The risk is probably very low. If, as an organization, they were capable of taking reprisals against the FBI, they could just as easily take them against any number of publicly known faces involves in the case, or the judge, or the prosecutor, etc.
Smart ones still make dumb mistakes now and then, luck plays a big role in those lapses catching up with them or not, and every criminal looks dumb at that point.
Figuring out how to not have it simply happen again? That is the tricky thing about systemic and institutional problems, even swapping out all the individuals might not actually change anything.
The problem is that this 'evidence' has not actually come out, it has mostly been fabricated or twisted by certain communities. These communities are also terrible at weighing costs (even though they rant about it) since they tend to do things like '1:1,000,000 chance of side effect with vaccine is less acceptable than 1:10,000 without'.
Yeah, but that gets into the whole 'responsibility for how your actions impact other people' pattern, and in general the 'my decision!' crowd denies that has any weight unless you are assaulting someone. Otherwise it is simply the other party's personal responsibility to ensure that the person's action do not hurt them.
The reason it gets tricky is that one's decisions only effecting themselves is a fairly rare case, and usually there is going to be SOME impact to others which they do not control. Laws and regulations try to find a balance between such things, but there is a pretty fanatical base that wants that balance completely skewed to what will benefit them, usually because they have the resources to escape most other people's actions (the standard 'if you do not like it, move' argument) or simply are so inwardly focused that they do not think about interconnection much.
Depends on the type of private school. Ones focused on networking or education generally are pretty strict on that since they cater to people of means who want to give their kids more opportunity than a public school would provide (i.e. upper middle class annoyed that their children will be socializing with their lessers), but ones catering to fringe groups with their main selling point being idealogical rather then educational, well, they may or may not enforce vaccination depending on the community they are selling to.
The part they are not saying, or at least the part the part left off in the 'home schooling is illegal!' crowd skip over is that home schooling still has some educational requirements and standards, which many homeschool proponents are explicitly trying to avoid. For every home school parent simply trying to get their kid out of a bad school, there are probably 20 who want to insure that their children are not accidently exposed to ideas counter to the religious ones they want to instill. I have actually known home school parents who ended up sending their kids back to public school when they discovered that all the resources for such schooling in their region (such as community) were exclusively religious and pretty far off the mainstream.
I understand the 'why', but we are talking about how laws written before such cases were possible might interact in literal ways. The spirit of a law or its philosophical underpinnings and how a properly motivated judge interpret them are not always terribly in sync.
In theory yes, in practice no. Laws are often written to be neutral, but their implementation has always been highly political, with judges and prosecutors factoring their careers into every case since their future advancements and opportunities do actually depend on it. Even if they are blatantly breaking the law it would be unlikely to make it to court. Finding someone who has standing (otherwise the court would throw out the case) would be tricky since their targets could easily be slut-shamed into backing down, prosecutors do not really have much to gain and would probably get a lot of blowback from other companies that want the same capabilities. One MIGHT be able to organize a class action lawsuit, the one DIY form of justice available to people without deep pockets, but industry has been working so hard over the last few decades to paint such mechanisms and sue-crazy madness that the stigma there is pretty significant and will be enough to keep most people out of it.
Pirate Bay? Knowing Sony they are attacking themselves. The battles between their electronics and media divisions have been pretty comic over the years...
Though it does bring up some interesting legal questions regarding the limits of self defense online, something that could dovetail in interesting ways with things like castle doctrine (think of all the things commercial software and websites do to your home machine) or something like 'stand your ground' (if you have a legal right to be on a website and feel threatened by the owners or users, is that than legal justification for offensive actions?).
Given Sony's own shady history, this could open up a can of worms for them. Not legally of course since even in the cases of the above meatspace laws stats have demonstrated their successful application depends more on who the parties involved are then anything else), but from a PR and ethics perspective they could be digging themselves a hole.
Though I would be surprised if they actually care.
It is a similar relationship to that of evidence illegally collected by police. The lectures themselves have not decreased in value, but they also represent a significant prestige for the professor and brand association between the two entities. By actually having some level of consequence for such behavior (the majority of the time the student is quietly told to shove it) it shows others that such behavior will not be tolerated, sort of.
Part of the problem there is that many insurance companies do not think that far ahead, esp the more "budget" ones. Often they do not have the assets to pay out in the case of major disaster, they simply fold instead. So the risk calculations tend to leave out catastrophic cases, even when such cases are technically covered in the plan.
