It wasn't meant as a racist statement, and indeed there are many good programmers of Indian decent. I was referring to the outsourcing companies that are hosted in India. They typically hire programmers that can barely speak english, and have no idea what business requirements are. These companies are far more concerned with meeting the letter of their contract and getting paid as opposed to delivering a quality product. I've worked with an organization like this, and I've read about similar experiences from others. I have never heard about an outsourced develpment project that delivered anything worth selling. In fact, in many cases the code is so bad that it has to be scrapped. These types of projects can require terse management from the US side just to get the bare mimimum out of them, and my point was that if you are going to be that type of a manager then these types of projects would be better suited for you. I can see how what I said could be interpreted as a slam against Indian developers, but that's not what I meant.
No that's not flamebait, in fact, it's excellent advice. You can't run a department of advanced programmers the same way that you run a Burger King. Well, you can but you won't have any advanced programmers left if you do. Professionals typically don't enjoy working for someone that doesn't give them the respect that they've earned. Unreasonable timelines designed to drive results for the company will cause your employees to cut corners and deliver an inferior product. When this happens your good employees will no longer feel good about the job they are doing and go find a new one. Good products take time and money. If you want it fast, and cheap it ain't gonna be worth $h!t. Good employees want to work for good companies. It's a simple equation really.
Status reports are a bunch of non-sense. Requiring your employees to file status reports tells me three things. 1) You don't know enough about what they are doing to manage them, 2) how long it should take, and 3) you don't trust them to work as professionals to deliver a quality product. That last part causes resentment, and if you really want good people to work for you then you treat them like good people until they give you a reason to treat them differently. If you don't care about the people that are working for you then just skip the preliminaries and go straight to managing a project full of Indian developers.
I'm waiting for the day that we can collectively sue these media organizations for contributing to the demise of entertainment. Seriously. I can no longer in good conscience buy DVDs, CDs, or the equipment to play them because I don't want to be involved in supporting these morons. I keep hoping that they'll eventually go away, but someone is obviously continuing to finance their reign of nonsense.
How is that a troll? I'd call it a convenience? After all, the parent poster went out of their way to obscure their email address. They must not want mail very much. I think this guy was just attempting to be helpful.
They could change the kernel version to match. It would be less confusing. Windows 7 just doesn't have that marketing ring to it. I'll bet it tanks worse than Vista (that was a dumb name too). Previous version names probably took their marketing department weeks and numerous meetings to come up with. I remember seeing Windows for WG 3.11 in Sears. That was the vision I had when I read the summary.
Being smarter just means that he's smart enough to hoodwink the general populace without them knowing that they're being screwed. I wouldn't use the rest of the world as a guideline to who would be best suited as our next president. They typically don't have our best interests at heart because, well they're not part of the U.S. go figure. Your assessment is clearly an echo of the liberal media, and the boring tripe they've been spewing for months now. If you really are concerned about the country, why don't you do a bit of research on how each of the candidates have voted? Find out what Obama's involvment was with a program (along with Bill Ayers) to support radical education groups that are attempting to raise up our next generation of domestic terrorists. Get to know the bills they voted on, and why they voted the way they did. Being president requires a little more than presense. Decisions will have to be made, and sometimes those decisions will have adverse consequences. It's one thing to get up on stage, and talk telling everyone what they want to hear. It's quite another to actually implement those ideas, figure out how to pay for them, and then live with the backlash from those that don't agree. If you want to talk about disasterous take a serious look at what it would cost us to implement universal health care. Then consider where that money will come from. We still don't know how we're going to pay for this wretched bail out plan, but I can guarantee we are going to pay for it in some respect. The common folks always do. Even if you stick the bill to the top 1 percent, who do you think provides the jobs, and the capital for investments that keep the economy going. That's where the economics really trickle down. On top of that he's going to institute government run health care with approximately the same price tag. That alone is enough to bankrupt this country. Talk about disasterous. Obama talks about taxing the rich as though it has no impact on anyone else. He's living in a fantasy if he really thinks that's true. Far more likely though, is he knows exactly what's going to happen, and the only way he can sell it to the pubic is to omit any negative consequences, and focus on sticking it to the rich which of course everyone loves to do. He doesn't care about America, he just wants to advace his socialist agenda. I'm almost hoping that he does get elected just so all of you who think you're so damn smart actually find out what you've really bought into. Open you eyes for crying out loud.
