I'm currently very happy with my job, but I'm definitely not always having fun. Of the jobs I've had so far in my life, my current is probably the one I been the happiest. Mostly this is because senior management does a decent job of making the employee feel respected. We are given freedom to do our accomplish our tasks in ways that work best for us as long as the end result fits with everyone else's work (programming).
In addition to freedom for day to day tasks, the company seems to go above and beyond to make life outside of work easier (good medical/insurance plans, nice retirement planning/benefits, generous time off allowance). When they have to do something "unfair" (say a wage freeze), they make sure it's equally unfair for all (including the CEO) while explaining in as much detail as asked for WHY the decision was made. Not bad for a company with thousands of employees.
In the end, it not only makes me happy to stay even when the days occasionally get long and difficult, but makes me willing to recommend open positions to friends who need something better. I feel respected as a person and coworker instead of just a "wage slave".
I deal with insurance data at my job and some of that is medical related (i.e. worker's compensation). A few of the companies we deal with have outsourced some of their data entry to firms in India. If the Indian government is monitoring all data going in and out of the country, couldn't that possibly be a HIPAA violation for a US based firm?
... including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; (emphasis mine)
Forget whether or not the the site itself is infringing directly. Based on that bit of text, the Justice Department can shut it down if it even offers a link to infringement. Heck, taken to the extreme, even a link to thepiratebay.org main page would be enough to get a site shut down.
This is horrendously crafted legislation. Senator Leahy and his cohorts should be ashamed of themselves.
As I was reading this, I was thinking that no law will ever stop distracted driving because some people will always feel that they can "handle" the distraction.
How about we repeal ALL the "distracted driving" laws and pass a new one that adds a citation/ticket for "accident due to distracted driving". It would not be a primary offense that you could get pulled over for, but a supplemental ticket at the scene of an accident on top of any other offenses (i.e. speeding, failure to maintain lane, etc). It could carry a large fine ($1000... $5000?) + points against the drivers license + automatic assumption of fault for insurance purposes.
The idea is not necessarily to prevent the action, but to make the consequences of causing an accident due to distracted driving so extreme that people will stop and think about whether or not the penalties are worth the risk.
I can see both sides here. From the defense side of things, this is pre-trial discovery and not everything found will make it to the trial (assuming there is no settlement). NY has very liberal discovery rules and the public face the plaitiff has displayed shows an active lifestyle - a point the plaitiff did not appear to refute.
That being said, I think the plaintiff would have been off adding a comment to the effect of "The public profile represents an image the plaintiff wanted to project to friends and is not necessarily the full truth". I don't know about everyone else, but there have been a few times I've been more upbeat online than I've been in real life.
I also think the plaintiff's case could have been helped with an explanation of the specific elements that SteelCase was pointing out. For example, in 2006, I ruptured one of my Achilles tendons. For the next 3 months, it was wheelchairs and crutches if I wanted to go anywhere. In the photos from the time that show me active, what is not shown is the wheelchair that was moved out of frame, my leg in a cast/hard boot below the bottom edge of the photo, the Advil/Percocet that I was taking to deal with the pain, etc. The plaintiff's public profile represents a "sanitized" image she may be presenting so that she doesn't come off as a whiner/near invalid all the time.
I'm torn on this one. I think in the end, I'll reserve my outrage because I feel Steelcase has a right to full disclosure in order to defend themselves and they've at least presented a prima facie case for the need. Ultimately, I think I see this more as a failure of the plaintiff's attorney to properly litigate the case.
So you're going to tell AT&T that they have to monitor their phone lines to make sure they pay attention to what people are using their "service" for? How about Internet connections? FedEx, UPS and the US Mail?
It's easy to say they need to pay attention, a lot more difficult to do in practice until you have all the facts. How many ads per day are submitted? How long would it take a human being to scan each and every ad for approval? How many ads would have to get approved per day to stay ahead of expenses? How quickly would the Voice go under if it didn't have automated ad submission in place?
