I guess I'm supposed to fear the IDW as an invasion of privacy, and indeed I do, but given the report's description of it and my experiences with the internal-facing software products of large, sprawling, unaccountable bureaucracies, I mostly just fear for our collective safety.
After the experience I just had today with an agent from a Federal agency, I have to agree. He needed to use a computer that couldn't be traced back to his agency for undercover reasons, and that agency is remodeling and rewiring their system, so no such luck. He came to my facility for access. The Feds are so very much behind the times it's a wonder they ever catch a criminal. The public makes HUGE demands (mostly rightfully so) on what is right/wrong, what is evidence, etc, but then freaks out over the cash needed to give them the tools. Result? Minimal advancement in technology. To make matters worse (or better if you want to hide from the Feds), bureaucracies are amazingly slow to change, so even if the money was available to get better technology for crime-fighting, the big bosses and their underlings would mostly resist having to work with it.
Then again, even without all of this, I fear for our collective safety. The more I work with the public, the more I like my cat!
While there is no real loss of access to the information or loss of information itself, the loss of the wikileak.de domain is bad for those who prefer to use it. As has been argued elsewhere in these comments, this is censorship and it is wrong (even if it was accidental or some misunderstanding).
How do we prevent this or restore this? The wikileak system should be more distrubuted. OK, it probably already is pretty distributed, especially when you account for the language- or country-specific domains. However, maybe we can do more? WikiTaxi (http://www.wikitaxi.org/delphi/doku.php/products/wikitaxi/index) is something I just learned about today and it looks quite interesting. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to bring down a P2P version of a wikileak website? I don't know the technical details of how to set it up, but there are a lot of incredibly smart programmers out there who can make it happen.
Actually, your attitude is part of the problem. We need more tech people moving into management. How else do we get the businesses, the community, and the world to understand and properly utilize technology without providing good technology leadership?
I've been working in this business for 20+ years and I'm considering an MBA focussed on managing tech. Better income? Probably (I hope). A chance to clean up the mistakes of the Neanderthals you speak of? Damn right!
This isn't as simple as libel. Surly libel should be false if it's to be illegal. How can the truth bi libel?? But this case should fall under privacy concerns. As I understand employment law (IANAL), you can't go around telling everybody, especially people with no need to know, why somebody was fired. Future/prospective employers asking for a reference can only be told the person was fired for policy violations and not much more than that- no specifics usually. If I am correct in this, then the email is illegal; if I am wrong, then it's legal.
Previously, we used a product called Heat. Now we use Footprints. Footprints is very good and quite flexible, but it isn't FOSS. In looking for FOSS helpdesk software, I ran across Spiceworks and have tested it out. I can't say that I like it. It's pretty slow and not very intuitive. And it's main screens have a lot of advertising (I know, they need money from somewhere). I like the idea of using discovery to populate the hardware database, but it's also very slow and still requires quite a bit of cleanup work. I've yet to find a decent utility to import my existing data (though I stopped looking a while ago). I'd be much happier if I could find something that is FOSS, looks and feels like Footprints, and has features of both, Footprints and Spiceworks.
What amuses me is that '5150' is a police call used for people with mental problems. Technically, it's for someone who is a danger to himself, but is frequently misused (even by the police) for any mental case. {http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=5150}
Yes, all kinds of things are installed when an update is performed on our various favorite distros. However, unlike this install from Microsoft, the update window displays everything that's being installed before you permit the action (in my experience so far).
We have a number of visitors at my local library who believe that the government or some other major group is spying on them or even harassing them. Certainly, they fall into the paranoid category. You should hear some of the claims they make!! That said, at least this guy (subject of the posted story) has (had) some access to real information and we know that the NSA, et al, and their data mining, so the story is plausible. On the other hand, the guy could be in the same boat as some of these library visitors: out of his mind with paranoia. The best paranoids base their conspiracy theories on truths and plausible concepts. Time will tell, but I imagine he's at least partially right, even if by accident.
I think the numbers for women are reversed... 1 in 5 are stable, rational individuals. Or that might just be a view skewed heavily by my piss-poor dating experiences.
I prefer the free (beer) POP and IMAP access of GMail, which the others don't offer (yet: Hotmail is rolling out free POP, and the 2nd phase includes the US, supposedly). The spam filters at GMail seem to be better than the others in my experience (no false positives so far, and no false negatives so far; Hotmail and Yahoo both have plenty of false negatives and Hotmail has a few false positives in ~my~ experience).