"Obama and Biden - Osama Bin Laden -- Cooincidence?" I've never seen anything like that, however I did catch the interview with Obama that O'Riley did, and walked away with a higher opinion of him than I had before. I still wouldn't vote for him. I think that he has a socialist agenda, and that the country as a whole would suffer greatly under him. He's an idealist, and while some of his ideas are emotionally appealing, we'd go broke trying to make it a reality without ever achieving success. I'm wondering what McCain "lied" about? What sources are you using? The Daily KOS, MSNBC, Michael Moore, etc.???? He has a pretty impressive record that is independently verifiable. Care to check on how he's voted on a paticular issue? It's all a matter of public record. Speaking of which, check out Obama's voting record, being president requires a bit more than being present. You actually have to make decisions, and live with the consequenses. While I know that McCain's military service does not directly make him qualified to lead the country, I think he would be keenly aware of what the consequenses of war are, and I don't think he would rush into war or make decisions as lightly because of it. I know some people are saying the fact that he went to Washington to do his job as a senator is just political theater, I think it shows just what kind of man McCain is... he'll get in there and roll up his sleves regardless of public opinion. I'd like someone in charge that doesn't change their mind with the wind of the polls. There's a lot of people scared right now in the financial crisis we are in. As a tax payer who made good decisions, bought the house I could afford instead of the one I wanted, drive a vehicle that's in line with my salary, live within my means carrying little debt I'm kind of pissed at the prospect that my taxes are going to go up to foot the bill (and let's face it, it's going to have to come from somewhere) for the people and companies that made poor decisions. My attitude is bring it on. If there's gonna be a depression let's do it now and have done with it. Most people don't see it that way though. They want us to continue to postpone the inevitable. I'm glad McCain is in there. Hopefully he can minimize the pain.
Oh please??? Fox news is the only network I've found that isn't blatently supporting Obama. At least Fox presents both sides and assumes the viewer is smart enough to decide who's right. MSNBC tells you what to think, and then tells you it's the truth and you swallow it hook line and sinker don't you?
and so you think that no politician has forced out those that didn't agree with their policies? What planet do you live on anyway? I happen to think that we really don't need to explain homosexuality to children. They'll find out soon enough anyway the way society is headed. I happen to believe that a child should be protected from the illnesses within society while being trained up in the way that they should go so that in their latter years they will not depart from it. But what do I know? Turn on the news sometime. How's the widespread do whatever you feel like metality been working out for us?
I'm a conservative (I don't know if that's really the same thing as republican anymore). I'd say he's a good speaker as long as he's got a script to practice and go off of. I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there. Not to mention when he says things he'd like to take back (think pigs and lipstick). The best thing he's got going for him is that the media loves him and handles him with kidd gloves. If you take that away though I don't see a great deal of substance in him, and I really worry about the prospect of him changing the healthcare system. Universal healthcare while appealing on an emotional level is almost certainly going to result in all of us getting lower quality care and paying higher taxes to pay for it (IMHO anyway). I also worry about his simplistic view of raising taxes on the rich as though that would have no cascading effect on those of us who aren't. You think inflation is bad now. Better do your homework.
