I'm not a Federal employee and I work in "Corporate America" and I know that if I told people to not use my bob@corporateemail.com but instead send it to bob@gmail.com or bob@myprivateserver.com, I would be terminated pretty fast.
I do exactly that and haven't been terminated so far:)
On topic, we need a technical outline of the issue explaining things in bullet points if we were to take this seriously. The republicans are crazy and say crazy things, so as far as I'm concerned this can be ignored... As usual the republicans are probably trying to make something of nothing by repeating it over and over again. In the words of John Steward something smells bad...
Note, emails could be of a semi personal nature... coordination related, accidentally sent there, this could be related to an out-date practice, or just general incompetence. At the end of the day she was probably trying to be productive in a dysfunctional system, rather than being evil.
Why don't you try offering them MORE MONEY, and watch the problem resolve itself! It might not be cool, but classic labor Economics still works in the 21st century.
Of course, Microsoft (or any other big tech company) doesn't really have a reason to do that as long as they can get a bunch of cheap H1-B workers to fill the positions instead.
An MSc in CS takes 5 years... So that's a very very long term plan... Also not feasible...
To make people choose CS for money to a larger extent than they already do you would have to double or triple wages... Wages that are already high enough to incentivise studying CS for the money.
Anyways, people don't choose everything in their lives with their wallet. What a sad world that would be.
While true, the EU is bigger than the US, so this is still relevant news.
Also the ruling takes basis in the Human Rights convention which many countries have signed.
Sure this has no direct effect outside EU. But this is a legal system covering 28 democratic nations ruling that unrestricted surveillance is a human rights violation.
That ought to give you (Americans) something to think about.
Warning, I'm no lawyer, and not an expert on the US legal system.
But I imagine that some judges won't allow you to out-smart the law, but who knows... maybe in America...
One of the things people seem to forget is the "common sense" argument that labor laws are here to protect employees.
If you try to make an organizational-construct where by the small people (who needs this protection) is denied status as employee, you are working against the spirit of the law/regulation. It's common sense to argue that the regulation was meant to protect your "contractors".
So all the technical arguments about hours, paid by task/hours etc. might not be important at all.
Ideally, though regulation could be clarified to avoid lawsuits like this.
Consider also the case of a franchise owner of a restaurant like McDonalds or Subway..... Would this ruling potentially reclassify all of them as employees of the franchise parent?
I suspect not... franschise owners have employees and are not necessarily the "small man", this matters because the spirit of the law/regulation is to protect people who needs it.
There is no such thing as a certain outcome in a court case, particularly if the other side has a lot of money to spend and can file motions continually. The SCO case took over 10 years. If you run out of money for attorney fees you lose by default.
True, nothing in life is sure...But the SCO case was in the US, I'm not sure it's relevant in the German court system.
This kid is a full on sociopath and deserves to be jailed.
Yes, let's lock up some kids. I don't think Finland should be looking to adopt the American way of life in prison.
You can't blame a kid for a dysfunctional US society where police forces deploy SWAT teams as if it was sport.
Schwartz was just another victim of crazy US "justice" system.
He would have had a very different treatment in Finland or Sweden.
In the US, most women who take time off to take care of children are branded unemployable, and often treated worse than a non-mother with a long-term gap in their employment.
It's a legitimate concern for my wife and I. She has a good job that pays well, but is very inflexible and involves a long commute...
So she could look for a more flexible job with a shorter commute and work part time from home or something like that...
Or you could be the stay at home dad and let your wife go to work... (it's an option, but I suspect you would fear for you career too)
i tell you we are fucked for this to even need a court case of course we can flag and block things we don't what on your pc.
Relax... You can sue over many things; that doesn't imply you have a snow flakes chance in hell of winning...
They were probably just hoping avira would settle, and add an exception for freemium.
Couldn't a scan rule be put in place that only scans during the day IF the night scan didn't complete?
Sure if and if there is no tool for this... just script it yourself... Of course that would be easiest on linux... But not impossible on windows.
We have a similar scan problem, but our co's policy is to not shut down PC's at night so that they can get Windows updates.