I prefer Google's search also. For my usage, it just supplies better results and, if you're logged in and have cookies set, you can fine-tune certain settings better.
I like Yahoo's home page (My Yahoo) better. I think Google's has more to offer in the number of gadgets, but Yahoo's is easier to make look nice and easier to use without it becoming a resource hog, slowing the computer and the load times. I think the quality and apparent integration of the Yahoo gadgets seems to be better over all. Certainly the weather is closer to correct than any of the Google weather gadgets!
To throw a bone to Microsoft, when they implement free POP in my area (phase 2, including the US, set for Feb 2009), then I'll be very happy. My Outlook at work can get in already, and has for some time despite supposedly not being allowed any longer, but my systems at home (Ubuntu and XP, both w/ Thunderbird) cannot so I have to use the Webmail add-on.
So, who is better? I guess that depends on usage, needs, and point of view.
{update} As I expected, those minor changes suggested by Google did not help. Thunderbird on Ubuntu still closes randomly. Again, this might or might not be an issue with GMail's IMAP implementation, but with reports of issues being plentiful (and somewhat random, it seems), it very well could be. {/update}
I see what you're saying. I read the link you provided earlier to a Wired story and found some good links therein as well. It is possible, then, that this is the issue with my Thunderbird on Ubuntu (closing randomly). I've updated my settings in accordance with Google's instructions and suggestions (http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=78892&ctx=sibling#) to see if this produces any benefit. Most of the settings I already use and one I don't want to use (and is not critical here), but we'll see. I'll update in a day or two.
To pretend to be on topic for the actual posted article...
Most of those services I either never heard of or don't use. That being the case, I wonder how many people actually do use them. Perhaps G thinks the number of users is too low to warrant continued support. Being a predominantly ad-supported enterprise, if a service doesn't have enough visitors to sell ad space, it gets axed. If it were heavily used, I doubt they'd cut it. Of course, the exceptions would be services that have a duplicate elsewhere in the company, such as Google Video vs. YouTube. YouTube is the bigger one by far, so it's easier to cut Google Video.
I'm curious: What OS do you and the parent poster use? At work, I have Win XP with Outlook and I get the IMAP errors throughout the day. At home, I run Ubuntu with Thunderbird and I don't get the IMAP errors (unless that's what is causing the strange, random closing of TB, but nothing in the logs about IMAP).
That didn't bother me too much. But I disconnected the Internet from my house for a month after 2 girls and a cup! Just thinking about that still makes me want to vomit.
Who needs a computer? Just stare at the AP and directly view your porn. Hairy palms AND burned retinas, yay! My grandmother always said doing 'that' would make me go blind!
You already have a lot of people on this thread boasting about how many hours they work. Whatever. I have generally worked 40 hour weeks (or 80 hours every two weeks) my entire career, and I have advanced up the ladder just fine, thank you. I always get good performance reviews and good raises. Working hard and getting a lot done does not require insane work hours, and I have rarely met anyone who could remain productive for all of the insane hours they "worked". Personally, I find I can sustain crazy hours for about two weeks, and I'll do that if I think whatever crisis needs handling is worth it.
Agreed. Yes, there are times in some industries, such as our tech industry, wherein we have emergencies to answer to, but I find regular hours are enough to get my work done. Otherwise, I would consider myself unfit for duty and find a new career. I understand that some, few, places push hard and require more (push back and demand better treatment).
As for working a 9/80 work schedule, it works best when the off days are respected. Much of my team works a 9/80 and on the rare occasion their off Friday is interrupted, they get the time back. Staffing prevents us from having the entire team on the 9/80 schedule, so it's granted to those listed as 'managers'. (If you're truly familiar with IT, you realize that, somehow, many of us are listed as such.) I wish I had a 9/80, though a 7/80 would be even better for me (one week of three 12-hour days and one week of three 12-hour days and one 8-hour day).
First, a correction of something I mis-spoke of: the prohibition against cloven-footed animals is actually a prohibition against eating non-cloven-footed animals. Though cloven-footed, pigs are left out because they fail the other requirement of being a ruminant (cud chewing). I really ought to have paid much more attention to what I was writing at 1:00 in the morning! I'm sorry for my mis-information.