This assumes of course that the primary motivation of theses artists is financial. I'm all for giving the artist their due. I've recorded music and played clubs, coffee shops, book stores, etc. It's not easy, and if someone goes to all that trouble, and I like their music I'm going to compensate them for it. I still make music. Mostly just recording at home, and then I release it to the internet. I do it because I like writing, playing, and recording. It's the same reason I come home after working all day, write software and release it. I enjoy it, and I already have a full time job that pays my bills. Great music is going to exist as long as you have artists that really want to make music as opposed to corporate pawns like Britney Spears et al. If anything fades away I would suppose it would be those that are only in it for the money, and to them I say good ridence we didn't need that anyway. You also seem to be indicating that once an artist releases a CD that the consumer has no right to format shift, mix and match tracks etc. I do this all the time, and surprise I still listen to it closely as I'm driving down the freeway. I like mixing tracks, it breathes new life into them. Another thing I like to do is take an artist that has a bunch of albums, and fade the tracks into each other as I'm recording to a reel. I patch 2 cd players into my mixer and fade tracks together. It's like listening to the radio without commercials and every song is from the same artist. It doesn't mean I have any less respect for the music I just like listening to it in that way. I don't give it away to anyone else, upload it to the internet, or otherwise reduce the artists ability to sell albums. I don't see the problem with that. Now obviously that doesn't work for every album. The Moody Blues have several albums that tell a story, and to rip a track from one another is like picking a chapter from several different books and expecting it to make sense. It doesn't work for those types of albums. But take Crosby, Stills, and Nash where each song tells a different story, and it's fine. I've heard the argument that it's not the way the artist intended it. Well tough. If I record an album and sell it to you. It's yours. If I decide I want to sell it and make a living at it I have the right to demand that you don't distribute it to others diminishing my ability to make a living, but what you do with it in your own home is up to you. It's called fair use, and it's a beautiful thing. If anything I think giving the consumer what they want the way they want it is the way to keep people interested.
I feel that you are correct in saying that it doesn't excuse the exploitation. Their working conditions are abhorrant by our standards in the US. But, what if the person doing the work is happy? What if improving the working conditions would mean that people who work would have to work harder, and there would be less work to go around? It would also have an impact on how much we pay for goods and services. Look at how the price of fuel has affected groceries in addition to all goods and services. It's across the board. Imagine if suddenly the Chinese worker was paid the same as an American worker. How does that improve their situation (or ours)? The only reason we export jobs there is because the labor is cheaper in conjunction with the cost of transport. What happens to all of those Chinese people when they no longer have a job? These are complicated issues, and sometimes the cure winds up being worse than the disease. Money does not equal happiness. Look at most Hollywood celebrities and do the math. Most of them are in and out of rehab, live disfunctional lives, and are generally miserable. Maybe the best blessing the Chineese people have is the lack of funding to destroy themselves. Whether we like it or not we are now participating in a global economy. Standing on a soapbox and shouting probably won't solve these issues. So if that's the case then the question is not just "what do we DO about it", it's also "is what we are proposing going to make it better for those we are trying to help"?
There have been studies though showing that some people just can't or won't be rehabilitated. What do you do with those people? You can't have them running the streets. I think you are correct when it comes to low level crimes like petty theft, drug abuse, crimes of desparation,etc. However, when you are talking about murderers who do it for fun (thrill killing), child molesters that "can't help themselves", rapists, career criminals, etc. you aren't likely going to be able to rehabilitate these people, and society is honestly better off without them. I'd be ok even with giving these types of offenders a second chance (mostly because I'm a big fan of forgiveness), maybe after several years of rehabilitation (which you're right -- that should be the focus), but after that if they do it again it should be the death penalty. Just my 2 cents.
It's not a bad thing as long as your position is sincere, but I'm afraid in this case like many others it's politics at it's worst. He can say whatever he wants. I'm far more concerned about what he's going to actually DO. When I look at his voting record, and look at the things he said durring the debates in the primaries I can get somewhat of an idea of where he stands. Unfortunately we won't know for sure unless he's elected, and by then it will be too late. I guess I should also point out that it's not just Obama. It's all of them. They all lie. It's a prerequisite.
There are emulators, along with ROMS available. V9T9 is what I used until I went to XP 64x. Bring your cassettes into WAV files and read it in just like you're running it from tape. It'll run in a vpc, but then I discoved this cool thing called MESS. Every console you could ever want to emulate is in there, but the catch is that you have to find the console roms, and the game roms on your own. Google is your friend though.
