Re: Ever heard of contract breach?
And clauses like that are in place here too.
Why would you sub to IBM?
For the money or to gain experience.
3534 posts • joined 11 Apr 2006
And clauses like that are in place here too.
Why would you sub to IBM?
For the money or to gain experience.
Ever you ever read any of the contracts IBM has you sign?
(Yes, I have. And I've also written service contracts (SOWs) for IBM ...)
There are always out clauses and early termination clauses. IBM is notorious for having clauses which are trivial to bust, however, they will scare the uninitiated.
The worst case is that you have a 30 day out clause. So if you don't agree to a cut, they will notify you that your last day of service is X and you're to train up your replacement. (Not said, after you leave, if the replacement can't do the task, IBM will blame your inability to train your replacement as to why he or she failed.)
Some times the period is less. That clause is there to also protect you so you have an exit plan if SHTF things happen.
As to this backfiring on them... it will. IBM is in a no win situation. They subcontract to skilled people who can do the work because they lack the skills internally. Now you're out, they increase risk, create a customer sat issue, and the cost savings are negligible.
By senior manager, I mean 3rd tier exec or higher in each region all under a directive from the chief bean counter to cut costs.
W.R.T shifting service model to use IBM dedicated employees... that means that they will use the offshore staff that they have been hiring all along. Note that clients see the cheaper labor being shipped in and will either immediately demand the contract to be renegotiated, threaten to sue, or will wait until the contract is up for renegotiation and will lower the boom on IBM further reducing the payments for services.
Rometty is real. I've actually met her at an EBU event many, many moons ago. She's in a bad place because those surrounding her don't know life outside IBM and can't think for themselves. So they fall back on the same old tricks that Sam used... only there's nothing left to cut.
When Rometty sat in w Trump and pledged to keep people employed here in the US she was talking out her arse.
The larger issue is that IBM never really learned their lesson. You can't keep cutting people and costs and that something is going to give. Now you have it. This is clearly a decision made by a senior manager and their bean counters who are on the hot seat and have no clue on how to turn things around.
IBM is still slowly sinking and they will end up being yet another Unisys
Name one new organization that doesn't fit that description.
CNN? Really They earned the name "Clinton News Network"
ABC? CBS? NBC? Really?
Fox is better than the rest, however I don't agree with everything they say.
I suggest you actually listen to all of the programs. While I don't agree with their 'Christian Messaging' they are more fair and balanced (actually their words) than the rest of the MSM.
Also they were right there, witnessed the whole thing and spoke to the police.
BTW, I'm an independent and in the center. I think I'm a bit more objective that you.
I suggest you actually listen to the tape of the incident.
Ben Jacobs did ambush him and didn't take no for an answer.
As to having the right to take down Ben, it depends. We don't have video so we don't know how close Ben was to the politician. Was he invading his space? While the politician has been charged with misdemeanor assault, there are some charges that could be lobbied at Jacobs as well.
IMHO, its time so called journalists understand that when you attempt to ambush someone and try to goad them in to giving you an off the cuff response that you can then attack... you may get a fist in your face.
You're getting a lot of down votes because people just don't understand the facts and that some people have a short fuse.
The recording not only details the attack but also that the politician answer the guy's question and attempted to move on. He then lost it and while taking the guy down, he said something quite interesting...
That this wasn't the first time a guardian reporter tried to confront and goad him in to making an off the cuff statement.
You can bet those in MT who are going to vote for the guy regardless of this incident.
As a fellow mid-westerner I have no sympathy for the twat reporter, although I think the politician could have handled it better.
Re: health insurance is a scam.
Indeed. A state managed service like the NHS is the only sensible way to provision health care.
Then why is the NHS broken?
Please don't say it isn't. I spent some time over on that side of the pond and watched the morning telly where they detailed all of the problems. And then I have a friend who had to wait 6 months in order to see someone for PT (physio) for their back where as I, here in the states, could see someone the next day.
Y'all must not be from around here.
And you have a sad understanding of free speech or how the mid west / central states view the press.
If you actually listened to the tape, and read the story on Fox News from the eye witnesses, you see two things.