Now to to reply to your points:
Religious rules or conventions comes about for a variety of reasons. Many have more to do with social control than anything else. However, most have a reasonable beginning to them. Rules prohibiting sibling marriage/breeding are a prime example. Without understanding any genetics, it was easy to see that too much of this led to problems. Often, this idea was seen clearly enough that people were required to marry outside their entire group. Food-borne illnesses are no exception here. While I have been corrected many times over on the source of trichinosis (thank you for enlightening me! again, I should have done better and writing so late was a bad idea.), the idea that a given food item that is not inherently poisonous getting banned for health reasons stands. Though most don't get sick from it, enough do that it is decided to not allow it. No scientific study needed. No need to examine large populations or do double-blind studies. As to your guess at the real reason for the ban on pork, you managed to hit on one of the few ideas not in the list of theories for its existence! Many theories abound, each with some support, and the health reason is one of them.
It has been suggested that trichinosis may be one of several factors that led to religious prohibitions in Islam and Judaism against eating pork products, such as in the kashrut and dhabia halal dietary laws. The medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides advocated such a theory in The Guide for the Perplexed, as did medieval Islamic authorities. This topic is controversial.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis#Epidemiology) Yes, this idea, as with many of the theories for pork and other religious food laws, is controversial. Also like the other frequently competing theories on religious food laws, it is supported by solid reasoning. It had adherents as far back as the 12th century, including Maimonides, a great Jewish thinker. See his books "The Guide for the Perplexed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_for_the_Perplexed) A competing theory is economic:
Anthropologist Marvin Harris proposed that the Jewish prohibition against pork results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Although wild pigs forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain; however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices, including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut#Mundane_socio-economic_concerns_.28specific_to_the_pig_taboo.29) As with the health-code theory, this economic reasoning no longer holds true in most parts of the world, but (if this is the reason) was true at the time.
I knew as I wrote the part about access to science that I should take the time to explain what I meant! So now I'll clarify... Yes, in modern times, Jews, Muslims, etc. all have access to science and scientific reasoning. It is also true that science is rarely used to overturn dogma, religious or otherwise. However, at the time of the creation of the principal that became the religious rule, the explanatory science did not exist and the principal became codified into the religion to preserve it for future generations. It is extremely rare for a
Um, actually, the pork thing was quite reasonable in its time. The prohibition against eating pork existed for simple health reasons. Before refrigeration, it was just too easy for pork to go bad and develop trichinosis. Now, the modern practice is rather silly since we scientifically understand it and can prevent problems by keeping the pork cold enough before cooking or serving. How did we get from ancient health code to modern dogma? In ancient times, rules of conduct (social values, health codes, who can breed with whom) were passed down by religion! And all too often, religion becomes thoughtlessly followed dogma. (Before anybody berates me with biblical info, I am aware that the pork prohibition is related to the prohibition against any cloven-footed animal.)
So, in a more concise answer to your question of how this hippie thing is any more stupid than the pork thing, the pork thing may now be dogma, but it comes from a valid reason whereas the hippies have access to modern science to tell them they're full of shit.
there are a lot of legal restrictions on what a company can do to a victim, even if the victim isn't paying the company.
Absolutely true that there are plenty of restrictions on what a company, or a person, can do to a victim. But I have a question for you: Who is the victim? The TOS, which is a contract agreed to by both parties, lays out that there is no guarantee of reliability, no promise that the service will continue to exist. Therefore, AOL has every right to terminate the contract. If the TOS says notice is required, then AOL must give notice. If not, then it is not required. Sure, it would be polite, but it isn't legally required. Since there was no breach of contract, there was no victim.
You can't just hand out poison labelled "candy" and expect to get away with it because you included a fine-print notice that you aren't liable for damages.
Right again. But who poisoned anyone? Who acted in a harmful manner? AOL provided the service as promised, as contracted by the TOS. So, again, there is no victim. There is only an upset user who didn't like the contract he signed after it was properly executed, then properly terminated.
Where do people come up with the idea that a TOS or EULA document can overwrite existing laws, and any draconian restriction is legal if put in writing?
These are the same people who assume that laws offer protections in situations they were never meant to apply for. These are the same people who sue gun companies for murder. These are the same people who offer up and/or fall prey to straw man arguments.
Not to mention the medical issues the vets have succeeded in handling before the human docs get it solved. Ulcers come to mind: vets give bismuth and antibiotics to our furry friends to solve that issue. I don't know when they started that, but they've been doing it since I was a kid (40 now). It's only been in the last few years that some human doctors have figured this out... after I used the vets' technique to fix my own ulcers (gone now for over a decade). (Bismuth is a primary ingredient in Pepto-Bismol.)
