Which is why they can only win by opposing him. If they win, they win. If they lose, they still win. Dumbest thing they could actually do is decide he is their man and tip off everyone else.
> It's a fourth amendment issue only if they prevent you from voluntarily leaving after deciding that > you'd feel violated
No, its an issue if they prevent you from doing anything that you would otherwise do, otherwise you didn't really have the right to refuse the search, you just had an option on which unwarranted interference to accept.
> So they trust nobody and in turn expect stores to trust them? I don't think so
They trust nobody is a pretty wild assumption to make. I use tor, I trust lots of people with lots of things. Why would you assume I trust nobody just because I don't blankly trust my ISP, their ISP, and everyone else down the chain that I don't even know to know everyone I talk to and do business with?
> You think taking your shoes off violates your fourth amendment rights?
No, only if taking off the shoes was ordered by a government agent or otherwise required by a federal law, then yes, yes it is a violation of fourth ammendment rights. A private airline may put whatever restrictions they like on passengers buying tickets. FFS if fubar airlines wanted to ask every passenger to submit to a strip search, and informed them of this before they bought their ticket... you wouldn't hear a peep from me. (except about why I wont fly on their airline)
However, the government, very specifically, is bound to a code of civil rights which includes standards which, constitutes the agreement under which they operate, and especially conduct searches. If they do not respect civil rights, then they are acting beyond their agreed authority.
As far as I am concerned, even a metal detector is more search than the constitution authorizes. Anytime you are looking for anything, its a search, and if you are looking on another persons person, aside from what is plainly visible without aid, you are searching them. Its pretty fucking simple.
I wish I could be so hopeful. In the end this is unlikely. However, equally unlikely is that this makes it profitable enough to start up new production facilities for drugs, since its such a niche use. In time, they will figure something out.
I don't think you really know me that well. Though actually, I am not so much for "every man for himself", I do think it is smart for people to form communities and work together collectively, but, I see no justification for forcing people to do so.
That said, I don't see how any of this relates to the topic at hand which, is talking about the relationships of a state created and entitled corperate entity, operating under limited liability as granted by the state, which you dislike so much.
Since those companies recieve, from the government, a special status that allows their members to operate together without facing personal liability for their actions, how is it exactly that you can say that any restriction put on them, for that privilege of operating as such, is improper?
Frankly, i would think you should support restrictions on such state created entities, no matter how onerous.
Look I am all for reducing the state and making all manner of changes. However, until those changes happen, the state is what it is. Let us not forget that we are talking about incorperated entities.
That is, the employer we are talking about is not a free individual, the employer has gone to the state and asked for a special status that allows him to deal with money in a different what which shields him from liability. As long as this condition exists, how can you even fall back on talk of free people entering contracts? Its just dishonest.
We are not talking about some guy you personally hired to do work in your basement. We are talking about an employee of a legal fiction created by the state for the benefit of the owners. Any restriction put on such an entity is fair game.
Well the government does not coerce companies at all. Companies are legal fiction created by the government and given the special privilege of limited liability. No restriction that is placed on such an organization can be considered coercion - they are free to disincorperate.
There is a lot of distance between trespassing and grand theft, there is also a lot of distance between grand theft for profit and unauthorized borrowing of property (maybe not legally, but, the law is the rules of last resort not the first go to for solving your problems)
So in short....my answer would still be, that it would depend on the relationship with the friend and might depend on things like whether they actually did any damage or took pains to avoid doing damage.
> Sounds to me like the individual in question had no qualms about breaking the rules and > proved it, and is only sorry that they got caught.
Odd, I don't see where there was any mention about the individual in questions personal reaction to or feelings about his firing, not sure where you got that.
> And we have not even discussed the rights of the shareholders (they own everything) and the > government (they are entitled to some of the money, aka taxes) yet.
Taxes? Well yes but, lets not forget the elephant in that room: They create the company itself. What is a company other than a group of people doing some manner of business with eachother? Its that, plus a legal fiction.
Companies must apply to become such and in doing so get limited liability. This is a hugely beneficial grant of privilege from the government, without which companies would have little choice but to rethink many of their operations.
So, as long as this situation exists, I would say a company, as duely authorized by the state has only whatever "rights" the state deems it should have: because absent that agreement they are just a group of people acting with full liability for their actions.
I tend towards the libertarian and, in theory, like the ideas that people should be able to make whatever agreements they want and its nobody else's business.... BUT current day companies, as they exist, are NOT wholly independent of the government; and I think it is important to remember and recognize that.