Your comment highlights the very reason why the telcos shouldn't be liable. They were compelled by a goverment request to provided the information. If the government makes the request illegally then the government should be the one that is liable. I don't really want the government to be in a legal pissing match every time they need information from a private company to mitigate a security issue. Why should a private company have to foot the bill for complying with a governmental request? The governement was elected by us, and for us, so if we have a problem with it we should use the avenues available to remedy the situation. Going after the telcos is just a money grab. As far as I know the only phone calls they were tapping were those with known foreign terrorist ties. So what??? Why should I care?
Because in order for case law to apply it has to be a similar case. The less details that apply to the case the less weight the case law being applied will have. According to wikipedia anyway.... "In common law systems this type of precedent is granted more or less weight in the deliberations of a court according to a number of factors. Most important is whether the precedent is "on point," that is, does it deal with a circumstance identical or very similar to the circumstance in the instant case? Second, when and where was the precedent decided? A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Next in descending order would be recent precedent in jurisdictions whose law is the same as local law. Least weight would be given to precedent that stems from dissimilar circumstances, older cases that have since been contradicted, or cases in jurisdictions that have dissimilar law."
Now could it be used to build precedent and start down a path that could wind up having "buy gold go to jail" type consequences? Yes I suppose, but it would take years and a heck of a lot of bad judgement to get there (from my understanding of how the legal system works anyway).
If the violation results in someone's death. In order for case law to apply it has to be a similar case. Not just the violation part, but the end result as well (IANAL but that's my understanding). What is scary to me is that they are using this absurd interpretation of anti hacking laws, and this asshat is probably going to walk because of it.
I read the indictment, and it seems like what they are saying is that because she violated the terms of service (by harassing Megan, using a false identity), her use of myspace was unauthorized. Then they are stretching that into a hacking charge. At first I was all over it. Didn't care what the charge was this woman should go to jail and I don't care how that happens, but upon further reflection (and a conversation with a couple of other slashdotters) I'm liking the idea less and less all the time. For one thing they're not likely to be successful in convicting her. Why not find a charge that more directly applies? Child abuse, aggravated manslaughter, stalking, criminal negligence... it seems like those all apply more directly than hacking. Also if they are successful it might have unwanted consequences. Case law was mentioned earlier. I'm still not sure how that could get stretched into prosecuting people for using a fake name, or somesuch but the prospect is scary.
I see what you are saying, and I'll concede that if a judge had an ax to grind, or felt like you stepped over the line by accessing a system in an unauthorized manor then maybe it could apply (abusively). But I would think there already is a lot of other case law that would more accurately fit that situation. Wouldn't a lawyer attempting to apply that case law have to prove that the case is similar (ie. resulted in someone's death)? Like I said, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's how case law works. From Wikipedia (yeah I know, not the best source)
Case law
The other type of precedent is case law. In common law systems this type of precedent is granted more or less weight in the deliberations of a court according to a number of factors. Most important is whether the precedent is "on point," that is, does it deal with a circumstance identical or very similar to the circumstance in the instant case? Second, when and where was the precedent decided? A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Next in descending order would be recent precedent in jurisdictions whose law is the same as local law. Least weight would be given to precedent that stems from dissimilar circumstances, older cases that have since been contradicted, or cases in jurisdictions that have dissimilar law.
I see now from doing a bit of reading that legal experts are worried about the precedent it could set, and I'm wondering why when the definition of the applicaiton of case law seems so plain as to make it a non issue. After reading that article I'm forming a new opinion though. Thinking about it further outside of the immediate emotional reaction to the situation I'm wondering why they don't procsecute her under something like aggravated manslaughter. They would have to prove that she caused her death, but I don't think that's beyond the realm of possibility. In my mind she did.
Slashdot Mirror
That looks more like my stock portfolio. Are you sure???