On the other hand, I've noticed that many doctors these days must be as smart as the vets. They don't seem to feel the need to listen to the patients either.
I want a new choice when applying mod points: "Hmmm... Dirty" Then chose either +1 or -1, depending on application, tone, and general foulness. I'd give this a +1.
Slashdot Mirror
After the experience I just had today with an agent from a Federal agency, I have to agree. He needed to use a computer that couldn't be traced back to his agency for undercover reasons, and that agency is remodeling and rewiring their system, so no such luck. He came to my facility for access. The Feds are so very much behind the times it's a wonder they ever catch a criminal. The public makes HUGE demands (mostly rightfully so) on what is right/wrong, what is evidence, etc, but then freaks out over the cash needed to give them the tools. Result? Minimal advancement in technology. To make matters worse (or better if you want to hide from the Feds), bureaucracies are amazingly slow to change, so even if the money was available to get better technology for crime-fighting, the big bosses and their underlings would mostly resist having to work with it.
Then again, even without all of this, I fear for our collective safety. The more I work with the public, the more I like my cat!
Maybe this will do: http://www.reitwiessner.de/openmoko/evopedia.html Here is a story about four ways to do it: http://www.junauza.com/2008/07/offline-wikipedia-for-linux.html
If you're adventurous, there are instructions on how to build your own in Linux here: http://users.softlab.ece.ntua.gr/~ttsiod/buildWikipediaOffline.html.
While there is no real loss of access to the information or loss of information itself, the loss of the wikileak.de domain is bad for those who prefer to use it. As has been argued elsewhere in these comments, this is censorship and it is wrong (even if it was accidental or some misunderstanding).
How do we prevent this or restore this? The wikileak system should be more distrubuted. OK, it probably already is pretty distributed, especially when you account for the language- or country-specific domains. However, maybe we can do more? WikiTaxi (http://www.wikitaxi.org/delphi/doku.php/products/wikitaxi/index) is something I just learned about today and it looks quite interesting. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to bring down a P2P version of a wikileak website? I don't know the technical details of how to set it up, but there are a lot of incredibly smart programmers out there who can make it happen.
Actually, your attitude is part of the problem. We need more tech people moving into management. How else do we get the businesses, the community, and the world to understand and properly utilize technology without providing good technology leadership?
I've been working in this business for 20+ years and I'm considering an MBA focussed on managing tech. Better income? Probably (I hope). A chance to clean up the mistakes of the Neanderthals you speak of? Damn right!
a quick stanza of "Blame Canada"??
This isn't as simple as libel. Surly libel should be false if it's to be illegal. How can the truth bi libel?? But this case should fall under privacy concerns. As I understand employment law (IANAL), you can't go around telling everybody, especially people with no need to know, why somebody was fired. Future/prospective employers asking for a reference can only be told the person was fired for policy violations and not much more than that- no specifics usually. If I am correct in this, then the email is illegal; if I am wrong, then it's legal.
Previously, we used a product called Heat. Now we use Footprints. Footprints is very good and quite flexible, but it isn't FOSS. In looking for FOSS helpdesk software, I ran across Spiceworks and have tested it out. I can't say that I like it. It's pretty slow and not very intuitive. And it's main screens have a lot of advertising (I know, they need money from somewhere). I like the idea of using discovery to populate the hardware database, but it's also very slow and still requires quite a bit of cleanup work. I've yet to find a decent utility to import my existing data (though I stopped looking a while ago). I'd be much happier if I could find something that is FOSS, looks and feels like Footprints, and has features of both, Footprints and Spiceworks.
What amuses me is that '5150' is a police call used for people with mental problems. Technically, it's for someone who is a danger to himself, but is frequently misused (even by the police) for any mental case. {http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=5150}
Yes, all kinds of things are installed when an update is performed on our various favorite distros. However, unlike this install from Microsoft, the update window displays everything that's being installed before you permit the action (in my experience so far).
We have a number of visitors at my local library who believe that the government or some other major group is spying on them or even harassing them. Certainly, they fall into the paranoid category. You should hear some of the claims they make!! That said, at least this guy (subject of the posted story) has (had) some access to real information and we know that the NSA, et al, and their data mining, so the story is plausible. On the other hand, the guy could be in the same boat as some of these library visitors: out of his mind with paranoia. The best paranoids base their conspiracy theories on truths and plausible concepts. Time will tell, but I imagine he's at least partially right, even if by accident.
