Funny, as a pot smoker myself, who would love to see the terrible jobs program known as our drug war ended, I actually think its MORE important to legalize the harder drugs, even though they have a lot less users.
Fact is, drug laws have not been found even marginally effective at their intended purpose. Addiction rates do NOT go down as a result of them. In fact, about the only things drug laws have accomplished are filling prisons and creating law enforcement jobs. They also did a pretty good job making sure any violent street gangs that formed had easy access to lots of money, making them more lucrative and more able to expand and war with eachother.
There is ample evidence that drug addiction is not the cause of criminality either. However, criminality is the entirely predictable result of raising the price of people's addictions beyond their ability to pay and causing them to make irrational decisions like choosing between drugs and food or criminal acts and starvation.
Do you blame the drug addict who knows a little chemistry and knows he can feed his own addiction and maybe make some money cooking meth? Or do you blame the policy makers who created the black market for meth in the first place? No (or exceedingly few, there is always one of anything) homes burned before drug laws came to town. Now? Now half the people in burn units are there as a result of meth cooking..... and.,... the laws haven't even reduced drug use!
Whats worst, if you go back, its pretty clear all this hubub started as a jobs program after alcohol prohibition. It was the very people like Harry Anslinger who were facing possible loss of funding and their jobs with it, if new drug laws were not created..... they lied to congress like it was their job. Seriously, google good old Harry, you will see.
On the other hand, we have the swiss heroin study that looked at EXACTLY these issues. What did they do? Very simply....they provided heroin to junkies at what they believed would be an open market rate without prohibition and a safe place to use their drug. The result? well, they continued to use heroin, but there was a reported 90% drop in all other forms of criminality.
Drugs are not the problem, idiots who think they can solve all problems by just making laws against anything they dislike who are the problem.
Maybe more people who do it are at least somewhat smart about how they employ their tools? It sounds like this guy did a lot of upfront planning, but then failed at some of the most basic precautions. Why would he be caught dead anywhere near a lotto point of sale during such a caper? Surely that many millions justifies an accomplice to do the actual ticket purchasing and crying in front of the media, and the promising to help grandma and the community.
Note the implication in the article talking about rootkits....they clearly didn't find the actual software. If he hadn't been caught on video buying the ticket they would have little to go on.
> "their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By > keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default, > because you can't argue against it.
Its worst than that, you can't argue against it because it is absolutely correct in its nebulosity.
By saying their "Fair Share" they can invoke not just anything but...whatever YOU think. If you think $1 is fair, then that is what they just said isn't it? If you think $1million is, they said that too.... they just didn't explicitly say either because they let you fill in the blank!
How can anyone be againt one paying their "fair share"? Clearly if its fair, and its their share, they should pay it by definition right?
Its kind of like "tax reform". You can't be against "reform" without being regressive right? So once something has been called reform, anyone againt it is stuck with more complicated arguments trying to explain why it isn't actually reform, and usually has to use the word reform in its name, this implicitly contradicting himself via raw terminology.
A "Fair share" that isn't fair is a contradiction in terms, so it puts anyone who disagrees with it on automatic uphill footing.
Setup git-annex. It supports several backends, including rsync which works with rsync.net and an amazon options, and a few others. I only use ssh backends myself.
Anyway, you can setup some backends as encrypted backends and anything that goes there gets encrypted. It can only be read by someone with a clone of the original git repo and the gpg key to decrypt it. So you keep an encrypted copy of that seperately. Its much smaller, so you can keep many copies of it, its just index information.
Then after a disaster, you get a copy of the index/key, decrypt it, and have full access to your offsite cloud storage. You can even have multiple types of backend at different services. Hell if you have a friend who runs linux and doesn't mind you using some of his disk, you can use it as a remote.
Oh, and carry an encrypted clone of the index repo with you on a usb stick.
If the password/phrase is good you shouldn't need to worry too much. Learning to come up with decent enough passwords is pretty easy too. Everybody has their favorite methods, I like things with mnemonics, they work shockingly well, I could tell you with decent accuracy some root passwords we used for all of a few months at a job I left 10 years ago.
I would think this case would be easy to distinguish from others. Basically if matter itself were expanding the way we often talk about space as, yes I could see this constant expansion pressure looking a lot like gravity but, anything on the surface that was expanding would also be moving further away from anything next to it, so if you built a structure, the walls of the structure would suffer increasing internal stress from the expansion AND its corners would be pulled away from eachother by the ground expansion.