It wasn't meant as a racist statement, and indeed there are many good programmers of Indian decent. I was referring to the outsourcing companies that are hosted in India. They typically hire programmers that can barely speak english, and have no idea what business requirements are. These companies are far more concerned with meeting the letter of their contract and getting paid as opposed to delivering a quality product. I've worked with an organization like this, and I've read about similar experiences from others. I have never heard about an outsourced develpment project that delivered anything worth selling. In fact, in many cases the code is so bad that it has to be scrapped. These types of projects can require terse management from the US side just to get the bare mimimum out of them, and my point was that if you are going to be that type of a manager then these types of projects would be better suited for you. I can see how what I said could be interpreted as a slam against Indian developers, but that's not what I meant.
No that's not flamebait, in fact, it's excellent advice. You can't run a department of advanced programmers the same way that you run a Burger King. Well, you can but you won't have any advanced programmers left if you do. Professionals typically don't enjoy working for someone that doesn't give them the respect that they've earned. Unreasonable timelines designed to drive results for the company will cause your employees to cut corners and deliver an inferior product. When this happens your good employees will no longer feel good about the job they are doing and go find a new one. Good products take time and money. If you want it fast, and cheap it ain't gonna be worth $h!t. Good employees want to work for good companies. It's a simple equation really.
Status reports are a bunch of non-sense. Requiring your employees to file status reports tells me three things. 1) You don't know enough about what they are doing to manage them, 2) how long it should take, and 3) you don't trust them to work as professionals to deliver a quality product. That last part causes resentment, and if you really want good people to work for you then you treat them like good people until they give you a reason to treat them differently. If you don't care about the people that are working for you then just skip the preliminaries and go straight to managing a project full of Indian developers.
And on that cheery note the thread died.
I'm waiting for the day that we can collectively sue these media organizations for contributing to the demise of entertainment. Seriously. I can no longer in good conscience buy DVDs, CDs, or the equipment to play them because I don't want to be involved in supporting these morons. I keep hoping that they'll eventually go away, but someone is obviously continuing to finance their reign of nonsense.
How is that a troll? I'd call it a convenience? After all, the parent poster went out of their way to obscure their email address. They must not want mail very much. I think this guy was just attempting to be helpful.
They could change the kernel version to match. It would be less confusing. Windows 7 just doesn't have that marketing ring to it. I'll bet it tanks worse than Vista (that was a dumb name too). Previous version names probably took their marketing department weeks and numerous meetings to come up with. I remember seeing Windows for WG 3.11 in Sears. That was the vision I had when I read the summary.
Yeah, but why bother when you point out the truth just to get modded as a troll. Morons.
Being smarter just means that he's smart enough to hoodwink the general populace without them knowing that they're being screwed. I wouldn't use the rest of the world as a guideline to who would be best suited as our next president. They typically don't have our best interests at heart because, well they're not part of the U.S. go figure. Your assessment is clearly an echo of the liberal media, and the boring tripe they've been spewing for months now. If you really are concerned about the country, why don't you do a bit of research on how each of the candidates have voted? Find out what Obama's involvment was with a program (along with Bill Ayers) to support radical education groups that are attempting to raise up our next generation of domestic terrorists. Get to know the bills they voted on, and why they voted the way they did. Being president requires a little more than presense. Decisions will have to be made, and sometimes those decisions will have adverse consequences. It's one thing to get up on stage, and talk telling everyone what they want to hear. It's quite another to actually implement those ideas, figure out how to pay for them, and then live with the backlash from those that don't agree. If you want to talk about disasterous take a serious look at what it would cost us to implement universal health care. Then consider where that money will come from. We still don't know how we're going to pay for this wretched bail out plan, but I can guarantee we are going to pay for it in some respect. The common folks always do. Even if you stick the bill to the top 1 percent, who do you think provides the jobs, and the capital for investments that keep the economy going. That's where the economics really trickle down. On top of that he's going to institute government run health care with approximately the same price tag. That alone is enough to bankrupt this country. Talk about disasterous. Obama talks about taxing the rich as though it has no impact on anyone else. He's living in a fantasy if he really thinks that's true. Far more likely though, is he knows exactly what's going to happen, and the only way he can sell it to the pubic is to omit any negative consequences, and focus on sticking it to the rich which of course everyone loves to do. He doesn't care about America, he just wants to advace his socialist agenda. I'm almost hoping that he does get elected just so all of you who think you're so damn smart actually find out what you've really bought into. Open you eyes for crying out loud.