I suspect this, like so many civil cases these days, will be settled with a back room deal and undisclosed terms such that the true issue never gets tested in court.
My gut says the court system should be changed such that all cases filed must be carried through to a decision. Additionally, the "loser" must the lawyers fees for both sides, but not to exceed the least amount spent. In other words, if Joe Citizen spends $10K and loses to mega-corporation who spends $200K, Joe Citizen only has to pay $10K of mega-corps fees. Settlements could still be reached, but only by one side accepting a judgement against them and paying legal fees.
While it would certainly cut down on lawsuits as a negotiation ploy, I'm also certain there are unintended consequences I'm not considering.
In a nutshell, you cannot be proven wrong if you never debate the facts.
Since they've never been proven wrong, they can then go on to say such fun statements like:
- It is in undisputed fact that file sharing is causing our losses.
Since they've never actually debated the assertion, they believe the information to be true and they've explicitly refrained from viewing studies to the contrary, they can say "we didn't lie".
Granted, those of us with a smattering of common sense see this for the lawyer-speak that it is and promptly ignore it... :-)
As I understood it, once the names were revealed in the existing lawsuits, the plaintiffs had a set amount of time to amend the case with the names AND serve the individuals identified. The plaintiffs asked for and received an extension of time in order to serve the appropriate papers, but that extension has now run out - likely by design. Since the people being sued haven't been properly served within the specified timeframe, they have a valid defense to get the case dismissed, possibly with prejudice. The only logical course of action for the plaintiffs to prevent dismissal with prejudice is to drop the case.
As for filing again, that's the "beauty" of the US court system. Unless there is a final agreement or adjudication on the first case, they get to file a second one for the same issue against the same person. Unfortunately, depending on the court, sometimes it's not even seen as a second filing. Some plaintiffs have successfully convinced the court that since the first case was against multiple John/Jane Does, it's not the same as a case against an individual named defendant.
/No GED in law
//This is not legal advice, just personal opinion.
At least in my area, there are many manual labor jobs that can be held without needing use of the Internet.
That being said, for this area they would also be "low level" positions that are completely inadequate for lofty goals such as raising a family or owning a home.
For the suits I read, they were always Record Label vs "unlucky target". They were never submitted to the court as RIAA vs target. The RIAA may have been funding and doing all the work, but the lawsuits always came across as the label was the Plaintiff and the RIAA was just the hired gun getting the job (barely) done.
/personal opinion
//don't even have a GED in law... :-)
Actually, you can use another part of Mike's post to make the A.C. post a lot more accurate. Replace every instance of should (moral argument) with will (economic argument) and the post actually makes quite a bit more sense... :-)
If indeed this is part of the recent Homeland Security/ICE effort and they keep taking down innocent sites when they attempt to eliminate file sharing, I could eventually see someone making a comment like this:
Joe Biden... your party lost every election in massive landslides because you pissed off MILLIONS of registerd voters.
The whole time I'm reading this post, I kept thinking back to a recent Wil Wheaton blog post (new window). It contains a link to a video of an interview he did while up in Portland, OR this week.
The part that gets me is when he talked about Twitter and the w00tstock shows he's been part of with Adam Savage and 'Paul and Storm'. He points out that there has been no official marketing of the events, merely hype via Twitter, blog posts and word of mouth. And yet, even with the lack of "official" marketing, every show has been sold out.
Obviously, this won't work for everyone, but it is a great example of "you never know what will actually work".
I wonder if a name change would even work or if they'd just add the new name to the list. If so, maybe a few "choice" name changes would be in order.... say:
Robert S Mueller III (Director of the FBI)
John S. Pistole (Deputy Director of the FBI and current TSA administrator)
Then pick a few prominent people or celebrites. For example, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, William Gates, Stephen King, Robert Pattinson, Gwen Stefani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Angelina Jolie, etc. Load up that list with a whole bunch of names that don't belong there but also have a public audience.
Of course, it'll never happen, so we're stuck with the current mess. Oh well.
I would be ashamed to be a citizen of a country in which a jury would allow that.