Oh well if it MAY do something desirable through a mechanism you can imagine in the simple fantasies of your head, then by all means lets toss millions of dollars at it, surely its not only easier than finding people with the actual interest and means and a plan, lets continue just making our own and arresting them for show.
This totally justifies the invasion of our privacy so wide scale that they will drop criminal charges against people rather than admit their capabilities in court.
Look its totally working guys, all that surveillance and invasion into our privacy and they are really starting to catch the guys they create and setup for show.
so I was working at a University several years back. At the time there was an old webserver, actually a desktop. It was previously used by an admin who left and left behind a web service with notes. It was a collection of brain dumps, notes, old emails etc....which all of us admins knew about and occasionally referenced, that's why we never shut it down....or particularly considered its contents.
That is until we saw an article in the local school student run rumor mill, which most of us read, about this fascinating website on campus with a number of internal emails shedding new insight on some of the inner workings of the staff.
Of course, we saw the article because half the staff found the rumor site amusing and read it on a regular basis, so it was shut down immediately, but it didn't take long before someone posted a link to it in the google cache. Smart kids, as annoying as it was, it still put a smile on my face to see how resourceful they were.
Oh my code is embarassing as shit, don;'t get me wrong on that point. However, most code is a bit of a mess and a lot of it is not terribly well organized. So if yours is so much of a mess that it is actually the reason you don't want to release it (rather than a philosophical disagreement with open source/free software, which while i don't share, I do understand), then maybe basing products around it is something you should at least think twice about.
And thats before even getting to how its no excuse for vipolating the license.
However, I think you are actually right. This is very likely a simple screw up, and its of exactly the type I see all the time when you have people working towards deadlines and manual processes. I would almost bet you dollars to donuts that somewhere there is an email that was the only instruction a guy got that poorly outlined how to package it all up, which left out half the details or wasn't updated between its first version and when development changed their paths.
Seriously, I could totally see this sort of error as a simple fuckup. My only objection here is to the proposition made by others that it might be intentional due to the state of the code, because, that just doesn't fly in any good way for them in this situation.
This DOES however look like exactly the sort of error you get from bitrot in documentation for manual processes though.
which is exactly why it should just be banned. There really is no excuse for killing a person in your custody. Frankly, I consider it murder regardless what the law says, no better than what he did.
Nope stud finders wont even find studs in my house because its old enough to have horse hair plaster, so the studs are covered by horizontal wood slats. SOME stud finders kinda work, most don't work well (admittedly, its been a few years, maybe they got better?)
Also it wouldn't really identify the object, just that it looked like something more solid was there.
The reply of metal detector might work better....but there is also a metal chimney pipe for an old gas fireplace that used to be in the room also in the wall, along with possible steam pipes for the single pipe steam heat (as if it wasn't obvious this isn't a new house).
However.... the rooms on either side of the wall in question have drop ceilings, and there is an odd shape to the wall that makes us think something may have been in there.....but it is entirely possible that bulge in the wall has to do with the installation of the gas fireplace and chimney pipe and not the safe.
It may be the bulge exists because of the old fireplace and that is why she chose that wall, rather than the other way around.... if it was even in there, this is just kind of an old family memory of the actions of someone who has been dead for maybe half a century (she was gone before I was born, so maybe less but still decades).
We don't expect there is actually anything in there, but hey it wouldn't be the first time we found something. We actually found an invitation to a "sock hop" in 1911 (at an address which we found is currently a building with a 1920s corner stone) under one of the floors.
This is exactly the sort of thing i love seeing a project and nice explanation on. This sort of thing will never be my career path, but, is the sort of thing I might play with as a hobby project and I love seeing the areas a person can get into without much formal training expand.
Of course, I already have a use for such a thing but.... I think it will be easier to use a small drill and a camera to find out if the rumors of my great grandmother's old safe still being in the walls somewhere (plastered over of course) is true.
Have to imagine that will be cheaper and faster (if not cooler) than building one of these.
If you are so embarassed by your code as to not want to publish it, might I suggest you SHOULD be too embarassed to sell products based on it or otherwise distribute it in binary form.
I have to say, its nice to know Slashdot respects Betteridge's law, it would be a waste of time afterall to have to read past the headline to know that they have, in fact, not run out of money at all. If they hadn't clearly indicated that in the headline with the '?' which, in headlines answers the question with an implicit no; then I might wonder if it was true or not and have to read further.