First, the reporter was being a twat and intentionally harassing the politician. (He's a Republican candidate and the reporter from the Guardian is from the Left and is ambushing him, trying to goad him in to making an off the cuff statement that he could then use to skewer the politician. ) Also the politician alluded to an earlier incident from the same newspaper as he assaulted the reporter. The truth is that the reporter wanted to rile the guy, but didn't expect that he would get taken out with a body slam.
A Free Press needs to be objective and unbiased. That's something missing from today's Press.
We see this in the 90% negative coverage of Trump by CNN as well as the NYT openly setting aside their journalistic integrity and claiming its ok for a journalist to be biased and attack Trump during the election.
Here in the Midwest, which Clinton LOST, we no longer trust most of the MSM because of their obvious bias.
Note: This doesn't excuse the politician's actions, however, we don't hold the reporter completely harmless either. When the press starts acting like the press, you'll see a change in our attitude toward the press.
And no, I'm neither a Trump supporter or a Republican. Its just very obvious the reporter ambushed the guy and was baiting him. Montana isn't Midtown or LA.
I suggest that you actually learn the law and then decide what charges to bring forward.
(See my response above)
Over 90% of the donations made by DoJ officials went to Clinton. Does that alone mean that we could argue that the fix was in? No, the other evidence does, but do you see the point? Political donations do not indicate that there will be personal bias in the case.
The politician can really put a good spin on this, in light of the fact that he actually committed a misdemeanor assault on the guy.
BTW, if you actually bothered to look up the law and the statute, he committed misdemeanor assault and even there... he could put up a really good defense against the charges. His defense attorney will have a field day with this.
Note, I'm not excusing his use of violence or the fact that he lost it. I'm just looking at it from a legal perspective and I bet he'll either get a plea deal, or plead not guilty and attempt to justify it as self defense.
(Maybe even temporary insanity. He just snapped... )
Its very likely a jury of his peers would find him not guilty because the Guardian reporter was also behaving like a twat. Imagine if you were walking down the street, and a beggar suddenly rushes up and gets in your face holding out a coffee cup begging for spare change. You say say sorry, no, and try to move on. The beggar blocks your path and you try again to say no and move on. He continues to block you. Honestly, what would you do?
Wow. I think you really need to take off your political shaded glasses and look at it from an objective point of view. He was charged with Misdemeanor Assault because that best fits what happened. I suggest you look at the relevant laws as well as my response to you below..
From the recording and eyewitness reports from Fox News.
The reporter confronted the politician. He put his hand in his face with a recorder and started to ask him questions. The politician first politely said no, and declined to give an answer. He then directed him to talk to someone else. The reporter didn't take no for an answer and continued to attempt to ask more questions. It quickly escalated and the politician took down the reporter. You can hear him getting angry and made reference to an earlier incident.
Note: This is all evidence. For the prosecution, it details that there was an attack and corroborates witness testimony. For the defense, it shows that he didn't commit aggravated assault.
"45-5-202. Aggravated assault. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault if the person purposely or knowingly causes serious bodily injury to another or purposely or knowingly, with the use of physical force or contact, causes reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury or death in another.
(2) A person convicted of aggravated assault shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term not to exceed 20 years and may be fined not more than $50,000, except as provided in 46-18-219 and 46-18-222. "
That's MT law btw.
Now Misdemeanor Assault is outlined here:
Note: What occurred fits Misdemeanor Assault more than Felony Assault.
And again here, he has a decent defense ahead of him. It all depends on what the witnesses say and how they are questioned under oath.
Does that make sense?
Learn the law and learn to be objective.
It doesn't take a mensa candidate to tell which side your bread is buttered on.
But I have to ask, when you say 'groper in chief' did you mean Bill Clinton who was actually accused of rape and his wife Hillary went on the attack of the victim? (Oh and while Trump is on wife #3, he's never been accused of rape...) (You can use google to see what's what.)
But I digress.
No, its never ok to resort to violence, even as a rude so called journalist is shoving a tape recorder in your face and demanding answers as you try to walk in to your next session.
Note, I'm not trying to justify the man's actions, however, if someone stuck his hand out in your face, blocking your path and didn't take no, please go away... I wouldn't blame you for body slamming him either.