I think the point Mike wanted to make includes that it will never even get in front of a jury in the first place. The gov't will move for dismissal on the basis of national security and the judge will likely grant it, with prejudice.
/wish it weren't so
//cynical? Me? Nahhhhhhh... :-)
"I recognize that the Sunday Times' strategy is for all of its content to be paywalled, but there are times when you make an exception. This seems like an important one."
The cover of the first book in the series shows a pair of hands holding a red apple. Ads and promotional shots from the first movie also regularly used apples.
On the post: Is It Legal For A UK Pub To Access A Greek Satellite System To Get Cheaper Football Games On TV?
OMG... you mean....
:-)
On the post: Is Fun No Longer Fun When It's Corporate Fun?
Happy, but only sometimes fun.
In addition to freedom for day to day tasks, the company seems to go above and beyond to make life outside of work easier (good medical/insurance plans, nice retirement planning/benefits, generous time off allowance). When they have to do something "unfair" (say a wage freeze), they make sure it's equally unfair for all (including the CEO) while explaining in as much detail as asked for WHY the decision was made. Not bad for a company with thousands of employees.
In the end, it not only makes me happy to stay even when the days occasionally get long and difficult, but makes me willing to recommend open positions to friends who need something better. I feel respected as a person and coworker instead of just a "wage slave".
On the post: India Upset With RIM Because Solution To Spy On Emails Doesn't Work Well
HIPAA?
/just curious
On the post: What Else Might COICA Be Used To Censor
It's so much worse...
... including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays;
(emphasis mine)
S.3804 at THOMAS.LOC.GOV
Forget whether or not the the site itself is infringing directly. Based on that bit of text, the Justice Department can shut it down if it even offers a link to infringement. Heck, taken to the extreme, even a link to thepiratebay.org main page would be enough to get a site shut down.
This is horrendously crafted legislation. Senator Leahy and his cohorts should be ashamed of themselves.
On the post: New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
Perhaps we should penalize the consequences...
How about we repeal ALL the "distracted driving" laws and pass a new one that adds a citation/ticket for "accident due to distracted driving". It would not be a primary offense that you could get pulled over for, but a supplemental ticket at the scene of an accident on top of any other offenses (i.e. speeding, failure to maintain lane, etc). It could carry a large fine ($1000... $5000?) + points against the drivers license + automatic assumption of fault for insurance purposes.
The idea is not necessarily to prevent the action, but to make the consequences of causing an accident due to distracted driving so extreme that people will stop and think about whether or not the penalties are worth the risk.
On the post: Court Says Personal Injury Plaintiff Has To Give Defendant Access To Facebook & Myspace Info
Both sides
That being said, I think the plaintiff would have been off adding a comment to the effect of "The public profile represents an image the plaintiff wanted to project to friends and is not necessarily the full truth". I don't know about everyone else, but there have been a few times I've been more upbeat online than I've been in real life.
I also think the plaintiff's case could have been helped with an explanation of the specific elements that SteelCase was pointing out. For example, in 2006, I ruptured one of my Achilles tendons. For the next 3 months, it was wheelchairs and crutches if I wanted to go anywhere. In the photos from the time that show me active, what is not shown is the wheelchair that was moved out of frame, my leg in a cast/hard boot below the bottom edge of the photo, the Advil/Percocet that I was taking to deal with the pain, etc. The plaintiff's public profile represents a "sanitized" image she may be presenting so that she doesn't come off as a whiner/near invalid all the time.
I'm torn on this one. I think in the end, I'll reserve my outrage because I feel Steelcase has a right to full disclosure in order to defend themselves and they've at least presented a prima facie case for the need. Ultimately, I think I see this more as a failure of the plaintiff's attorney to properly litigate the case.
On the post: Former Child Prostitute Sues Village Voice For 'Aiding & Abetting' Via Sex Ads
Re: isn't this the Pirate Bay argument?