I think the numbers for women are reversed... 1 in 5 are stable, rational individuals. Or that might just be a view skewed heavily by my piss-poor dating experiences.
I prefer the free (beer) POP and IMAP access of GMail, which the others don't offer (yet: Hotmail is rolling out free POP, and the 2nd phase includes the US, supposedly). The spam filters at GMail seem to be better than the others in my experience (no false positives so far, and no false negatives so far; Hotmail and Yahoo both have plenty of false negatives and Hotmail has a few false positives in ~my~ experience).
I prefer Google's search also. For my usage, it just supplies better results and, if you're logged in and have cookies set, you can fine-tune certain settings better.
I like Yahoo's home page (My Yahoo) better. I think Google's has more to offer in the number of gadgets, but Yahoo's is easier to make look nice and easier to use without it becoming a resource hog, slowing the computer and the load times. I think the quality and apparent integration of the Yahoo gadgets seems to be better over all. Certainly the weather is closer to correct than any of the Google weather gadgets!
To throw a bone to Microsoft, when they implement free POP in my area (phase 2, including the US, set for Feb 2009), then I'll be very happy. My Outlook at work can get in already, and has for some time despite supposedly not being allowed any longer, but my systems at home (Ubuntu and XP, both w/ Thunderbird) cannot so I have to use the Webmail add-on.
So, who is better? I guess that depends on usage, needs, and point of view.
{update} As I expected, those minor changes suggested by Google did not help. Thunderbird on Ubuntu still closes randomly. Again, this might or might not be an issue with GMail's IMAP implementation, but with reports of issues being plentiful (and somewhat random, it seems), it very well could be. {/update}
I see what you're saying. I read the link you provided earlier to a Wired story and found some good links therein as well. It is possible, then, that this is the issue with my Thunderbird on Ubuntu (closing randomly). I've updated my settings in accordance with Google's instructions and suggestions (http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=78892&ctx=sibling#) to see if this produces any benefit. Most of the settings I already use and one I don't want to use (and is not critical here), but we'll see. I'll update in a day or two.
To pretend to be on topic for the actual posted article...
Most of those services I either never heard of or don't use. That being the case, I wonder how many people actually do use them. Perhaps G thinks the number of users is too low to warrant continued support. Being a predominantly ad-supported enterprise, if a service doesn't have enough visitors to sell ad space, it gets axed. If it were heavily used, I doubt they'd cut it. Of course, the exceptions would be services that have a duplicate elsewhere in the company, such as Google Video vs. YouTube. YouTube is the bigger one by far, so it's easier to cut Google Video.
I'm curious: What OS do you and the parent poster use? At work, I have Win XP with Outlook and I get the IMAP errors throughout the day. At home, I run Ubuntu with Thunderbird and I don't get the IMAP errors (unless that's what is causing the strange, random closing of TB, but nothing in the logs about IMAP).
That didn't bother me too much. But I disconnected the Internet from my house for a month after 2 girls and a cup! Just thinking about that still makes me want to vomit.
Who needs a computer? Just stare at the AP and directly view your porn. Hairy palms AND burned retinas, yay! My grandmother always said doing 'that' would make me go blind!
Doesn't matter... There is no lead actor either.
Agreed. Yes, there are times in some industries, such as our tech industry, wherein we have emergencies to answer to, but I find regular hours are enough to get my work done. Otherwise, I would consider myself unfit for duty and find a new career. I understand that some, few, places push hard and require more (push back and demand better treatment).
As for working a 9/80 work schedule, it works best when the off days are respected. Much of my team works a 9/80 and on the rare occasion their off Friday is interrupted, they get the time back. Staffing prevents us from having the entire team on the 9/80 schedule, so it's granted to those listed as 'managers'. (If you're truly familiar with IT, you realize that, somehow, many of us are listed as such.) I wish I had a 9/80, though a 7/80 would be even better for me (one week of three 12-hour days and one week of three 12-hour days and one 8-hour day).
First, a correction of something I mis-spoke of: the prohibition against cloven-footed animals is actually a prohibition against eating non-cloven-footed animals. Though cloven-footed, pigs are left out because they fail the other requirement of being a ruminant (cud chewing). I really ought to have paid much more attention to what I was writing at 1:00 in the morning! I'm sorry for my mis-information.
