Re: Re: Re: Oh, the stories I could tell you about backups
... point. There's almost certainly been skimping on safeties and backups to stretch inadequate budget(it's rare that an IT department gets an adequate budget, it seems to me - particularly for things that don't demonstrate a benefit unless something bad happens).
As someone contemplating doing a stint as an examiner (because God knows they need more people in the tech fields), and who did some similar 'self-reporting timesheet' work in the past, this irritates me a little more than usual.
It's *telework*. You're in your comfort zone, you've got food available, you can be listening to music without your cubicle neighbors telling you to turn it down, you can keep an eye on kids... you've got no excuse (well, you don't have one anyway) to commit fraud.
That's generally the theory behind "natural rights", yes
Copyright, to circle back to (roughly) the topic, is not such a right; it's not a measure to protect some individual right but a measure to improve the future state of culture and the arts by offering an incentive to create.
One possible consequence that isn't talked about is, I think, the danger of countries avoiding the risk by *never entering into contracts with large corporations* if they can possibly help it.
After all, without any kind of agreement with Gabriel, there's no hook for the company to try this kind of extortion.
Corporations lose from such a trend too, I would think.
But ultimately, I'm adamant against this kind of formalized process that often boils down to extortion. The penalty for a country dicking a company over... is lessened future investment by other companies; it's a self-correcting mechanism.
And the judge of whether a country screwed over a corporation would be all the *other* corporations, often competitors to the first. And, in theory, self-interest wins out for a relatively impartial decision, since these potential future investors would be putting money where their mouths are.
But an arbitration panel, even if it were completely competent and impartial, doesn't have the capitalistic advantage of self-interest working to reinforce the structure.
Plus I dislike any kind of relinquishment of governmental power to private hands. The *restriction* of how a government can use governmental power is fine to me - but effectively transferring some of that power to an entity not obligated - even in theory - to represent the interests of me and my fellow citizens is a horrible *horrible* idea.
(The power a government wields will always exist in a society more advanced than a small tribe. I prefer it remain in handcuffed hands that I have a say in the identity of than in unrestrained hands I have no say in the identity of)
... err... I don't think you've thought that last statement through. Who determines the compensation, and who determines what triggers a 'legitimate' demand?
A corporation decides both (more or less), and it's ruled on by a theoretically completely neutral arbitrator. Unfortunately, the arbitrator is almost always *not* completely neutral, giving the corporation a bit of an edge.
And so you've got what's described in the article - the *threat* to try this process. Heck, just like SLAPP, "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" - the process itself is going to be inconvenient.
The underlying *concept* is called democracy - that is, that political power rests in the people and is fairly evenly split among them (as opposed to divine right/mandate, say).
But what we don't have is a *direct* democracy. We've got a representational one, where we the citizens select a smaller set of proxies to wield our (conceptual) power on our behalf.
In addition, strictures upon how governmental powers are wielded are fully in-line with democracy - "you may not eat your fellow citizens for dinner" (either at all or "unless you can satisfy extra requirements - ie, a constitutional amendment) is quite legit under any kind of democracy short of direct unstructured democracy.
To be honest, on a certain level I don't give a damn if all of Rogers' claims are true about Snowden. I doubt they are, but it matters little to me.
What matters are the documents being released. I care far more about what the government that has quite a bit of power (theoretical and actual) over me then a single individual that I've never even met.
So Rogers, posters gleefully pouncing on this and others of the sort... are you declaring the documents to be mass forgery? Because any other claim to try and sweep the issue away I don't give a damn about in comparison. Snowden could be a kiddie fiddler and it wouldn't change the cat being out of the bag.
How cowardly we have become since Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" and Benjamin Franklin's "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Locking the cockpit door. The point of a hijack is to wrest control of the plane, not to kill the people on the airplane (that's just a bonus - they're going for psychological impact or far more significant kill-count).
If they wish to kill the number of people on a plane, it's easier (and more effective) to bomb, say... a busy mall. A school. A hotel.