If it's a mistake, then lowe's shouldn't be held to the mistake. This is a clerical error.
Holding lowes responsible for return shipping and making them eat the depreciation until they receive them back, however, would be fair game.
The problem is the so called "mistake" was deliberately exploited by people who knew damn well they were taking advantage of a defect in the ordering process and thus damn well that lowes had no intention of giving its stuff away.
I'm not sure the shipping and handling department has the actual billing information. It is also possible that even if any employees willingly shipped them free goods, they were doing so without the authorization of their employer.
If a rank and file peon at a merchandising company gives away free stuff that doesn't mean it's legal. If you give (or even sell) someone stolen property, the cops will yank it back from whoever received or bought it and they'll be out the money they spent for it. The errant wanna-be customer would be left to recover what they spent from the thief who sold them the confiscated goods.
AFAIK, Donald Trump is presently in control of *two* distinct twitter accounts.
First, his personal account, and second, the official whitehouse @POTUS account that a history check confirms was previously used by Barack Obama.
He uses both accounts for separate purposes. It's easy to argue that activity on his personal account has no bearing on his official position or actions as president.
Now, if Trump was blocking people from his presidential twitter, that would be a different ballgame.
Just because information can or cannot be copyrighted doesn't give me the privilege of hijacking your printing press to do the actual copying.
The judge here screwed up. The courts have NO BUSINESS dictating to a website what information it can or cannot publish, and it has even less business attempting to turn the website into a mouthpiece.
LinkedIn should have the right to post what they please and block who they like from accessing it. Barring privacy issues.
Contrary to what other people say, requiring OEMs to lock down their outputs DOES make the FCC responsible for open source hostile routers.
Almost ever piece of consumer equipment I've seen has had some sort of "part b/15 computing device" thingy sticker on it saying
* This device may not cause harmful interference * This device must accept any interference recieved
It's not supposed to be the OEM's responsibility what their users do with the devices they pay for. As far as I'm concerned, tampering with the firmware voids the warranty and causes you, not the OEM, to become responsible for any violation of FCC regulations.
This is nothing more than the FCC making them do something they wanted to do anyway, but they didn't want the public backlash from being caught doing it by themselves so they just asked the "big bad feds" to make them do it so they could save face.
I almost didn't want to reply because on slashdot it is *well known* that first amendment protections only restrain the *government*, not private enterprises. Nothing stops a private person or corporation or whatever from attempting to limit your free speech.
You make an interesting point about access to social media though. An alarming trend is for employers to demand access to our facebooks and so on.
It's gotten so abusive that a few state legislatures have made it illegal for employers to demand such access.
Not to mention that giving anyone else access to your social media account is often a violation of the terms of service of such account.
A contract to sign away your firstborn child is patently illegal.
Children are not property and legally can't be.
Furthermore, the child himself has legal rights of his own the moment he is born, even if until they're emancipated the exercise of said rights vests in their legal guardian.
What astonishes me the most about this case is that the feds even bothered to *get* a warrant for overseas data in the first place.
With all the rhetoric about warrantless laptop searches at the border one would think the feds think our constitutional rights only apply on US soil.
As for my armchair lawyer analysis:
Data stored on servers located on foreign soul isn't even subject to US jurisdiction to begin with, so presumably the warrant in question would need to issue from a court of the nation in question, and not a US federal court.
* Fraudulent procurement of rides with no intention to board, provoking wasted expenses on fuel and denial of opportunity to service true fare paying riders * Possible violation of Lyft's terms of service
Question, did Uber do anything else wrong against Lyft?
Slashdot Mirror
I think NASA is just... ...spacing out.
If it's a mistake, then lowe's shouldn't be held to the mistake. This is a clerical error.
Holding lowes responsible for return shipping and making them eat the depreciation until they receive them back, however, would be fair game.
The problem is the so called "mistake" was deliberately exploited by people who knew damn well they were taking advantage of a defect in the ordering process and thus damn well that lowes had no intention of giving its stuff away.
I'm not sure the shipping and handling department has the actual billing information. It is also possible that even if any employees willingly shipped them free goods, they were doing so without the authorization of their employer.
If a rank and file peon at a merchandising company gives away free stuff that doesn't mean it's legal. If you give (or even sell) someone stolen property, the cops will yank it back from whoever received or bought it and they'll be out the money they spent for it. The errant wanna-be customer would be left to recover what they spent from the thief who sold them the confiscated goods.