Now to to reply to your points:
Religious rules or conventions comes about for a variety of reasons. Many have more to do with social control than anything else. However, most have a reasonable beginning to them. Rules prohibiting sibling marriage/breeding are a prime example. Without understanding any genetics, it was easy to see that too much of this led to problems. Often, this idea was seen clearly enough that people were required to marry outside their entire group. Food-borne illnesses are no exception here. While I have been corrected many times over on the source of trichinosis (thank you for enlightening me! again, I should have done better and writing so late was a bad idea.), the idea that a given food item that is not inherently poisonous getting banned for health reasons stands. Though most don't get sick from it, enough do that it is decided to not allow it. No scientific study needed. No need to examine large populations or do double-blind studies. As to your guess at the real reason for the ban on pork, you managed to hit on one of the few ideas not in the list of theories for its existence! Many theories abound, each with some support, and the health reason is one of them.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis#Epidemiology) Yes, this idea, as with many of the theories for pork and other religious food laws, is controversial. Also like the other frequently competing theories on religious food laws, it is supported by solid reasoning. It had adherents as far back as the 12th century, including Maimonides, a great Jewish thinker. See his books "The Guide for the Perplexed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_for_the_Perplexed) A competing theory is economic:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut#Mundane_socio-economic_concerns_.28specific_to_the_pig_taboo.29) As with the health-code theory, this economic reasoning no longer holds true in most parts of the world, but (if this is the reason) was true at the time.
I knew as I wrote the part about access to science that I should take the time to explain what I meant! So now I'll clarify... Yes, in modern times, Jews, Muslims, etc. all have access to science and scientific reasoning. It is also true that science is rarely used to overturn dogma, religious or otherwise. However, at the time of the creation of the principal that became the religious rule, the explanatory science did not exist and the principal became codified into the religion to preserve it for future generations. It is extremely rare for a
Um, actually, the pork thing was quite reasonable in its time. The prohibition against eating pork existed for simple health reasons. Before refrigeration, it was just too easy for pork to go bad and develop trichinosis. Now, the modern practice is rather silly since we scientifically understand it and can prevent problems by keeping the pork cold enough before cooking or serving. How did we get from ancient health code to modern dogma? In ancient times, rules of conduct (social values, health codes, who can breed with whom) were passed down by religion! And all too often, religion becomes thoughtlessly followed dogma. (Before anybody berates me with biblical info, I am aware that the pork prohibition is related to the prohibition against any cloven-footed animal.)
So, in a more concise answer to your question of how this hippie thing is any more stupid than the pork thing, the pork thing may now be dogma, but it comes from a valid reason whereas the hippies have access to modern science to tell them they're full of shit.
Absolutely true that there are plenty of restrictions on what a company, or a person, can do to a victim. But I have a question for you: Who is the victim? The TOS, which is a contract agreed to by both parties, lays out that there is no guarantee of reliability, no promise that the service will continue to exist. Therefore, AOL has every right to terminate the contract. If the TOS says notice is required, then AOL must give notice. If not, then it is not required. Sure, it would be polite, but it isn't legally required. Since there was no breach of contract, there was no victim.
Right again. But who poisoned anyone? Who acted in a harmful manner? AOL provided the service as promised, as contracted by the TOS. So, again, there is no victim. There is only an upset user who didn't like the contract he signed after it was properly executed, then properly terminated.
These are the same people who assume that laws offer protections in situations they were never meant to apply for. These are the same people who sue gun companies for murder. These are the same people who offer up and/or fall prey to straw man arguments.
Like your arguments.
2030 (aka 8:30pm) in which time zone?
I know, feel free to mod me off topic.
Not to mention the medical issues the vets have succeeded in handling before the human docs get it solved. Ulcers come to mind: vets give bismuth and antibiotics to our furry friends to solve that issue. I don't know when they started that, but they've been doing it since I was a kid (40 now). It's only been in the last few years that some human doctors have figured this out... after I used the vets' technique to fix my own ulcers (gone now for over a decade). (Bismuth is a primary ingredient in Pepto-Bismol.)
On the other hand, I've noticed that many doctors these days must be as smart as the vets. They don't seem to feel the need to listen to the patients either.
I want a new choice when applying mod points: "Hmmm... Dirty" Then chose either +1 or -1, depending on application, tone, and general foulness. I'd give this a +1.