Since you, mr. AC, are left leaning, imagine if that Milo Y. character was the reporter and was badgering you and wouldn't stop to leave you alone. What would you do?
Note: Fox News, which is center-right / right was there and witnessed it. I would take their report as being reliable and thus the politico is being charged. As to making the candidate less electable... remind me how many news stories in the past year show fist fights breaking out in government meetings around the world? Why should the US or UK be held to a higher standard?
Nokia did make phones and they are the source of the patents.
So they aren't patent trolls.
No, not legally illegal, but illegal use of the law.
But if you ever get trapped in a room with a killer android, ask him to explain the legally illegal concept. ;-)
Certain professions are licensed by the state. (Doctors, Lawyers, Insurance, etc ...) So you have to be licensed by each state where you practice. Most states have reciprocity with other states. So you can take and pass the bar in one state and get admitted to other states' bar for a fee as long as you are in good standing where you passed the bar.
Other states would require that you take their bar exam.
It depends on the state. For example, you could pass the bar in IL and reciprocity with IN would let you practice in both states since IN will recognize the IL license. (But you still have to apply to the IN bar. )
But NY may not recognize the IL bar and force you to sit for their bar exam.
Depending on the state, its possible that you can get disbarred in one but not the other.
It depends why you were disbarred. Note: With a felony conviction... that's pretty much an automatic disbarment.
Technically, he could still practice law, and disbarment in one state doesn't mean that he will be disbarred in another. HOWEVER, due to the fact that he committed several felony counts... as a convicted felon, he will most likely lose the ability to practice law period. He will also be blocked from getting other licenses for other jobs and he will also face a lot more scrutiny when it comes to applying for a job.
One down... too many more to go.
Yet another AC who doesn't bother to learn the facts.
The allegations were spelled out in the EAW and the subsequent appeals.
The evidence was presented in a UK court. So there is no ability to say that there is no claim.
If you re-read the first appeals challenge you'll learn that Assange's lawyers attempted to apply an affirmative defense. No one disputed that the sex occurred.
So the act did happen. Does it meet the standard of rape? That's up to a court to decide. However on the surface if true then it does.
Assange fled jurisdiction. Remember that had he stayed, the worst thing would be 4 years in jail and then booted out with the probability he would be booted from ever visiting Sweden again. This would have been a footnote in history.
As to Assange's fear from the US... Publishing the details... isn't enough to get him extradited and charged. Assisting Manning in the theft? Then he's going to face charges under the Espionage Act and he will not face anything worse than Manning. Note that Manning's self mutilation would not be an option for Assange, although there would be two women in Sweden who would probably argue it to be a just fate. (The separation of Julian from his little friend who doesn't like to wear a raincoat. )
Look, before you start to make legal claims like libel, I suggest you actually learn something of the law and the legal definition of libel.
Sorry, no, he would not go to the US.
In fact the US would not issue any sort of warrant or extradition request of Assange while he's in the UK.
That would allow Assange to do another appeal to block the extradition and this time they would probably remand him to jail during the appeal. Because the potential crime would be under the espionage act and there is the possibility of the death penalty, he would have grounds to fight the extradition even though he wouldn't really face the death penalty.
If the US wanted him... they would wait until he leaves the UK and is back on dry land in Australia.
Sorry no, its not complicated.
Regardless of the dismissal of the EAW, it doesn't change the fact that he lost his appeal (3 times) and then jumped bail.
Withdrawing the EAW doesn't negate his crime in the UK of jumping bail.
He's still on the hook and if caught will face the UK courts and then get tossed off the island back to his homeland a yet larger island called Australia.
He can then be barred entry back in to the UK as well as barred from Sweden after 2020 or arrested in Sweden if he tried to enter and gained access prior to 2020.
I would suggest you stop trying to play lawyer. You're not very good at it.
I don't think that they would do that.
I think that they will let him get out of the UK before thinking of any options.
The real issue is what the UK does.
His lawyers want to negotiate some sort of deal.
The UK could say no, or they could give him some prison time, or something in between before kicking him out of the country back to Australia.