"Obama and Biden - Osama Bin Laden -- Cooincidence?" I've never seen anything like that, however I did catch the interview with Obama that O'Riley did, and walked away with a higher opinion of him than I had before. I still wouldn't vote for him. I think that he has a socialist agenda, and that the country as a whole would suffer greatly under him. He's an idealist, and while some of his ideas are emotionally appealing, we'd go broke trying to make it a reality without ever achieving success. I'm wondering what McCain "lied" about? What sources are you using? The Daily KOS, MSNBC, Michael Moore, etc.???? He has a pretty impressive record that is independently verifiable. Care to check on how he's voted on a paticular issue? It's all a matter of public record. Speaking of which, check out Obama's voting record, being president requires a bit more than being present. You actually have to make decisions, and live with the consequenses. While I know that McCain's military service does not directly make him qualified to lead the country, I think he would be keenly aware of what the consequenses of war are, and I don't think he would rush into war or make decisions as lightly because of it. I know some people are saying the fact that he went to Washington to do his job as a senator is just political theater, I think it shows just what kind of man McCain is... he'll get in there and roll up his sleves regardless of public opinion. I'd like someone in charge that doesn't change their mind with the wind of the polls. There's a lot of people scared right now in the financial crisis we are in. As a tax payer who made good decisions, bought the house I could afford instead of the one I wanted, drive a vehicle that's in line with my salary, live within my means carrying little debt I'm kind of pissed at the prospect that my taxes are going to go up to foot the bill (and let's face it, it's going to have to come from somewhere) for the people and companies that made poor decisions. My attitude is bring it on. If there's gonna be a depression let's do it now and have done with it. Most people don't see it that way though. They want us to continue to postpone the inevitable. I'm glad McCain is in there. Hopefully he can minimize the pain.
Oh please??? Fox news is the only network I've found that isn't blatently supporting Obama. At least Fox presents both sides and assumes the viewer is smart enough to decide who's right. MSNBC tells you what to think, and then tells you it's the truth and you swallow it hook line and sinker don't you?
and so you think that no politician has forced out those that didn't agree with their policies? What planet do you live on anyway? I happen to think that we really don't need to explain homosexuality to children. They'll find out soon enough anyway the way society is headed. I happen to believe that a child should be protected from the illnesses within society while being trained up in the way that they should go so that in their latter years they will not depart from it. But what do I know? Turn on the news sometime. How's the widespread do whatever you feel like metality been working out for us?
I'm a conservative (I don't know if that's really the same thing as republican anymore). I'd say he's a good speaker as long as he's got a script to practice and go off of. I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there. Not to mention when he says things he'd like to take back (think pigs and lipstick). The best thing he's got going for him is that the media loves him and handles him with kidd gloves. If you take that away though I don't see a great deal of substance in him, and I really worry about the prospect of him changing the healthcare system. Universal healthcare while appealing on an emotional level is almost certainly going to result in all of us getting lower quality care and paying higher taxes to pay for it (IMHO anyway). I also worry about his simplistic view of raising taxes on the rich as though that would have no cascading effect on those of us who aren't. You think inflation is bad now. Better do your homework.