That is ridiculous, I know windows sucks... but leaving computers on is irresponsible... Policies like this is the reason why we shouldn't have cheap energy. Basically, we need high energy taxes, so people solve the problem right instead of just working around it..
In this case, add a "shutdown for the day" button, that does the updates, scanning, etc. before shutdown. Or use an OS that can apply updates silently and doesn't require scanning for viruses, etc...
You can just remove the shutdown option on the start menu either locally with the windows registry or remotely using AD. We did this for a bunch of our key servers at work because a couple of people kept fat fingering the servers.
If you don't want you orgs PC to shutdown or sleep when not in use... It's probably time for more energy taxes.
There are plenty of ways to solve these problems... Leaving all PCs on all the time, is not a good one. And if companies can figure that out on their own, society should facilitate a clear financial motivation.
then you don't advertise unlimited without a clear explanation of those reasonable limits.
Even a clear explanation isn't worth much if "unlimited" is written in big letters... and the definition is deep in the fine print.
I believe the EU made a law a few years ago, stating that you must deliver whatever you write in large letters... Basically, that putting things in fine print isn't good enough...
If they have a "reasonable" limit at 1TB, they are selling 1TB traffic, not unlimited.
Add spotify, skype, nokia to the list... They all started in Europe...
But yes, there is more in the US, or maybe that's just how we perceive it... Personally, I think it also has to do with people from all over the world relocating to the valley... Rather than trying to create the same atmosphere elsewhere.
So if the US stops things like the H1B program, there is a real risk that Toronto, London or Berlin becomes a tech hub like the valley.
afaik MS has a patent licensing scheme to other.Net implemetations... Has been in place for decades... Look it up... I don't remember the details...
Eitherway, I suspect you're more likely to be sued by Oracle and suddenly have MS helping you because they want a different precedence...
Yes it does. The website took down the comments as soon as the 'victim' complained about them.
The ruling clearly states otherwise:
15. Having regard to the clearly unlawful nature of the comments in question, as well as the fact that they remained on the news portal for six weeks before they were removed, we do not find it disproportionate for the Supreme Court to find Delfi liable as it had “failed to remove the comments.
(Emphasis is mine)
Note, the opinion of the court specifically says that they did not rule on the whether or not the website could be liable for not moderating upfront, and concern themselves with the case where removal had been requested.
Article 8 protects people against slander, lies etc, article 10 grants free speech, these must be balanced. And when someone clearly violates article 8 in a comment, and a credible professional news organization, refuses to remove the comment, they can be held liable. Opinions from the ruling:
8.......Instead, the Court has adopted case-specific reasoning and at the same time has left the relevant principles to be developed more clearly in subsequent case-law.
15. Having regard to the clearly unlawful nature of the comments in question, as well as the fact that they remained on the news portal for six weeks before they were removed, we do not find it disproportionate for the Supreme Court to find Delfi liable as it had “failed to remove the comments
There is nothing sensational here. The court didn't say you were liable upfront, it didn't say that you couldn't be (and in some extreme cases that might make sense). But in this case the court ruled that holding someone liable for refusing to take down illegal speech hosted by them is not a free speech violation.
There is nothing new here. The ruling does not say you must moderate all comments.
It's not up to Facebook to do anything, other than comply with the applicable laws of the country they're located in. If the company inserted itself into a local and controversial political problem, then it could be putting its own employees at risk.
Correct, and as demonstrated by the USA, rouge police officers don't need warrants or probable cause in order to access all records held by facebook.
Especially, not if it's related to "terrorism" or "national" security...
This is why the surveillance programs are so bad, they legitimize the same conduct in countries where abuse is much more likely.
Not that we don't know the US already abuses it's powers for industrial espionage.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a Federal employee and I work in "Corporate America" and I know that if I told people to not use my bob@corporateemail.com but instead send it to bob@gmail.com or bob@myprivateserver.com, I would be terminated pretty fast.
I do exactly that and haven't been terminated so far :)
On topic, we need a technical outline of the issue explaining things in bullet points if we were to take this seriously. The republicans are crazy and say crazy things, so as far as I'm concerned this can be ignored... As usual the republicans are probably trying to make something of nothing by repeating it over and over again. In the words of John Steward something smells bad...