It's easy to say they need to pay attention, a lot more difficult to do in practice until you have all the facts. How many ads per day are submitted? How long would it take a human being to scan each and every ad for approval? How many ads would have to get approved per day to stay ahead of expenses? How quickly would the Voice go under if it didn't have automated ad submission in place?
On the post: Former Child Prostitute Sues Village Voice For 'Aiding & Abetting' Via Sex Ads
Prepare to be disappointed...
My gut says the court system should be changed such that all cases filed must be carried through to a decision. Additionally, the "loser" must the lawyers fees for both sides, but not to exceed the least amount spent. In other words, if Joe Citizen spends $10K and loses to mega-corporation who spends $200K, Joe Citizen only has to pay $10K of mega-corps fees. Settlements could still be reached, but only by one side accepting a judgement against them and paying legal fees.
While it would certainly cut down on lawsuits as a negotiation ploy, I'm also certain there are unintended consequences I'm not considering.
On the post: Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
We all know the answer...
Since they've never been proven wrong, they can then go on to say such fun statements like:
- It is in undisputed fact that file sharing is causing our losses.
Since they've never actually debated the assertion, they believe the information to be true and they've explicitly refrained from viewing studies to the contrary, they can say "we didn't lie".
Granted, those of us with a smattering of common sense see this for the lawyer-speak that it is and promptly ignore it... :-)
On the post: US Copyright Group Dumps Two Of Its Lawsuits... But Only To Refile Lawsuits Against Individuals
With my GED in law...
As for filing again, that's the "beauty" of the US court system. Unless there is a final agreement or adjudication on the first case, they get to file a second one for the same issue against the same person. Unfortunately, depending on the court, sometimes it's not even seen as a second filing. Some plaintiffs have successfully convinced the court that since the first case was against multiple John/Jane Does, it's not the same as a case against an individual named defendant.
/No GED in law
//This is not legal advice, just personal opinion.
On the post: New Zealand Lawyers Suggest Full Internet Ban For Repeat Infringers
Re: Re:
That being said, for this area they would also be "low level" positions that are completely inadequate for lofty goals such as raising a family or owning a home.
On the post: RIAA Defends Lawsuit Spending... But Reminds Everyone How It Helps Screw Over Musicians
Re:
/personal opinion
//don't even have a GED in law... :-)
On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral
Re: Re: ...coward...
On the post: Authorities Force 73,000 Blogs Offline?
Ghostbusters reference...
Joe Biden... your party lost every election in massive landslides because you pissed off MILLIONS of registerd voters.
On the post: The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
New business model
The part that gets me is when he talked about Twitter and the w00tstock shows he's been part of with Adam Savage and 'Paul and Storm'. He points out that there has been no official marketing of the events, merely hype via Twitter, blog posts and word of mouth. And yet, even with the lack of "official" marketing, every show has been sold out.
Obviously, this won't work for everyone, but it is a great example of "you never know what will actually work".
On the post: No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly
Re: Re:
Robert S Mueller III (Director of the FBI)
John S. Pistole (Deputy Director of the FBI and current TSA administrator)
Then pick a few prominent people or celebrites. For example, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, William Gates, Stephen King, Robert Pattinson, Gwen Stefani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Angelina Jolie, etc. Load up that list with a whole bunch of names that don't belong there but also have a public audience.
Of course, it'll never happen, so we're stuck with the current mess. Oh well.
On the post: No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly
Re:
I think the point Mike wanted to make includes that it will never even get in front of a jury in the first place. The gov't will move for dismissal on the basis of national security and the judge will likely grant it, with prejudice.
/wish it weren't so
//cynical? Me? Nahhhhhhh... :-)
On the post: ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons
On the post: Sunday Times: Pay Up To Have Us Tell You How We Were Totally Wrong In Our Climate Change Story
Re:
"This is leading some to question..."
- and -
"I recognize that the Sunday Times' strategy is for all of its content to be paywalled, but there are times when you make an exception. This seems like an important one."
On the post: Official Twilight T-Shirt Contest Won't Let You Use Anything From Twilight
Apples....
/lame excuse for a restriction
Next >>