It also does not help that building owners who go with crappy insurance are at a business advantage over ones that pay for plans from companies that will last, which means they are less competitive, so they lose share over time and we get a race to the bottom.
They also have history on their side. Even high profile disasters involving buildings, even ones with gross negligence, rarely have consequences for owners (unless they are pretty small time). Their tenants and customers suffer, but they can factor in the sad fact that THEY will not.
I now have a sudden urge to start walking around campus with a trench coat asking people 'hey kid, that's a nice little dissertation you got there, youz maybe wanna get it published perhaps?'
Quite true. In many journals it comes down to the often random process of who reviews your submission, with some judges being highly critical and others passing anything that lines up with what they like. It can be very hit or miss.
If it was just the names I would agree 'ho hum' since rejecting a legitimate paper based off the names matching up with fictional ones would be pretty unprofessional, but the nonsense content of the paper is more concerning.. or would be concerning if those were journals of any note to begin with.
This is kinda like submitting Alice in Wonderland to some vanity publisher and then people highlighting it as an example of how publishers do not check for obvious plagiarism. Technically correct for shakey values of 'publisher'.
In general such laws require one to be hooked up, but not be paying for or consuming power, and that is just a housing code thing. Cases (like the one mentioned by the other poster) where use of the utility is required are usually rooted in one fee covering multiple utilities. In the Florida case the local utility charged for water consumption but that pool paid for both water delivery and sewage removal. In her case she was collecting her own water but still using the sewer infrastructure, so the law was not all that well drafted but it was attempting to address a real balance that she was taking advantage of.
Though what we could see there is another case of middle class exodus since detached homes with enough roof space to cover the energy needs of a family (plus the storage capacity) are not something most people are going to manage.
One of the blind spots I think a lot of people in the tech industry have is forgetting that we tend to make well above average pay and are more likely to live out in suburbs or rural areas than the majority of the country. Though that might also mean we do not make up enough of the customer base to matter anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The risk is probably very low. If, as an organization, they were capable of taking reprisals against the FBI, they could just as easily take them against any number of publicly known faces involves in the case, or the judge, or the prosecutor, etc.
Smart ones still make dumb mistakes now and then, luck plays a big role in those lapses catching up with them or not, and every criminal looks dumb at that point.
Eh, I doubt anything released is all that useful, much less a 'howto'. An interesting post mortem but predictive in a terribly useful way.
Question is, can you do 6 times the work, or just hexth ass all the jobs?
Figuring out how to not have it simply happen again? That is the tricky thing about systemic and institutional problems, even swapping out all the individuals might not actually change anything.
The problem is that this 'evidence' has not actually come out, it has mostly been fabricated or twisted by certain communities. These communities are also terrible at weighing costs (even though they rant about it) since they tend to do things like '1:1,000,000 chance of side effect with vaccine is less acceptable than 1:10,000 without'.
Yeah, but that gets into the whole 'responsibility for how your actions impact other people' pattern, and in general the 'my decision!' crowd denies that has any weight unless you are assaulting someone. Otherwise it is simply the other party's personal responsibility to ensure that the person's action do not hurt them.
The reason it gets tricky is that one's decisions only effecting themselves is a fairly rare case, and usually there is going to be SOME impact to others which they do not control. Laws and regulations try to find a balance between such things, but there is a pretty fanatical base that wants that balance completely skewed to what will benefit them, usually because they have the resources to escape most other people's actions (the standard 'if you do not like it, move' argument) or simply are so inwardly focused that they do not think about interconnection much.
Depends on the type of private school. Ones focused on networking or education generally are pretty strict on that since they cater to people of means who want to give their kids more opportunity than a public school would provide (i.e. upper middle class annoyed that their children will be socializing with their lessers), but ones catering to fringe groups with their main selling point being idealogical rather then educational, well, they may or may not enforce vaccination depending on the community they are selling to.
The part they are not saying, or at least the part the part left off in the 'home schooling is illegal!' crowd skip over is that home schooling still has some educational requirements and standards, which many homeschool proponents are explicitly trying to avoid. For every home school parent simply trying to get their kid out of a bad school, there are probably 20 who want to insure that their children are not accidently exposed to ideas counter to the religious ones they want to instill. I have actually known home school parents who ended up sending their kids back to public school when they discovered that all the resources for such schooling in their region (such as community) were exclusively religious and pretty far off the mainstream.
Sadly, education and skepticism are often heavily intertwined with stupidity and fear. They can be as much cause as prevention.
