nearly $5k a year then surely using some kind of RFID security card that must be near the PC/Laptop to unlock would be cost effective. I could keep it in my wallet or as a keyring. Even better would be combine it with a RSA style password device for two-factor authentication when providing a password (thus making less complex passwords less of an issue).
How dare you finish reading my posts, and worse use that deviant behaviour to correct someone who in the finest /. tradition got bored after a sentence and wandered off! ;)
There is no national plan to cover the whole road network in these cameras which makes saying there are 'gaps' in coverage a little misleading (it even says so in the article). It may well be a hint that universal coverage is a de facto goal of many involved in deploying these cameras. Weird and wacky driving may help you avoid detection but in many cases the bahaviour would draw attention to you and would be counter-productive.
How is that different to anything else? First class transport led to a decrease in the quality of economy transport (along with a drop in price).
Insurance is based on transferring a large personal risk to another entity at a cost you can afford. In the UK the insurance market is very competitive, there are hundreds of suppliers. If it works out that a young new driver can get insurance for £1,600 rather than £2,000 if they are willing to provide more information. If someone is willing to make that 'sacrifice' why shouldn't they be able get that discount and if you value your privacy enough that you are willing to pay not to share more information then so be it.
It won't happen but you aren't considering the bigger picture. If Britain completely disrespects a South American country then this could help Argentina form a stronger block of South American powers to 'force' Britain to release the Falklands; this would be very costly politically for the UK government. Ecuador and the UK may well be escalating the rhetoric so that Ecuador can 'backdown' without losing face.
Or it might be marked down because you've used the incredibly puerile pre-emptive downvote dismissal.
Then everyone would look at you and wonder how you entirely missed the point that is being made. Samsung aren't trying to get Apple sued by this guy for copying him, they are using him to show that Apple shouldn't have the patents in the first place. Whether he has sued anyone or not in the past really doesn't tell us anything, he may not care about others using it but takes offence at people ripping him off and then suing others for doing the same thing.
They will obviously ask what he is being paid; that's basically SOP in these kinds of cases now.