I think you missed the part where one developer reverese engineered how the protocol worked and the developer had enough of a shit fit that it became apparent that continuing to use their software was going to be problematic AND it was already the case that many people didn't want to use it for issues of licensing.
Even so, nobody is under any obligation to keep using a tool someone else makes, even if they like it. He put in the work. Nobody has some right to have others continue to use a service that they don't need and can handle for themselves.
Couple of issues here. First, these are not the same. A business is offering a service to the public and then denying people who walk in, whereas a customer is simply deciding which offer he takes. This is where the stark differences only begin.
a customer can, unless the product is in some special regulated category, be anyone. In fact, even if its regulated, most criteria we are concerned with here could never really be used in licensing them, so its kind of irrelevant. Whereas a shop owner is someone who sought out and obtained a charter from the government which grants him limited liability, so he is not fully responsible for what he does in the course of his business.
This right here is the point where, in my eyes, the whole game changes. A company is a chartered entity authorized by the government. If he was a private individual servicing people out of his private home, or he was running a private members-only club.... I wouldn't argue at all, this would be quite unfair. I fully support the right of organizations like the KKK setting up members only clubs and selling whatever they want (short of slaves) to their own members.
However, when these people chartered their businesses and opened public businesses, they do so with benefits like limited liability which, I have no problem with the chartering entitiy putting restrictions on if those charters.
Which has been almost as great a service in and of itself as the content of the releases. If they had released it all at once, the administration could have prepared a cohesive response. The slow dissemination tripped them up in lie after lie in their attempts to cover up and deny the truth.
I, for one, thank them for exposing the domestic enemies of the public who operate within the highest levels of out own government.
I like fluff. I like fluff with chunky peanut butter and some jelly. This article though, this isn't my kind of fluff. Its not even making real predictions, its stating the obvious and moving on. Autonomous cars could be HUGE.
DUI (or OUI in my state)? Thing of the past. Drunken crashes? Gone with them.
need to be 17 to drive? Why? Hell, put a parental lock on the car and designate the destination. Going to work? Bring a book for the ride! Shit, tell it you want a large latte, whole milk, no sugar from dunkies, and it can coordinate with the dunkies in the area to get you one the fastest with the least time off your route. In fact, maybe it skips the closest dunkies, because you will be there before the late is ready and nobody wants to wait.
You really consider that being treated like a criminal? Personally I don't want access I don't need anymore and I feel better knowing that I know it was properly revoked. I don't want the keys anymore either, I make sure I turn those in when I leave.
Certainly there may be some arraingement where you may not revoke all access but, that should be explicit. I remember at a previous job we allowed someone, who didn't even leave on his own terms, to retain his email address for a time until he could get a new personal address and transition.
Its not about being a dick, its about make the split clean.
Hell when I was laid off I had my access revoked 4 weeks before my last day. Man sitting there with nothing I could do was great, I spent most of the day updating my resume and looking for new jobs. Losing your access is great.
I bring this up any time someone is leaving, and even when I have left places. You should review all access, change all passwords he may have had, revoke all access that he had.....and you do this....as much for his benefit as for yours.
He is leaving, he is naturally the person who is going to be blamed, either directly (he did it) or indirectly (Oh he used to do that, and hes gone now....). Thats normal, and some amount of it is fine. However, you owe it to yourself AND to him to be sure there is no question that, if there is an incident, there is no reason to suspect him.
Nobody wants to be in the situation where there was a compromise after an employee left, and now there are questions. If there is an incident there will be questions either way, but the only person who benefits from his still having access is the attacker whose actions are the problem.
I felt better knowing my access has been fully revoked and there was little chance of there being questions later.
>... if it's on the company computer, it's on the company's time
So when I fired up my work laptop at 11 pm to watch a movie on amazon prime while I played videos on my desktop, you are saying that is company time which I should be compensated for? Pretty sure the company would tend to disagree on that, maybe I should ask if they want me to add those hours to my timesheet?
Doesn't sound as automatic as it could be, frankly, at this point the system has been so abused and overused it needs some serious brakes put on. We should make appeals mandatory, in fact, we should eliminate the plea entirely....no right to waive a jury trial, no right to plead guilty. You are charged, you MUST defend yourself, and if convicted, you get an appeal which can't be tried in the same district.