And I would be very surprised if they don't send him back since he's traveling on an Aussie passport.
I'm sorry, but you really should learn the facts of the case.
Assange absconded. He fled jurisdiction with the help of his then Swedish lawyer.
This is well documented and the lawyer admitted to his role while testifying in British Court during the first extradition hearing.
Also Swedish law restricts their ability to charge anyone with a crime in absentia. So they have to extradite him back to Sweden so that they can charge him. This too was detailed during Assange's first of three extradition hearings.
And to be clear, the facts are that after the three courts ruled against him, he jumped bail and fled to the Embassy.
The Prosecutor didn't delay anything.
Seems you've been sucking on Assange's something...
The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is so very often misquoted and not well understood.
All it means is that during a trial the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show guilt and not for the accused to prove innocence.
Outside of a trial, Assange can be judged by the 'court' of public opinion.
As to his guilt, the evidence was presented in British Court in defense of the EAW. While it is taken on its face as being true, the British Court found it compelling enough to warrant his return for a trial.
The fact that he fled jurisdiction and then jumped bail does not help his case nor the vote of public opinion.
Lets face it. Had he gone back or not left at all... he would have gotten a slap on the wrist and kicked out of the country.
Now he's going to get the boot from the UK back to Australia.
He pulled a Roman Polanski.
If the El Reg statement from the prosecutor is correct, they can reopen the case, however, while that possibility exists... they probably won't.
However, he still faces the Brits for jumping bail.
That is another thing and they will most likely toss him on a plane back to Australia.
Too many mixed movie references.
All that negative energy is such a downer.
And what do you name this machine? Otto Pilot ? ;-)
And of course someone beat me to the punch.
I knew this was a bad week to stop taking meth.
There isn't much distinction between a moderated site and FB or Google.
The one argument is that a moderator should be able to tell if an item is copyright protected or not. Therefore they should be held liable.
If true, then you have to look at Google and FB.
The interesting thing is that both Google and FB can automate the investigation of material on their web site and use AI to determine if something is copyright protected. Of course there are fair use exceptions which would make something interesting.
For example... if you had a web page that was dedicated to the Tet Offensive and you have a picture on your site and you credit the photographer, talk about his story and about the significance of the shot, Are you breaking copyright law? (That was rhetorical. No you are not.) However if you took a video clip and are showing it on YouTube... you are breaking the law. (Assuming that your clip is pulled from a movie or tv show.)
But the point remains. Google does have the tech to be able to identify and stop a lot of the abuse and they need to implement it to remain compliant with the DCMA.
While I think the 9th is full of loony toons, They are right on this one
It was illegal for Google to be in possession of the data.
At a minimum, they should now provide an audit of how they used the data, where they stored it and to then verify its destruction.
The sad thing... their gall and disregard for the law is prevalent in Silicon Valley and is continually being taught in schools.
But until you have mem-resistor / crossbar technology at scale... an all memory computer like this would still crush your Hadoop cluster, even those running a poor man's HPC set up.
The point is that you can keep your relevant data sets in 'memory' and still perform number crunching using them.
To be fair... I don't see a lot of use cases where this is really needed.
Well Frankenstein's Monster and the sperm whale are already taken.
Of course there's no IT reference in their names...
I know... why not call it a 'Mainframe' ?
When I was at IBM many moons ago, one year, my sales quota (even though I was in the lab) was 7.8 million. I did 8.5 in contracted revenue and ended at 120% of quota in terms of burned revenue.
I also did a deal that sparked the creation of a cross pillar services offering. After being tasked with an impossible job and then crushing it, they replaced me with a green team and a heritage IBM manager.
I warned them that they would fail, but they didn't care or listen. It took them 3 years to admit I was right, but by then... I escaped the borg.
So I feel your pain.
What you're seeing is one of the reasons why IBM has difficulty in implementing change, and why Rometty has to go to extremes to try and turn things around. And of course why she'll fail.
IBM is still making money, but they need to get a real shock to the system in order to turn things around.
But its going to be very difficult to do that when IBM is 1) a public company and 2) will cause the clueless masses a major heart attack as you reverse course on a lot of things.