This assumes of course that the primary motivation of theses artists is financial. I'm all for giving the artist their due. I've recorded music and played clubs, coffee shops, book stores, etc. It's not easy, and if someone goes to all that trouble, and I like their music I'm going to compensate them for it. I still make music. Mostly just recording at home, and then I release it to the internet. I do it because I like writing, playing, and recording. It's the same reason I come home after working all day, write software and release it. I enjoy it, and I already have a full time job that pays my bills. Great music is going to exist as long as you have artists that really want to make music as opposed to corporate pawns like Britney Spears et al. If anything fades away I would suppose it would be those that are only in it for the money, and to them I say good ridence we didn't need that anyway. You also seem to be indicating that once an artist releases a CD that the consumer has no right to format shift, mix and match tracks etc. I do this all the time, and surprise I still listen to it closely as I'm driving down the freeway. I like mixing tracks, it breathes new life into them. Another thing I like to do is take an artist that has a bunch of albums, and fade the tracks into each other as I'm recording to a reel. I patch 2 cd players into my mixer and fade tracks together. It's like listening to the radio without commercials and every song is from the same artist. It doesn't mean I have any less respect for the music I just like listening to it in that way. I don't give it away to anyone else, upload it to the internet, or otherwise reduce the artists ability to sell albums. I don't see the problem with that. Now obviously that doesn't work for every album. The Moody Blues have several albums that tell a story, and to rip a track from one another is like picking a chapter from several different books and expecting it to make sense. It doesn't work for those types of albums. But take Crosby, Stills, and Nash where each song tells a different story, and it's fine. I've heard the argument that it's not the way the artist intended it. Well tough. If I record an album and sell it to you. It's yours. If I decide I want to sell it and make a living at it I have the right to demand that you don't distribute it to others diminishing my ability to make a living, but what you do with it in your own home is up to you. It's called fair use, and it's a beautiful thing. If anything I think giving the consumer what they want the way they want it is the way to keep people interested.
I feel that you are correct in saying that it doesn't excuse the exploitation. Their working conditions are abhorrant by our standards in the US. But, what if the person doing the work is happy? What if improving the working conditions would mean that people who work would have to work harder, and there would be less work to go around? It would also have an impact on how much we pay for goods and services. Look at how the price of fuel has affected groceries in addition to all goods and services. It's across the board. Imagine if suddenly the Chinese worker was paid the same as an American worker. How does that improve their situation (or ours)? The only reason we export jobs there is because the labor is cheaper in conjunction with the cost of transport. What happens to all of those Chinese people when they no longer have a job? These are complicated issues, and sometimes the cure winds up being worse than the disease. Money does not equal happiness. Look at most Hollywood celebrities and do the math. Most of them are in and out of rehab, live disfunctional lives, and are generally miserable. Maybe the best blessing the Chineese people have is the lack of funding to destroy themselves. Whether we like it or not we are now participating in a global economy. Standing on a soapbox and shouting probably won't solve these issues. So if that's the case then the question is not just "what do we DO about it", it's also "is what we are proposing going to make it better for those we are trying to help"?
There have been studies though showing that some people just can't or won't be rehabilitated. What do you do with those people? You can't have them running the streets. I think you are correct when it comes to low level crimes like petty theft, drug abuse, crimes of desparation,etc. However, when you are talking about murderers who do it for fun (thrill killing), child molesters that "can't help themselves", rapists, career criminals, etc. you aren't likely going to be able to rehabilitate these people, and society is honestly better off without them. I'd be ok even with giving these types of offenders a second chance (mostly because I'm a big fan of forgiveness), maybe after several years of rehabilitation (which you're right -- that should be the focus), but after that if they do it again it should be the death penalty. Just my 2 cents.
It's not a bad thing as long as your position is sincere, but I'm afraid in this case like many others it's politics at it's worst. He can say whatever he wants. I'm far more concerned about what he's going to actually DO. When I look at his voting record, and look at the things he said durring the debates in the primaries I can get somewhat of an idea of where he stands. Unfortunately we won't know for sure unless he's elected, and by then it will be too late. I guess I should also point out that it's not just Obama. It's all of them. They all lie. It's a prerequisite.
There are emulators, along with ROMS available. V9T9 is what I used until I went to XP 64x. Bring your cassettes into WAV files and read it in just like you're running it from tape. It'll run in a vpc, but then I discoved this cool thing called MESS. Every console you could ever want to emulate is in there, but the catch is that you have to find the console roms, and the game roms on your own. Google is your friend though.