But how do we know, without in depth review, whether or not evidence they used had been illegally obtained by this pair in the course of their extracurricular activities? Seems to me this casts doubt on the entire bushel of apples.
I honestly tend to think its the result of unprecedented safety. We are hard wired to be on the look out for danger, when there is no danger and we will find it if we look for it. As you make real danger more and more rare, sensitivity goes up.
People being murdered every day can be a fact of life, people murdered every few days is a tragic situation, a person murdered every decade is a major news event.
Also we have an issue of expanding scope. Lets take car accidents, mundane ones are local stories, odd ones are regional, and that strange few times a year spectaculars are national.
If you decrease the numbers, all that changes is scope, you still get as many stories, they just come from wider areas.....so the input never really changes even if the output does.
These airplane incidents are international news and run for days and weeks as such.... which makes them seem a lot more common than they really are because they take up such a disproportionate amount of the news when they do....because news isn't meant to be boring and mundane, it is, by definition, the unusual and the rare.
This. I simultaneously have no problem saying he was right to break the law, in fact, did the right thing overall (some of it questionable but, extreme circumstances seem mitigating enough to me) and saying the law these cops broke was a just law, and a law which they deserve punishment, far worst than anything he did.
They broke the publics trust, he undermined bad law. He assisted the public in moving forward and avoiding violent criminal gangs who they might otherwise need to be in direct contact with to get drugs. They extorted him.
Let me put it this way, I would call the punishments proportional if they were imprisoned until they die of natural causes then proportionally....he should get a medal of honor. That would be about right.
No what I was saying is the "terrorists we are used to" are generally fools the FBI setup to make headlines to justify their overhyped jobs. My particular favorite is the dude they approached asking if he could get a shoulder fired missile.
Over the months they watched him, he stalled and bumbled and utterly failed to do anything of note, except be told by contacts he had from previous legal buisiness that he couldn't get one. The entire time the only thing he did on his own was download a sales brochure off the internet to show them. Seriously....
they handed him contacts, they handed him fake papers, they handed him the missile itself..
What are they protecting us from exactly when they have to create the terrorists before they can find them? Its a bullshit jobs program from the TSA to the FBI.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, as a pot smoker myself, who would love to see the terrible jobs program known as our drug war ended, I actually think its MORE important to legalize the harder drugs, even though they have a lot less users.
Fact is, drug laws have not been found even marginally effective at their intended purpose. Addiction rates do NOT go down as a result of them. In fact, about the only things drug laws have accomplished are filling prisons and creating law enforcement jobs. They also did a pretty good job making sure any violent street gangs that formed had easy access to lots of money, making them more lucrative and more able to expand and war with eachother.
There is ample evidence that drug addiction is not the cause of criminality either. However, criminality is the entirely predictable result of raising the price of people's addictions beyond their ability to pay and causing them to make irrational decisions like choosing between drugs and food or criminal acts and starvation.
Do you blame the drug addict who knows a little chemistry and knows he can feed his own addiction and maybe make some money cooking meth? Or do you blame the policy makers who created the black market for meth in the first place? No (or exceedingly few, there is always one of anything) homes burned before drug laws came to town. Now? Now half the people in burn units are there as a result of meth cooking..... and.,... the laws haven't even reduced drug use!
Whats worst, if you go back, its pretty clear all this hubub started as a jobs program after alcohol prohibition. It was the very people like Harry Anslinger who were facing possible loss of funding and their jobs with it, if new drug laws were not created..... they lied to congress like it was their job. Seriously, google good old Harry, you will see.
On the other hand, we have the swiss heroin study that looked at EXACTLY these issues. What did they do? Very simply....they provided heroin to junkies at what they believed would be an open market rate without prohibition and a safe place to use their drug. The result? well, they continued to use heroin, but there was a reported 90% drop in all other forms of criminality.
Drugs are not the problem, idiots who think they can solve all problems by just making laws against anything they dislike who are the problem.
Maybe more people who do it are at least somewhat smart about how they employ their tools? It sounds like this guy did a lot of upfront planning, but then failed at some of the most basic precautions. Why would he be caught dead anywhere near a lotto point of sale during such a caper? Surely that many millions justifies an accomplice to do the actual ticket purchasing and crying in front of the media, and the promising to help grandma and the community.
Note the implication in the article talking about rootkits....they clearly didn't find the actual software. If he hadn't been caught on video buying the ticket they would have little to go on.