Lowes may be full of fail, but it's entirely possible that the shipping and handling department had no knowledge of billing information.
Is it ok if we call this developer a git?
Any relation to Colony Collapse Disorder?
AFAIK, Donald Trump is presently in control of *two* distinct twitter accounts.
First, his personal account, and second, the official whitehouse @POTUS account that a history check confirms was previously used by Barack Obama.
He uses both accounts for separate purposes. It's easy to argue that activity on his personal account has no bearing on his official position or actions as president.
Now, if Trump was blocking people from his presidential twitter, that would be a different ballgame.
Just because information can or cannot be copyrighted doesn't give me the privilege of hijacking your printing press to do the actual copying.
The judge here screwed up. The courts have NO BUSINESS dictating to a website what information it can or cannot publish, and it has even less business attempting to turn the website into a mouthpiece.
LinkedIn should have the right to post what they please and block who they like from accessing it. Barring privacy issues.
I would rather have potheads from california running our country than I would congress critters drunk on corporate koolaid.
Is this all digital tv or are there still some analog stations?
Because I'm also pointing out that a different moderator modded them down, probably because they missed the reference.
Mod parent up, obvious reference to Descent.
http://www.chinookobserver.com...
Making a false mayday call is already a federal crime, and a felony at that.
Let's see...6 years in prison, 250K fine, and paying for the operating costs of the rescue.
I'd feel very vindicated after slapping handcuffs on them for abuse of the mayday call. Which, by the way, is, in fact a federal offense.
http://www.chinookobserver.com...
Since it already appears to be a federal felony, I think the next step is to start enforcing it more aggressively.
I thought it said "spam" counts.
Contrary to what other people say, requiring OEMs to lock down their outputs DOES make the FCC responsible for open source hostile routers.
Almost ever piece of consumer equipment I've seen has had some sort of "part b/15 computing device" thingy sticker on it saying
* This device may not cause harmful interference
* This device must accept any interference recieved
It's not supposed to be the OEM's responsibility what their users do with the devices they pay for. As far as I'm concerned, tampering with the firmware voids the warranty and causes you, not the OEM, to become responsible for any violation of FCC regulations.
This is nothing more than the FCC making them do something they wanted to do anyway, but they didn't want the public backlash from being caught doing it by themselves so they just asked the "big bad feds" to make them do it so they could save face.
The constitution doesn't apply.
The first amendment only prevents the *government* from infringing your right to free speech.
I almost didn't want to reply because on slashdot it is *well known* that first amendment protections only restrain the *government*, not private enterprises. Nothing stops a private person or corporation or whatever from attempting to limit your free speech.
You make an interesting point about access to social media though. An alarming trend is for employers to demand access to our facebooks and so on.
It's gotten so abusive that a few state legislatures have made it illegal for employers to demand such access.
Not to mention that giving anyone else access to your social media account is often a violation of the terms of service of such account.
A contract to sign away your firstborn child is patently illegal.
Children are not property and legally can't be.
Furthermore, the child himself has legal rights of his own the moment he is born, even if until they're emancipated the exercise of said rights vests in their legal guardian.
Ok, so non disparagement.
When you combine this with a previous article regarding noncompetes it's a disturbing trend.
What astonishes me the most about this case is that the feds even bothered to *get* a warrant for overseas data in the first place.
With all the rhetoric about warrantless laptop searches at the border one would think the feds think our constitutional rights only apply on US soil.
As for my armchair lawyer analysis:
Data stored on servers located on foreign soul isn't even subject to US jurisdiction to begin with, so presumably the warrant in question would need to issue from a court of the nation in question, and not a US federal court.
Microsoft's own apps wouldn't run without getting flagged
Let me see:
* Fraudulent procurement of rides with no intention to board, provoking wasted expenses on fuel and denial of opportunity to service true fare paying riders
* Possible violation of Lyft's terms of service
Question, did Uber do anything else wrong against Lyft?
How do you figure in states that outlaw municipal broadband? Wouldn't that preempt a contract expiration?
Actually...and very sensibly regretted, the constitution is not the highest law in the land.
Unfortunately, it is preempted by the bastardized version of the oldest law in civilization.
The one who has the gold makes the rules.