For as long as they are in a relationship with the government where they receive this special status, I find it very hard to argue that the state has any reason to be restricted in what it can require of them, including imposing expectations of privacy in their employees interactions.... if they so choose.
I don't know you from Adam so there is no way you are getting permission. However there are people I likely wouldn't give permission to that I would give forgiveness if they did it. Mostly family members; a couple of good friends.... we might have words if one of them did it, and I might register my displeasure, but.... the relationship matters to how much I care about the transgression.
Hows this one.
A) You find a stranger man sleeping in your back yard, and find out he has been doing it for a week now without you knowing.
B) You find a good friend sleeping in your back yard, and find out he has been too embarassed to tell you he is homeless.
Both are transgressions. Both you might be unhappy about, but kicking person A out and telling him not to come back is no net loss for you. Saying the same thing to person B means you are losing a good friend. Either way, nothing changes that there was a transgression, its just a matter of, is it worth it to you to lose a friend over?
Now in this case the "friend" is actually an employee and the loss is the 150% of their salary that it takes to train their replacement.
None of that changes that they likely lost more by getting rid of him than by ignoring his transgression. There is a difference between being in the right, and making a good decision. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to let people get away with things that don't matter very much. Perhaps you have heard "no harm, no foul".
also I never said that it costs them nothing. Yes it costs them wear and tear and even gas if he didn't refill it....but... I was thinking of tall that when I said, and stand by, the statement that they likely (unless there were other factors in the decision, which I wouldn't know) lost more by letting him go than they would by looking the other way.
> If employees don't like being monitored, they should find companies to work for that dont monitor > them. End of story.
Then why don't you support their right to be informed of the monitoring so they can make an informed decision as to whether to continue that employment or find another job? as a libertarian myself I fully support people's right to do many things but.... I tend to look dimly on any notion that its ok to not inform people who are subject to your decisions, especially when your decision may have a bearing as to whether they would continue to choose to do business with you.
> However, it still managed to catch a driver "borrowing" the truck in the middle of the night to visit his > girlfriend on the other side of the city, and then returning it a few hours later. He was let go the > following day
That sounds like a bad management decision. So he broke policy in a way that didn't actually cause a problem and brought back the equipment he borrowed before anyone needed it... so in response they let him go and now have to train someone else to do his job.... which last study I saw said costs the company, on average, 150% of a workers normal salary
I really doubt that if you took all of the incidents where any employee ever did that for the company, and added them all up, it wouldn't equal the loss in productivity of replacing one average worker.
Yup, and if you ever pulled out an anatomy book, there are big bundles of nerves that run right under the collar bone, down into the arm. All in all.... not fun to break. You can access some of those nerves part way down the inside of the bicept or around the outside of your elbow....and I know you know how much that hurts to bump..... I don't want to experience a good hit to that whole bundle at once.
> Entirely possible. I haven't done rigorous testing to isolate which aspects of it are the biggest factor.
Let me give you my results then. I have had the same sort of success with the same sort of situation. However, I have never bothered to 'tap the can' first, it never even occured to me to do so.
There is actually some headspace in the can anyway, just holding it rightside up puts the bubble at the top. If you need evidence of this, try a "Kamakazi":
Step 1: Tip can over to aprox 45 degrees so the "top" is actually a point on the bottom rim of the can. Step 2: Use a knife to puncture the can near the ridge Step 3: Turn the can over and place your lips over the small hole Step 4: Open the top tab
If done properly, you will be chugging a beer about as fast as you can from a can. Repeat until you miss air space in step 2. I saw someone do this once at a LAN party (get off my lawn) and they managed to put a trail of beer straight across my laptop keyboard and screen.... from the next room.
Let me guess, you are, in fact, one of "those jerks" and you realized that now you may have a way to convince people to let you smack their thumb instead?
> For anyone that is minimaly informed about history and politics, the desire of the NSA (or any other > inteligence agency) to have access to EVERYTHING is obvious. > My surprise is limited to the extent to which the NSA as been allowed to gain that information.
And anyone that is minimaly informed about history and politics, shouldn't be surprized.