> "their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By
> keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default,
> because you can't argue against it.
Its worst than that, you can't argue against it because it is absolutely correct in its nebulosity.
By saying their "Fair Share" they can invoke not just anything but...whatever YOU think. If you think $1 is fair, then that is what they just said isn't it? If you think $1million is, they said that too.... they just didn't explicitly say either because they let you fill in the blank!
How can anyone be againt one paying their "fair share"? Clearly if its fair, and its their share, they should pay it by definition right?
Its kind of like "tax reform". You can't be against "reform" without being regressive right? So once something has been called reform, anyone againt it is stuck with more complicated arguments trying to explain why it isn't actually reform, and usually has to use the word reform in its name, this implicitly contradicting himself via raw terminology.
A "Fair share" that isn't fair is a contradiction in terms, so it puts anyone who disagrees with it on automatic uphill footing.
So you setup gpg, setup a key as normal.
Setup git-annex. It supports several backends, including rsync which works with rsync.net and an amazon options, and a few others. I only use ssh backends myself.
Anyway, you can setup some backends as encrypted backends and anything that goes there gets encrypted. It can only be read by someone with a clone of the original git repo and the gpg key to decrypt it. So you keep an encrypted copy of that seperately. Its much smaller, so you can keep many copies of it, its just index information.
Then after a disaster, you get a copy of the index/key, decrypt it, and have full access to your offsite cloud storage. You can even have multiple types of backend at different services. Hell if you have a friend who runs linux and doesn't mind you using some of his disk, you can use it as a remote.
Oh, and carry an encrypted clone of the index repo with you on a usb stick.
If the password/phrase is good you shouldn't need to worry too much. Learning to come up with decent enough passwords is pretty easy too. Everybody has their favorite methods, I like things with mnemonics, they work shockingly well, I could tell you with decent accuracy some root passwords we used for all of a few months at a job I left 10 years ago.
I would think this case would be easy to distinguish from others. Basically if matter itself were expanding the way we often talk about space as, yes I could see this constant expansion pressure looking a lot like gravity but, anything on the surface that was expanding would also be moving further away from anything next to it, so if you built a structure, the walls of the structure would suffer increasing internal stress from the expansion AND its corners would be pulled away from eachother by the ground expansion.
Oh well if it MAY do something desirable through a mechanism you can imagine in the simple fantasies of your head, then by all means lets toss millions of dollars at it, surely its not only easier than finding people with the actual interest and means and a plan, lets continue just making our own and arresting them for show.
This totally justifies the invasion of our privacy so wide scale that they will drop criminal charges against people rather than admit their capabilities in court.
Look its totally working guys, all that surveillance and invasion into our privacy and they are really starting to catch the guys they create and setup for show.
so I was working at a University several years back. At the time there was an old webserver, actually a desktop. It was previously used by an admin who left and left behind a web service with notes. It was a collection of brain dumps, notes, old emails etc....which all of us admins knew about and occasionally referenced, that's why we never shut it down....or particularly considered its contents.
That is until we saw an article in the local school student run rumor mill, which most of us read, about this fascinating website on campus with a number of internal emails shedding new insight on some of the inner workings of the staff.
Of course, we saw the article because half the staff found the rumor site amusing and read it on a regular basis, so it was shut down immediately, but it didn't take long before someone posted a link to it in the google cache. Smart kids, as annoying as it was, it still put a smile on my face to see how resourceful they were.
Oh my code is embarassing as shit, don;'t get me wrong on that point. However, most code is a bit of a mess and a lot of it is not terribly well organized. So if yours is so much of a mess that it is actually the reason you don't want to release it (rather than a philosophical disagreement with open source/free software, which while i don't share, I do understand), then maybe basing products around it is something you should at least think twice about.
And thats before even getting to how its no excuse for vipolating the license.
However, I think you are actually right. This is very likely a simple screw up, and its of exactly the type I see all the time when you have people working towards deadlines and manual processes. I would almost bet you dollars to donuts that somewhere there is an email that was the only instruction a guy got that poorly outlined how to package it all up, which left out half the details or wasn't updated between its first version and when development changed their paths.
Seriously, I could totally see this sort of error as a simple fuckup. My only objection here is to the proposition made by others that it might be intentional due to the state of the code, because, that just doesn't fly in any good way for them in this situation.