Note, emails could be of a semi personal nature... coordination related, accidentally sent there, this could be related to an out-date practice, or just general incompetence. At the end of the day she was probably trying to be productive in a dysfunctional system, rather than being evil.
Why don't you try offering them MORE MONEY, and watch the problem resolve itself! It might not be cool, but classic labor Economics still works in the 21st century.
Of course, Microsoft (or any other big tech company) doesn't really have a reason to do that as long as they can get a bunch of cheap H1-B workers to fill the positions instead.
An MSc in CS takes 5 years... So that's a very very long term plan... Also not feasible...
To make people choose CS for money to a larger extent than they already do you would have to double or triple wages... Wages that are already high enough to incentivise studying CS for the money.
Anyways, people don't choose everything in their lives with their wallet. What a sad world that would be.
The decision only affects the EU!
While true, the EU is bigger than the US, so this is still relevant news.
Also the ruling takes basis in the Human Rights convention which many countries have signed.
Sure this has no direct effect outside EU. But this is a legal system covering 28 democratic nations ruling that unrestricted surveillance is a human rights violation.
That ought to give you (Americans) something to think about.
Warning, I'm no lawyer, and not an expert on the US legal system.
But I imagine that some judges won't allow you to out-smart the law, but who knows... maybe in America...
One of the things people seem to forget is the "common sense" argument that labor laws are here to protect employees.
If you try to make an organizational-construct where by the small people (who needs this protection) is denied status as employee, you are working against the spirit of the law/regulation.
It's common sense to argue that the regulation was meant to protect your "contractors".
So all the technical arguments about hours, paid by task/hours etc. might not be important at all.
Ideally, though regulation could be clarified to avoid lawsuits like this.
Consider also the case of a franchise owner of a restaurant like McDonalds or Subway..... Would this ruling potentially reclassify all of them as employees of the franchise parent?
I suspect not... franschise owners have employees and are not necessarily the "small man", this matters because the spirit of the law/regulation is to protect people who needs it.
There is no such thing as a certain outcome in a court case, particularly if the other side has a lot of money to spend and can file motions continually. The SCO case took over 10 years. If you run out of money for attorney fees you lose by default.
True, nothing in life is sure...But the SCO case was in the US, I'm not sure it's relevant in the German court system.
This kid is a full on sociopath and deserves to be jailed.
Yes, let's lock up some kids. I don't think Finland should be looking to adopt the American way of life in prison.
You can't blame a kid for a dysfunctional US society where police forces deploy SWAT teams as if it was sport.
Schwartz was just another victim of crazy US "justice" system.
He would have had a very different treatment in Finland or Sweden.
Faster updates leads to more bugs and increasing technical debt that strangles development. It is slowly ruining chrome, so please don't do the same.
The "faster updates" I've heard about present was moving things into addons, and separating them from the normal release schedule.
Not release firefox more often...
In the US, most women who take time off to take care of children are branded unemployable, and often treated worse than a non-mother with a long-term gap in their employment.
It's a legitimate concern for my wife and I. She has a good job that pays well, but is very inflexible and involves a long commute...
So she could look for a more flexible job with a shorter commute and work part time from home or something like that...
Or you could be the stay at home dad and let your wife go to work... (it's an option, but I suspect you would fear for you career too)
Cue a bunch of ISPs playing games with the definition of "normal conditions".
Then they'll get sued... and if that doesn't work politicians will make new law clarifying the intend.
Many EU member countries are good at not letting companies play word games..
i tell you we are fucked for this to even need a court case of course we can flag and block things we don't what on your pc.
Relax... You can sue over many things; that doesn't imply you have a snow flakes chance in hell of winning...
They were probably just hoping avira would settle, and add an exception for freemium.
Couldn't a scan rule be put in place that only scans during the day IF the night scan didn't complete?
Sure if and if there is no tool for this... just script it yourself... Of course that would be easiest on linux... But not impossible on windows.
We have a similar scan problem, but our co's policy is to not shut down PC's at night so that they can get Windows updates.