Its very simple to see what is up. All you have to do is look at the way they make decisions, with their secret briefings, their threat assesments etc. Then just remember that the first question that (just about) any one of them is going to have on their mind is "If I oppose this, and there is another 9/11 sized event, will I get blamed".
see, if they approve it along with everyone else, and nothing happens, all is good. If they approve it and it turns into a scandal, it wont come back on them personally. If they approve and their is an attack, the same, because they covered their ass by approving.
On the other hand, if they deny and there is a scandal, or if they deny and there is an attack, then they get blamed as being against security and helping the terrorists. The only reasonable outcome for them on denial is that nothing happens.
So.... it should be pretty unsurprizing that they make this choice. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM right?
I think it comes down to what you mean by "safe". Yes you are likely to take some injuries if you cycle a not insignificant amount, however, most people will not do nearly as much cycling as a distance cycler who has been at it for so long.
He is still alive and still biking, a couple of broken bones....meh.
You could easily get those injuries or worst slipping in the tub or down some stairs.
> No, by paying the tax he is complying with the law
I was thinking about this some more, it may be too late to get the notice of one of the lawyers floating out there on / since IANAL, but here is how I understand it:
My understanding is that, since you have a right to not self-incriminate, then allowing tax records to be used as evidence of other crimes would make the requirement to report illegally obtained income would be a denial of your right to not self-incriminate.
as such, records are sealed, and can, in theory, only be used for tax purposes; thus effectively creating a loop hole around self-incrimination to allow illegal income to be taxed and criminals who don't report it, to be charged with tax evasion, which is sometimes easier to prove than their crime. (and is a whole different can of worms.... is that really even justice?)
Please if they were smart they would do one better....
1. spill paper clips on floor several feet from door 2. Sleep on floor with feet touching door. 3. If door opens, yell "sorry one second" and explain that you were on the floor picking up the paper clips.
Apparently this is an old trick. Wouldn't work for me as my office door has a full height window next to it (perhaps for exactly this reason); and of course, I snore like a buzz saw.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why they can only win by opposing him. If they win, they win. If they lose, they still win. Dumbest thing they could actually do is decide he is their man and tip off everyone else.
Dude..... ixnay on teh outsourceway
Very unpopular term, we much prefer the term "rendition" avoids giving the impression that more jobs are leaving the country.
> It is strange that you hear this on whomever is in office at the time. "The press is the mouthpiece of
> Yaya Adminstration."
Its almost as if the press has.....a vested interest in the status quo
> I guess there must be some magic key that controls the press when you get elected to the highest
> office
Yes well when you have such an office, reporters tend to show up when you call a press conference.
> to serve the people.
You still haven't realized that it is a cook book have you?
> It's a fourth amendment issue only if they prevent you from voluntarily leaving after deciding that
> you'd feel violated
No, its an issue if they prevent you from doing anything that you would otherwise do, otherwise you didn't really have the right to refuse the search, you just had an option on which unwarranted interference to accept.
> So they trust nobody and in turn expect stores to trust them? I don't think so
They trust nobody is a pretty wild assumption to make. I use tor, I trust lots of people with lots of things. Why would you assume I trust nobody just because I don't blankly trust my ISP, their ISP, and everyone else down the chain that I don't even know to know everyone I talk to and do business with?
> You think taking your shoes off violates your fourth amendment rights?
No, only if taking off the shoes was ordered by a government agent or otherwise required by a federal law, then yes, yes it is a violation of fourth ammendment rights. A private airline may put whatever restrictions they like on passengers buying tickets. FFS if fubar airlines wanted to ask every passenger to submit to a strip search, and informed them of this before they bought their ticket... you wouldn't hear a peep from me. (except about why I wont fly on their airline)
However, the government, very specifically, is bound to a code of civil rights which includes standards which, constitutes the agreement under which they operate, and especially conduct searches. If they do not respect civil rights, then they are acting beyond their agreed authority.
As far as I am concerned, even a metal detector is more search than the constitution authorizes. Anytime you are looking for anything, its a search, and if you are looking on another persons person, aside from what is plainly visible without aid, you are searching them. Its pretty fucking simple.
I wish I could be so hopeful. In the end this is unlikely. However, equally unlikely is that this makes it profitable enough to start up new production facilities for drugs, since its such a niche use. In time, they will figure something out.
I don't think you really know me that well. Though actually, I am not so much for "every man for himself", I do think it is smart for people to form communities and work together collectively, but, I see no justification for forcing people to do so.
That said, I don't see how any of this relates to the topic at hand which, is talking about the relationships of a state created and entitled corperate entity, operating under limited liability as granted by the state, which you dislike so much.