Cue Arlo Guthrie...
Sound is analog. Yet if you have a high enough rate of capture, your digitized sound can capture the sound beyond your ability to distinguish it from the analog copy. (Remember your intro to calculus and trying to find the volume under the curve?)
Yet that's beyond what we see happening and then the loss of quality when you run it thru a codec to reduce the size of the data....
I also don't know if you can say no one is interested in FLAC. There's more to the story than just saying you have a new and improved codec.
Radio isn't 'free'.
You as a listener may not be paying to hear the music, but you also have to listen to advertisements who's revenues fund the station which in turn has to pay for the music that they play.
So the artists get paid for air time at a rate that is negotiated/set and different from concerts.
Most of the money from bands comes from concerts and merchandise sales.
Here's the flaw in Google's argument...
Suppose you create a channel and you upload a set of Iron Maiden songs / videos, etc ... and people come to your station... you didn't create the Iron Maiden songs / material, you in fact stole it.
But until Iron Maiden or their producers file a DCMA take down request, you are going to be compensated by Google if the number of eyeballs hits a certain threshold. So you make money, not the artist.
Uhm actually, its not 'free'.
First, Google embeds adverts not only on the page but also in the stream. In addition, they capture data about you the viewer. So they gain value from presenting the data with no physical cost (actual payment) to you, however, you are still providing value to them.
Note: I agree with your post... because you are exchanging your privacy , however I wanted to point out that it goes beyond that because they are accepting ad revenue, not to mention they are paying the individuals who uploaded the potentially stolen material.
IMHO, Google does have a way of determining if the content is in fact copyrighted yet they don't really want to do that.
Haven't you heard?
Fail Early and Fail Often?
When robotics and other embedded systems were first implemented, the Internet didn't exist beyond Usenet and mostly computer geeks and engineers were the only ones on the net.
I wrote some embedded systems over 25 years ago and networking wasn't even an issue. Today those same systems are connected to a pc/server that connects to the web.
So a lot of the infrastructure is ripe for security threats.
Sorry, but the Trump bashing is passe.
Look he won the election and so far, he's doing a decent job. He'd be doing a better job if the Freedom Party (Really Right Wing Republicans) and the Democratic Party (All of them) Actually sat down and did their job.
Trump is POTUS, Schumer is a Congress Critter. Free clue to Schumer. You don't ask the mountain to go to Moses. Moses climbs the mountain. Last time I checked. POTUS outranks Congresss Critter.
As to the bad angel, (The devil is a fallen angel) , he's attached to my shoulder via a spell ...
And no, I'm not really paranoid. ;-)
I looked at the message (got it 3 times to 3 different addresses) all from the same guy.
I Ping'd him to ask if it was real. He said he got hit by the scam.
Too easy to figure out and avoid.
But then again... I have a little guy on my shoulder with a pitchfork prodding me every time he sees a con.
(The angel guy is off at the pub and the devil guy got bored and is my internal paranoid voice... )
Silly boy, how will AS/400 aka iSeries provide heat when you don't have electricity to power up the servers and if you did have the electricity... why not use it to generate heat itself as well as to help make signal fires or to create an ARC lamp which would be bright enough to get anyone's attention?
Mine's the jacket with the sat phone, XEON Strobe light (battery operated), spare battery and hand crank charger... oh and of course the jacket's waterproof and can be used as a flotation device.
There's more to it.
But again, try separating search from their ad biz. You can't.
Force them to split out Google Analytics and not use it for their Ad Biz. You can't.
Here's the challenge.
Have El. Reg drop Google analytics from their site.
See how long that lasts. ;-)
There are some still within IBM who know who Gumby is. ;-)
To answer your question... Rometty is doing some of the right things to help pivot IBM, but there are other things that need to occur and frankly, you have to reverse a lot of things.
Just had a conversation with a friend related to this topic today... we were in agreement that IBM doesn't have the people in management who know what to do. No innovation leaders.
They have pieces, but they lack the trust to get things done.
To be fair... their non-growth still produced more revenue than most companies do.
Adding a billion dollars in sales to your bottom line is relative.
If you're normally bringing in 1 Billion, that's 100% growth.