This DOES however look like exactly the sort of error you get from bitrot in documentation for manual processes though.
which is exactly why it should just be banned. There really is no excuse for killing a person in your custody. Frankly, I consider it murder regardless what the law says, no better than what he did.
Nope stud finders wont even find studs in my house because its old enough to have horse hair plaster, so the studs are covered by horizontal wood slats. SOME stud finders kinda work, most don't work well (admittedly, its been a few years, maybe they got better?)
Also it wouldn't really identify the object, just that it looked like something more solid was there.
The reply of metal detector might work better....but there is also a metal chimney pipe for an old gas fireplace that used to be in the room also in the wall, along with possible steam pipes for the single pipe steam heat (as if it wasn't obvious this isn't a new house).
However.... the rooms on either side of the wall in question have drop ceilings, and there is an odd shape to the wall that makes us think something may have been in there.....but it is entirely possible that bulge in the wall has to do with the installation of the gas fireplace and chimney pipe and not the safe.
It may be the bulge exists because of the old fireplace and that is why she chose that wall, rather than the other way around.... if it was even in there, this is just kind of an old family memory of the actions of someone who has been dead for maybe half a century (she was gone before I was born, so maybe less but still decades).
We don't expect there is actually anything in there, but hey it wouldn't be the first time we found something. We actually found an invitation to a "sock hop" in 1911 (at an address which we found is currently a building with a 1920s corner stone) under one of the floors.
This is exactly the sort of thing i love seeing a project and nice explanation on. This sort of thing will never be my career path, but, is the sort of thing I might play with as a hobby project and I love seeing the areas a person can get into without much formal training expand.
Of course, I already have a use for such a thing but.... I think it will be easier to use a small drill and a camera to find out if the rumors of my great grandmother's old safe still being in the walls somewhere (plastered over of course) is true.
Have to imagine that will be cheaper and faster (if not cooler) than building one of these.
If you are so embarassed by your code as to not want to publish it, might I suggest you SHOULD be too embarassed to sell products based on it or otherwise distribute it in binary form.
I have to say, its nice to know Slashdot respects Betteridge's law, it would be a waste of time afterall to have to read past the headline to know that they have, in fact, not run out of money at all. If they hadn't clearly indicated that in the headline with the '?' which, in headlines answers the question with an implicit no; then I might wonder if it was true or not and have to read further.
I think you missed the part where one developer reverese engineered how the protocol worked and the developer had enough of a shit fit that it became apparent that continuing to use their software was going to be problematic AND it was already the case that many people didn't want to use it for issues of licensing.
Even so, nobody is under any obligation to keep using a tool someone else makes, even if they like it. He put in the work. Nobody has some right to have others continue to use a service that they don't need and can handle for themselves.
Couple of issues here. First, these are not the same. A business is offering a service to the public and then denying people who walk in, whereas a customer is simply deciding which offer he takes. This is where the stark differences only begin.
a customer can, unless the product is in some special regulated category, be anyone. In fact, even if its regulated, most criteria we are concerned with here could never really be used in licensing them, so its kind of irrelevant. Whereas a shop owner is someone who sought out and obtained a charter from the government which grants him limited liability, so he is not fully responsible for what he does in the course of his business.
This right here is the point where, in my eyes, the whole game changes. A company is a chartered entity authorized by the government. If he was a private individual servicing people out of his private home, or he was running a private members-only club.... I wouldn't argue at all, this would be quite unfair. I fully support the right of organizations like the KKK setting up members only clubs and selling whatever they want (short of slaves) to their own members.
However, when these people chartered their businesses and opened public businesses, they do so with benefits like limited liability which, I have no problem with the chartering entitiy putting restrictions on if those charters.
Which has been almost as great a service in and of itself as the content of the releases. If they had released it all at once, the administration could have prepared a cohesive response. The slow dissemination tripped them up in lie after lie in their attempts to cover up and deny the truth.
I, for one, thank them for exposing the domestic enemies of the public who operate within the highest levels of out own government.
I like fluff. I like fluff with chunky peanut butter and some jelly. This article though, this isn't my kind of fluff. Its not even making real predictions, its stating the obvious and moving on. Autonomous cars could be HUGE.
DUI (or OUI in my state)? Thing of the past. Drunken crashes? Gone with them.
need to be 17 to drive? Why? Hell, put a parental lock on the car and designate the destination. Going to work? Bring a book for the ride! Shit, tell it you want a large latte, whole milk, no sugar from dunkies, and it can coordinate with the dunkies in the area to get you one the fastest with the least time off your route. In fact, maybe it skips the closest dunkies, because you will be there before the late is ready and nobody wants to wait.