I understand the 'why', but we are talking about how laws written before such cases were possible might interact in literal ways. The spirit of a law or its philosophical underpinnings and how a properly motivated judge interpret them are not always terribly in sync.
In theory yes, in practice no. Laws are often written to be neutral, but their implementation has always been highly political, with judges and prosecutors factoring their careers into every case since their future advancements and opportunities do actually depend on it. Even if they are blatantly breaking the law it would be unlikely to make it to court. Finding someone who has standing (otherwise the court would throw out the case) would be tricky since their targets could easily be slut-shamed into backing down, prosecutors do not really have much to gain and would probably get a lot of blowback from other companies that want the same capabilities. One MIGHT be able to organize a class action lawsuit, the one DIY form of justice available to people without deep pockets, but industry has been working so hard over the last few decades to paint such mechanisms and sue-crazy madness that the stigma there is pretty significant and will be enough to keep most people out of it.
Pirate Bay? Knowing Sony they are attacking themselves. The battles between their electronics and media divisions have been pretty comic over the years...
There is a certain irony in that yeah.
Though it does bring up some interesting legal questions regarding the limits of self defense online, something that could dovetail in interesting ways with things like castle doctrine (think of all the things commercial software and websites do to your home machine) or something like 'stand your ground' (if you have a legal right to be on a website and feel threatened by the owners or users, is that than legal justification for offensive actions?).
Given Sony's own shady history, this could open up a can of worms for them. Not legally of course since even in the cases of the above meatspace laws stats have demonstrated their successful application depends more on who the parties involved are then anything else), but from a PR and ethics perspective they could be digging themselves a hole.
Though I would be surprised if they actually care.
It is a similar relationship to that of evidence illegally collected by police. The lectures themselves have not decreased in value, but they also represent a significant prestige for the professor and brand association between the two entities. By actually having some level of consequence for such behavior (the majority of the time the student is quietly told to shove it) it shows others that such behavior will not be tolerated, sort of.
Part of the problem there is that many insurance companies do not think that far ahead, esp the more "budget" ones. Often they do not have the assets to pay out in the case of major disaster, they simply fold instead. So the risk calculations tend to leave out catastrophic cases, even when such cases are technically covered in the plan.
It also does not help that building owners who go with crappy insurance are at a business advantage over ones that pay for plans from companies that will last, which means they are less competitive, so they lose share over time and we get a race to the bottom.
They also have history on their side. Even high profile disasters involving buildings, even ones with gross negligence, rarely have consequences for owners (unless they are pretty small time). Their tenants and customers suffer, but they can factor in the sad fact that THEY will not.
And those contractors in turn rent or own space, as do their families and suppliers. Costs like this have a way of cycling around.
For the most part these are not buildings where owners live. The decision to endanger other people if you can keep prices low is much easier for them.
I now have a sudden urge to start walking around campus with a trench coat asking people 'hey kid, that's a nice little dissertation you got there, youz maybe wanna get it published perhaps?'
One does not even need to look for intentionally horrible works... not when quality examples like Moon People and its sequals exist.
Quite true. In many journals it comes down to the often random process of who reviews your submission, with some judges being highly critical and others passing anything that lines up with what they like. It can be very hit or miss.
If it was just the names I would agree 'ho hum' since rejecting a legitimate paper based off the names matching up with fictional ones would be pretty unprofessional, but the nonsense content of the paper is more concerning.. or would be concerning if those were journals of any note to begin with.
This is kinda like submitting Alice in Wonderland to some vanity publisher and then people highlighting it as an example of how publishers do not check for obvious plagiarism. Technically correct for shakey values of 'publisher'.
She also shows hints of secretly being smarter then all the other characters.... bizarro genius baby.
In general such laws require one to be hooked up, but not be paying for or consuming power, and that is just a housing code thing. Cases (like the one mentioned by the other poster) where use of the utility is required are usually rooted in one fee covering multiple utilities. In the Florida case the local utility charged for water consumption but that pool paid for both water delivery and sewage removal. In her case she was collecting her own water but still using the sewer infrastructure, so the law was not all that well drafted but it was attempting to address a real balance that she was taking advantage of.
Though what we could see there is another case of middle class exodus since detached homes with enough roof space to cover the energy needs of a family (plus the storage capacity) are not something most people are going to manage.
One of the blind spots I think a lot of people in the tech industry have is forgetting that we tend to make well above average pay and are more likely to live out in suburbs or rural areas than the majority of the country. Though that might also mean we do not make up enough of the customer base to matter anyway.