If you're normally bringing in 10 Billion, that's 10% growth.
If you're normally bringing in 100 Billion, that's 1% growth.
But its still an additional Billion dollars.
The point is that its all relative.
As to 20 quarters with no growth, they are still bringing in boat loads of cash, but just not as much as they used to and they are still losing money. Rometty knows this and she's trying to pivot IBM into new business and new ways of doing things. The only problem is that IBM's staff for the most part can't pivot because most of the hanger-ons aren't worth their salary.
When you say you're on the fringe of tech, you're basically saying you don't know jack.
And with respect to IBM, you don't know Jack.
Want to know what scared IBM but didn't scare Microsoft or Google? Getting labeled as a monopoly.
IBM used to have a tripod, if one of the legs had a bad quarter, the other two would prop them up.
Only they didn't innovate or invest in their people or products, so as the tech industry shifted, they missed the signs and couldn't react fast enough.
Interestingly enough, neither could Microsoft.
Google? Now that's a different story....
Google is a monopoly and if they were to be split... it would die. But that's another story... ;-)
And yes, I do know tech.
Sorry, but no.
When they sold the company they transferred the assets to the new company so that the new folks would be signatory for the bank account.
The issue is that the new owners appear to be shutting down the 'free' system.
As a contractor here in the US. I can tell you that if you want to succeed, you need to build at least 6 months of reserves and then some. You also need to maintain your skills so that you can get billed out for top dollar and do things that may not directly make money but also add to your brand.
Not sure how this would translate to the US.
The 'contractor' is an employee of said company (Plutus) since Plutus has to track payroll and pay the government (taxes/pensions) for the employee. The reason I say that they are employees is that Plutus would have to W2 them and not just issue a 1099 where the contractor will have to deal with the withholding, taxes, SS, etc... on their own and they could easily incorporate (S-Corp) and bill the client directly.
Thanks to Microsoft, independent contractors have to show multiple clients and can't stay at one account for more than 2 years. (Captured Employee BS...)
But I digress... back to your point...
More than likely they wanted to shut this arrangement down because while they offer the service for 'free', they could have made money by keeping the interest gained on the sweep accounts. (They are holding the money for a period of time. Think of it as a 30 day float or less.)
They also could make money by also selling contracting services and make money from the spread between what they paid the contractor and what they charged for the service.
It depends on which country you're in and your machines are in.
And yes, it should be illegal everywhere. But then again not every country has first world laws that protect citizens.
Even if the images were saved by hand, it would still be against the ToS for Tinder.
Even if you consider the image to be public, its not. You must be a member and agree to the ToS for the App. And while Tinder holds some responsibility for the breach, and that's what this is... you still can't take and save the snaps.
Let me put it this way...
Suppose you're gay and in the closet. You don't want your wife to find out.
You use an app like Tinder... what is it? Grinder? And you post some photos.
Now suppose someone took those photos, and then ran a Machine Learning algo to match them to other public photos in an effort to identify the people on the site. And then published the names and addresses of those people?
Since the names and addresses are public information, and accessing publicly available images from facebook or whatever because you or your friends set their photo privacy to share with the public, and the photos on the grinder site are shared publicly with members... no harm no foul, right?
Now your wife happens to get a call from a friend who found your name on the list with the photos.
No harm no foul, right?
And you would be wrong to think that they wouldn't get sued by the people exposed, Grinder, etc ...
Just because you can do something doesn't mean its legal or that you should.
No, not even a sub plot.
Its a fail.
You going to put a general purpose sat in space?
Your sat is going to have a specific set of tools and functionality. You can change the software, sure, but not the mechanics. So a thermal imaging sensor may have value if your use case fits within its parameters.
Gibson families in space for a reason. A general purpose sat with no purpose is just space junk.
The key here is that the cost of the NVMe drives are going to be hideous expensive.
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept but cost will be a factor.
Yes, it's £22 if you want to arrive today or in the near future, but if you want to arrive in Cambridge on the 15 January 2011 then £999,998 seems reasonable; £22 for the rail travel and £999,976 for the time travel.
Which is why some of us have switched to using a TARDIS for those types of trips.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017