Since those companies recieve, from the government, a special status that allows their members to operate together without facing personal liability for their actions, how is it exactly that you can say that any restriction put on them, for that privilege of operating as such, is improper?
Frankly, i would think you should support restrictions on such state created entities, no matter how onerous.
Look I am all for reducing the state and making all manner of changes. However, until those changes happen, the state is what it is. Let us not forget that we are talking about incorperated entities.
That is, the employer we are talking about is not a free individual, the employer has gone to the state and asked for a special status that allows him to deal with money in a different what which shields him from liability. As long as this condition exists, how can you even fall back on talk of free people entering contracts? Its just dishonest.
We are not talking about some guy you personally hired to do work in your basement. We are talking about an employee of a legal fiction created by the state for the benefit of the owners. Any restriction put on such an entity is fair game.
Well the government does not coerce companies at all. Companies are legal fiction created by the government and given the special privilege of limited liability. No restriction that is placed on such an organization can be considered coercion - they are free to disincorperate.
There is a lot of distance between trespassing and grand theft, there is also a lot of distance between grand theft for profit and unauthorized borrowing of property (maybe not legally, but, the law is the rules of last resort not the first go to for solving your problems)
So in short....my answer would still be, that it would depend on the relationship with the friend and might depend on things like whether they actually did any damage or took pains to avoid doing damage.
> Sounds to me like the individual in question had no qualms about breaking the rules and
> proved it, and is only sorry that they got caught.
Odd, I don't see where there was any mention about the individual in questions personal reaction to or feelings about his firing, not sure where you got that.
> And we have not even discussed the rights of the shareholders (they own everything) and the
> government (they are entitled to some of the money, aka taxes) yet.
Taxes? Well yes but, lets not forget the elephant in that room: They create the company itself. What is a company other than a group of people doing some manner of business with eachother? Its that, plus a legal fiction.
Companies must apply to become such and in doing so get limited liability. This is a hugely beneficial grant of privilege from the government, without which companies would have little choice but to rethink many of their operations.
So, as long as this situation exists, I would say a company, as duely authorized by the state has only whatever "rights" the state deems it should have: because absent that agreement they are just a group of people acting with full liability for their actions.
I tend towards the libertarian and, in theory, like the ideas that people should be able to make whatever agreements they want and its nobody else's business.... BUT current day companies, as they exist, are NOT wholly independent of the government; and I think it is important to remember and recognize that.
For as long as they are in a relationship with the government where they receive this special status, I find it very hard to argue that the state has any reason to be restricted in what it can require of them, including imposing expectations of privacy in their employees interactions.... if they so choose.
I don't know you from Adam so there is no way you are getting permission. However there are people I likely wouldn't give permission to that I would give forgiveness if they did it. Mostly family members; a couple of good friends.... we might have words if one of them did it, and I might register my displeasure, but.... the relationship matters to how much I care about the transgression.
Hows this one.
A) You find a stranger man sleeping in your back yard, and find out he has been doing it for a week now without you knowing.
B) You find a good friend sleeping in your back yard, and find out he has been too embarassed to tell you he is homeless.
Both are transgressions. Both you might be unhappy about, but kicking person A out and telling him not to come back is no net loss for you. Saying the same thing to person B means you are losing a good friend. Either way, nothing changes that there was a transgression, its just a matter of, is it worth it to you to lose a friend over?
Now in this case the "friend" is actually an employee and the loss is the 150% of their salary that it takes to train their replacement.
None of that changes that they likely lost more by getting rid of him than by ignoring his transgression. There is a difference between being in the right, and making a good decision. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to let people get away with things that don't matter very much. Perhaps you have heard "no harm, no foul".
also I never said that it costs them nothing. Yes it costs them wear and tear and even gas if he didn't refill it....but... I was thinking of tall that when I said, and stand by, the statement that they likely (unless there were other factors in the decision, which I wouldn't know) lost more by letting him go than they would by looking the other way.
> If employees don't like being monitored, they should find companies to work for that dont monitor
> them. End of story.
Then why don't you support their right to be informed of the monitoring so they can make an informed decision as to whether to continue that employment or find another job? as a libertarian myself I fully support people's right to do many things but.... I tend to look dimly on any notion that its ok to not inform people who are subject to your decisions, especially when your decision may have a bearing as to whether they would continue to choose to do business with you.