That is ridiculous, I know windows sucks... but leaving computers on is irresponsible... Policies like this is the reason why we shouldn't have cheap energy. Basically, we need high energy taxes, so people solve the problem right instead of just working around it..
In this case, add a "shutdown for the day" button, that does the updates, scanning, etc. before shutdown. Or use an OS that can apply updates silently and doesn't require scanning for viruses, etc...
You can just remove the shutdown option on the start menu either locally with the windows registry or remotely using AD. We did this for a bunch of our key servers at work because a couple of people kept fat fingering the servers.
If you don't want you orgs PC to shutdown or sleep when not in use... It's probably time for more energy taxes.
There are plenty of ways to solve these problems... Leaving all PCs on all the time, is not a good one. And if companies can figure that out on their own, society should facilitate a clear financial motivation.
That's a contract...hence, a license...
then you don't advertise unlimited without a clear explanation of those reasonable limits.
Even a clear explanation isn't worth much if "unlimited" is written in big letters... and the definition is deep in the fine print.
I believe the EU made a law a few years ago, stating that you must deliver whatever you write in large letters... Basically, that putting things in fine print isn't good enough...
If they have a "reasonable" limit at 1TB, they are selling 1TB traffic, not unlimited.
Add spotify, skype, nokia to the list... They all started in Europe...
But yes, there is more in the US, or maybe that's just how we perceive it... Personally, I think it also has to do with people from all over the world relocating to the valley... Rather than trying to create the same atmosphere elsewhere.
So if the US stops things like the H1B program, there is a real risk that Toronto, London or Berlin becomes a tech hub like the valley.
How long until we can actually use it? How long until Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Opera and Safari supports it on all their respective supported platforms?
Compile w. babeljs.io for now... But Chrome and Firefox will probably have support relatively soon. FF has had much of ES6 internally for years.
afaik MS has a patent licensing scheme to other .Net implemetations... Has been in place for decades... Look it up... I don't remember the details...
Eitherway, I suspect you're more likely to be sued by Oracle and suddenly have MS helping you because they want a different precedence...
Yes it does. The website took down the comments as soon as the 'victim' complained about them.
The ruling clearly states otherwise:
15. Having regard to the clearly unlawful nature of the comments in question, as well as the fact that they remained on the news portal for six weeks before they were removed, we do not find it disproportionate for the Supreme Court to find Delfi liable as it had “failed to remove the comments.
(Emphasis is mine)
Note, the opinion of the court specifically says that they did not rule on the whether or not the website could be liable for not moderating upfront, and concern themselves with the case where removal had been requested.
8. ......Instead, the Court has adopted case-specific reasoning and at the same time has left the relevant principles to be developed more clearly in subsequent case-law.
15. Having regard to the clearly unlawful nature of the comments in question, as well as the fact that they remained on the news portal for six weeks before they were removed, we do not find it disproportionate for the Supreme Court to find Delfi liable as it had “failed to remove the comments
There is nothing sensational here. The court didn't say you were liable upfront, it didn't say that you couldn't be (and in some extreme cases that might make sense). But in this case the court ruled that holding someone liable for refusing to take down illegal speech hosted by them is not a free speech violation.
There is nothing new here. The ruling does not say you must moderate all comments.
whose job was replaced by an H1B worker? There must be thousands of them in silicon valley, all with motive.
Because H1Bs are replacing people who lay/maintain cables? I think not...
It's not up to Facebook to do anything, other than comply with the applicable laws of the country they're located in. If the company inserted itself into a local and controversial political problem, then it could be putting its own employees at risk.
Correct, and as demonstrated by the USA, rouge police officers don't need warrants or probable cause in order to access all records held by facebook.
Especially, not if it's related to "terrorism" or "national" security...
This is why the surveillance programs are so bad, they legitimize the same conduct in countries where abuse is much more likely.
Not that we don't know the US already abuses it's powers for industrial espionage.
Perhaps India should look into the US 2nd amendment.
Ha ha, yeah what you need is another reason for the corrupt police to shoot you...
So less than 2 dozen schools need to spend upwards of $2 million dollars to... control the HVAC?
Really?
That is the bigger issue, IMHO...
I didn't care to read the article... but they are probably replacing the A/Cs with new units etc...