You really consider that being treated like a criminal? Personally I don't want access I don't need anymore and I feel better knowing that I know it was properly revoked. I don't want the keys anymore either, I make sure I turn those in when I leave.
Certainly there may be some arraingement where you may not revoke all access but, that should be explicit. I remember at a previous job we allowed someone, who didn't even leave on his own terms, to retain his email address for a time until he could get a new personal address and transition.
Its not about being a dick, its about make the split clean.
Hell when I was laid off I had my access revoked 4 weeks before my last day. Man sitting there with nothing I could do was great, I spent most of the day updating my resume and looking for new jobs. Losing your access is great.
I bring this up any time someone is leaving, and even when I have left places. You should review all access, change all passwords he may have had, revoke all access that he had.....and you do this....as much for his benefit as for yours.
He is leaving, he is naturally the person who is going to be blamed, either directly (he did it) or indirectly (Oh he used to do that, and hes gone now....). Thats normal, and some amount of it is fine. However, you owe it to yourself AND to him to be sure there is no question that, if there is an incident, there is no reason to suspect him.
Nobody wants to be in the situation where there was a compromise after an employee left, and now there are questions. If there is an incident there will be questions either way, but the only person who benefits from his still having access is the attacker whose actions are the problem.
I felt better knowing my access has been fully revoked and there was little chance of there being questions later.
> ... if it's on the company computer, it's on the company's time
So when I fired up my work laptop at 11 pm to watch a movie on amazon prime while I played videos on my desktop, you are saying that is company time which I should be compensated for? Pretty sure the company would tend to disagree on that, maybe I should ask if they want me to add those hours to my timesheet?
Doesn't sound as automatic as it could be, frankly, at this point the system has been so abused and overused it needs some serious brakes put on. We should make appeals mandatory, in fact, we should eliminate the plea entirely....no right to waive a jury trial, no right to plead guilty. You are charged, you MUST defend yourself, and if convicted, you get an appeal which can't be tried in the same district.
and if you are not convicted, the prosecutor is.
But how do we know, without in depth review, whether or not evidence they used had been illegally obtained by this pair in the course of their extracurricular activities? Seems to me this casts doubt on the entire bushel of apples.
I honestly tend to think its the result of unprecedented safety. We are hard wired to be on the look out for danger, when there is no danger and we will find it if we look for it. As you make real danger more and more rare, sensitivity goes up.
People being murdered every day can be a fact of life, people murdered every few days is a tragic situation, a person murdered every decade is a major news event.
Also we have an issue of expanding scope. Lets take car accidents, mundane ones are local stories, odd ones are regional, and that strange few times a year spectaculars are national.
If you decrease the numbers, all that changes is scope, you still get as many stories, they just come from wider areas.....so the input never really changes even if the output does.
These airplane incidents are international news and run for days and weeks as such.... which makes them seem a lot more common than they really are because they take up such a disproportionate amount of the news when they do....because news isn't meant to be boring and mundane, it is, by definition, the unusual and the rare.
This. I simultaneously have no problem saying he was right to break the law, in fact, did the right thing overall (some of it questionable but, extreme circumstances seem mitigating enough to me) and saying the law these cops broke was a just law, and a law which they deserve punishment, far worst than anything he did.
They broke the publics trust, he undermined bad law. He assisted the public in moving forward and avoiding violent criminal gangs who they might otherwise need to be in direct contact with to get drugs. They extorted him.
Let me put it this way, I would call the punishments proportional if they were imprisoned until they die of natural causes then proportionally....he should get a medal of honor. That would be about right.
No what I was saying is the "terrorists we are used to" are generally fools the FBI setup to make headlines to justify their overhyped jobs. My particular favorite is the dude they approached asking if he could get a shoulder fired missile.
Over the months they watched him, he stalled and bumbled and utterly failed to do anything of note, except be told by contacts he had from previous legal buisiness that he couldn't get one. The entire time the only thing he did on his own was download a sales brochure off the internet to show them. Seriously....
they handed him contacts, they handed him fake papers, they handed him the missile itself..
What are they protecting us from exactly when they have to create the terrorists before they can find them? Its a bullshit jobs program from the TSA to the FBI.