Yes because it's so difficult to set the jumper that clears the BIOS.
Your comment highlights the very reason why the telcos shouldn't be liable. They were compelled by a goverment request to provided the information. If the government makes the request illegally then the government should be the one that is liable. I don't really want the government to be in a legal pissing match every time they need information from a private company to mitigate a security issue. Why should a private company have to foot the bill for complying with a governmental request? The governement was elected by us, and for us, so if we have a problem with it we should use the avenues available to remedy the situation. Going after the telcos is just a money grab. As far as I know the only phone calls they were tapping were those with known foreign terrorist ties. So what??? Why should I care?
Because in order for case law to apply it has to be a similar case. The less details that apply to the case the less weight the case law being applied will have. According to wikipedia anyway.... "In common law systems this type of precedent is granted more or less weight in the deliberations of a court according to a number of factors. Most important is whether the precedent is "on point," that is, does it deal with a circumstance identical or very similar to the circumstance in the instant case? Second, when and where was the precedent decided? A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Next in descending order would be recent precedent in jurisdictions whose law is the same as local law. Least weight would be given to precedent that stems from dissimilar circumstances, older cases that have since been contradicted, or cases in jurisdictions that have dissimilar law." Now could it be used to build precedent and start down a path that could wind up having "buy gold go to jail" type consequences? Yes I suppose, but it would take years and a heck of a lot of bad judgement to get there (from my understanding of how the legal system works anyway).
Only if in buying gold you maliciously persuade someone less than half your age to commit suicide. Then, yeah it might apply.
If the violation results in someone's death. In order for case law to apply it has to be a similar case. Not just the violation part, but the end result as well (IANAL but that's my understanding). What is scary to me is that they are using this absurd interpretation of anti hacking laws, and this asshat is probably going to walk because of it.
I read the indictment, and it seems like what they are saying is that because she violated the terms of service (by harassing Megan, using a false identity), her use of myspace was unauthorized. Then they are stretching that into a hacking charge. At first I was all over it. Didn't care what the charge was this woman should go to jail and I don't care how that happens, but upon further reflection (and a conversation with a couple of other slashdotters) I'm liking the idea less and less all the time. For one thing they're not likely to be successful in convicting her. Why not find a charge that more directly applies? Child abuse, aggravated manslaughter, stalking, criminal negligence... it seems like those all apply more directly than hacking. Also if they are successful it might have unwanted consequences. Case law was mentioned earlier. I'm still not sure how that could get stretched into prosecuting people for using a fake name, or somesuch but the prospect is scary.
I see what you are saying, and I'll concede that if a judge had an ax to grind, or felt like you stepped over the line by accessing a system in an unauthorized manor then maybe it could apply (abusively). But I would think there already is a lot of other case law that would more accurately fit that situation. Wouldn't a lawyer attempting to apply that case law have to prove that the case is similar (ie. resulted in someone's death)? Like I said, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's how case law works. From Wikipedia (yeah I know, not the best source)
Case law The other type of precedent is case law. In common law systems this type of precedent is granted more or less weight in the deliberations of a court according to a number of factors. Most important is whether the precedent is "on point," that is, does it deal with a circumstance identical or very similar to the circumstance in the instant case? Second, when and where was the precedent decided? A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Next in descending order would be recent precedent in jurisdictions whose law is the same as local law. Least weight would be given to precedent that stems from dissimilar circumstances, older cases that have since been contradicted, or cases in jurisdictions that have dissimilar law.
I see now from doing a bit of reading that legal experts are worried about the precedent it could set, and I'm wondering why when the definition of the applicaiton of case law seems so plain as to make it a non issue. After reading that article I'm forming a new opinion though. Thinking about it further outside of the immediate emotional reaction to the situation I'm wondering why they don't procsecute her under something like aggravated manslaughter. They would have to prove that she caused her death, but I don't think that's beyond the realm of possibility. In my mind she did.