> However, it still managed to catch a driver "borrowing" the truck in the middle of the night to visit his
> girlfriend on the other side of the city, and then returning it a few hours later. He was let go the
> following day
That sounds like a bad management decision. So he broke policy in a way that didn't actually cause a problem and brought back the equipment he borrowed before anyone needed it... so in response they let him go and now have to train someone else to do his job.... which last study I saw said costs the company, on average, 150% of a workers normal salary
I really doubt that if you took all of the incidents where any employee ever did that for the company, and added them all up, it wouldn't equal the loss in productivity of replacing one average worker.
Yup, and if you ever pulled out an anatomy book, there are big bundles of nerves that run right under the collar bone, down into the arm. All in all.... not fun to break. You can access some of those nerves part way down the inside of the bicept or around the outside of your elbow....and I know you know how much that hurts to bump. .... I don't want to experience a good hit to that whole bundle at once.
> Entirely possible. I haven't done rigorous testing to isolate which aspects of it are the biggest factor.
Let me give you my results then. I have had the same sort of success with the same sort of situation. However, I have never bothered to 'tap the can' first, it never even occured to me to do so.
There is actually some headspace in the can anyway, just holding it rightside up puts the bubble at the top. If you need evidence of this, try a "Kamakazi":
Step 1: Tip can over to aprox 45 degrees so the "top" is actually a point on the bottom rim of the can.
Step 2: Use a knife to puncture the can near the ridge
Step 3: Turn the can over and place your lips over the small hole
Step 4: Open the top tab
If done properly, you will be chugging a beer about as fast as you can from a can. Repeat until you miss air space in step 2. I saw someone do this once at a LAN party (get off my lawn) and they managed to put a trail of beer straight across my laptop keyboard and screen.... from the next room.
Let me guess, you are, in fact, one of "those jerks" and you realized that now you may have a way to convince people to let you smack their thumb instead?
Sorry, I remember the "hit my hand" joke.
You mean its not normal to do hand stands in the tub?
> For anyone that is minimaly informed about history and politics, the desire of the NSA (or any other
> inteligence agency) to have access to EVERYTHING is obvious.
> My surprise is limited to the extent to which the NSA as been allowed to gain that information.
And anyone that is minimaly informed about history and politics, shouldn't be surprized.
Its very simple to see what is up. All you have to do is look at the way they make decisions, with their secret briefings, their threat assesments etc. Then just remember that the first question that (just about) any one of them is going to have on their mind is "If I oppose this, and there is another 9/11 sized event, will I get blamed".
see, if they approve it along with everyone else, and nothing happens, all is good. If they approve it and it turns into a scandal, it wont come back on them personally. If they approve and their is an attack, the same, because they covered their ass by approving.
On the other hand, if they deny and there is a scandal, or if they deny and there is an attack, then they get blamed as being against security and helping the terrorists. The only reasonable outcome for them on denial is that nothing happens.
So.... it should be pretty unsurprizing that they make this choice. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM right?
Especially since the correct response, if we already knew this, should be directed at the MEPs and it is "I told you so".
Well in 4 decades of long distance cycling.
I think it comes down to what you mean by "safe". Yes you are likely to take some injuries if you cycle a not insignificant amount, however, most people will not do nearly as much cycling as a distance cycler who has been at it for so long.
He is still alive and still biking, a couple of broken bones....meh.
You could easily get those injuries or worst slipping in the tub or down some stairs.
> No, by paying the tax he is complying with the law
I was thinking about this some more, it may be too late to get the notice of one of the lawyers floating out there on / since IANAL, but here is how I understand it:
My understanding is that, since you have a right to not self-incriminate, then allowing tax records to be used as evidence of other crimes would make the requirement to report illegally obtained income would be a denial of your right to not self-incriminate.
as such, records are sealed, and can, in theory, only be used for tax purposes; thus effectively creating a loop hole around self-incrimination to allow illegal income to be taxed and criminals who don't report it, to be charged with tax evasion, which is sometimes easier to prove than their crime. (and is a whole different can of worms.... is that really even justice?)
Please if they were smart they would do one better....
1. spill paper clips on floor several feet from door
2. Sleep on floor with feet touching door.
3. If door opens, yell "sorry one second" and explain that you were on the floor picking up the paper clips.
Apparently this is an old trick. Wouldn't work for me as my office door has a full height window next to it (perhaps for exactly this reason); and of course, I snore like a buzz saw.