Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Follow the money

If being fired caused him to lose some unvested dollars, you can expect a lawsuit soon claiming he was terminated to prevent him from fully vesting.

No,

He wouldn't have a case.

The issue is that he was ordered to comply, which he has refused to do so. So its now a well documented case. Were he to comply, he'd be open to a lot more litigation as an individual so he was smart to plead the 5th.

Did you read about the clause that lets him back in to Uber if he decides to cooperate?

Suppose he does... then if he admits he stole the data... Uber will still be able to fire him.

Lucky for him, he probably has a bit of money in the bank so he can sit tight until this blows over and he moves on to somewhere else.

So Uber dodges a bullet by letting him go and they still take a slight loss.

If Google still goes after him, they (Uber) could probably claw back some of the money they spent on the company that was already vested. They may also just let it drop and move on.

@Shell_user Re: Ever heard of contract breach?

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.

@Back Door ... Re: So...

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.

Re: That will not stop him being elected

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.

@Dave Newman Re: He made one mistake

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.

@ Daedalus Re: He made one mistake

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.

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.

Re: American free speech

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.

@Dan ... Re: I'm sorry

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?

Re: No corruption here, move along

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:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/montana-misdemeanor-assault.htm

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.

Re: That will not stop him being elected

Wow.

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?

@lurker Re: Question from the UK

+1

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.

@AC, too funny.

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.

@Marketing Hack... Re: "I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately"

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.

@Christoph.

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...

@Jason Boomberg

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.

Re: "FLAC file vs vinyl"

Joking aside...

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.

@RyokuMas ... Re: Unexpected footnote

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.

@black hand ... Re: @AC

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. ;-)

Re: 20 straight months of non-growth ?

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.