I thought the evidence previously presented, that Nicholas Szabo was Satoshi, was plausible, albeit circumstantial. I suspect that this Satoshi Nakamato's involvement with Bitcoin was not as the primary innovator or leader, while the the person(s) who did play those roles prefer for Newsweek (and the rest of the world) to think otherwise.
NDA's can apply to an agreement whether the person knows about it or not. (At least here in the UK) People have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution here for simply spreading gossip on Twitter that inadvertently crossed the line of some hidden NDA. The most pernicious kind of NDA puts knowledge of the agreement itself into the document so the parties are not even allowed to say that there is an NDA.
Are you referring to the so-called 'super injunctions'? They are not so much NDAs as they are gag orders - they are certainly not agreements when they are forced on you.
The first amendment is supposed to stop that sort of nonsense in the USA.
You don't have to teach web developers DELETE or DROP - many web sites will happily let anyone run either statement from the comfort of the login page.
Worse things can and do happen - like someone making off with confidential data.
My concern over these 'minimal knowledge' courses is that their graduates will be unprepared to deal with complex issues like security. On the other hand, given the dismal state of security, they might improve things, in which case I am in favor.
This article does not contain any description of calculus-like activities that five-year-olds are participating in. There's a lot of 'this is cool' commentary without any description of what 'this' actually is.
The NDA is irrelevant to the fact that you made a statement, about the exact wording of the article, that can unarguably be seen to be false, simply by reading the exact words of the article.
You've no facts to use. You are speculating with prejudice. Courts are not rational actors.
On the contrary, it is a fact that Mr. Snay has stated in a deposition that he explicitly told his daughter.
FWIW, I regard the incident as something like an unfortunate accident with disproportionately severe consequences, and I hope the family gets to keep the settlement, but I don't think the prospects look good. I would be interested in knowing what the outcome would have been if the daughter had actually guessed the existence and nature of the settlement. If you have any facts about how the circuit court came to its decision in favor of Mr. Snay, I would be interested.
Besides, you aren't listening to what I say, only arguing about what you think I meant in one post and comparing it to what you think I meant in another, and calling me wrong.
I am responding to what you write, and if that's different from what you think, you need to get your thoughts and/or words better organized. For example, in the above quote, you seem to think that you are not contradicting yourself if the positions in question are in different posts. If that's not what you meant, then you made your statement unclear by bringing separate posts into it (and if it is what you meant, then you are simply wrong.)
Here's just one example:
The court's finding later may reverse this. If it does, then the court will have decided twice in opposite ways. Does that make court illogical as well?
The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
Exactly what I said. It is both, but separated by time or other distinction. The same facts will be found to be two opposite things. One at first glance (the lower court ruling that this article was about) and another can be found when more scrutiny is applied. Both are true. Both are correct.
It does not follow from my answer to your question that both judgments are correct. That would be a contradiction. In reality, at most one of these judgments is correct. Ultimately, it is by the rules of the court that the one from the higher court is chosen.
As for the sentence "The same facts will be found to be two opposite things", that's just gibberish. No-one could divine with any degree of certainty what you thought that meant.
Let me remind you of the original issue: Mysidia stated that the Snay's best option would have been to fabricate a story in which they never actually told the daughter about the settlement (implying that she guessed), and I pointed out that any such plan would have depended on the daughter never revealing that this was false. Your response was a non-sequitur on several grounds, not least because, as anyone who had read the exact wording of the article would know, and contrary to what you were assuming at that time, there is no doubt now that the daughter had been told that there was a favorable settlement, a fact that makes any speculation over whether she guessed both irrelevant and factually mistaken. The extent of uncertainty over what was said to the daughter was exaggerated in your mind, because you did not read the articles with sufficient diligence. You should understand that your personal ignorance is not evidence of a general lack of knowledge.
Having been contradicted by the facts in this case, you attempted to rephrase your position, and managed to contradict yourself over whether the daughter's guessing of the facts would or would not be grounds for voiding the settlement. This is not particularly important, as it has already been established by Mr. Snay's own deposition that this is not what happened, and your arguments here are only part of a futile attempt to unsay what you had previously stated. It is, however, an indication of your predilection for invalid arguments.
That you don't understand doesn't make me wrong...
Here's another contradiction, all in one thread: "We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement' "The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it.' Your language here is refreshingly straightforward, so if the evident meaning is not what you meant, the problem is yours.
Just saying 'nope' isn't an argument. The fact remains that the logical contradiction in your position, that you are incapable of explaining away, means that your original claims have collapsed.
The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself. First you argue that the agreement could be saved by claiming that the daughter guessed the salient details of the agreement. Now you say "she could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing" (that's from the exact wording of your post.)
Yes, I'm claiming both. The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it. If the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached. Whether it has hasn't been proven.
Your latest position, "if the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached" implies that the strategy you proposed in your earlier posts will not work.:
better is to coach her into a plausible story. "we didn't tell you any of the details. We told you that the matter was over, and we now had money to go to Europe. That you inferred that we won was not from us telling you that we won. If you mess this one up, we'll cut up your passport and you'll never go."
You appear to think that when you contradict yourself, you can choose either position to make a point. In reality, logic dictates that your argument has collapsed - reductio ad absurdum, as logicians used to call it, appropriately enough in this case.
You appear to miss the point. She could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing. There's no "proof" (at least provided in TFA) the NDA was breached.
Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself. First you argue that the agreement could be saved by claiming that the daughter guessed the salient details of the agreement. Now you say "she could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing" (that's from the exact wording of your post.)
If he's stupid enough to lose even more money by appealing such a clear-cut decision then I suspect age was the least of the reasons he was let go in the first place.
To be fair, the fact that the circuit court ruled in his favor on the NDA violation issue suggests that it wasn't that clear-cut.
Reading the exact wording, it's quite possible that the daughter just guessed...
Reading the exact wording, we see that "Snay's father said in depositions that he and his wife knew they had to say something to their daughter..."
And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
If we once again read the exact words of the article, we see that "Snay, however, immediately told his daughter that he’d settled and was happy with the results."
That's not exactly a guess from a smile.
If you are going to speculate about what happened, you should at least first familiarize yourself with what's already been said.
We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement, nor what was told to the daughter, it's possible that it wasn't breached, and we'll never have enough information to determine it. Yes, the daughter coud always sabotage it by saying things she guesses, correct or otherwise, but now that she knows the trouble it causes, I think it is more likely she won't talk, not less.
You appear to miss the point. She wouldn't sabotage the ruse by guessing, but she could by letting slip the truth about what she was told.
And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
Well, on the one hand, we have the fact that two courts have examined this issue, with lawyers presenting what are presumably their best arguments, and the courts have, at this point, decided that the NDA was violated. On the other hand, we have your entirely speculative hypothesis that what was said to the daughter didn't amount to a violation - a hypothesis that necessarily implies that Snay's lawyers were spectacularly incompetent, given the outcome so far.
After due consideration, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence is against your proposition that what was said to the daughter was too vague to violate the NDA.
Unless the story presented by this 'good lawyer' is factually correct, my point still stands, even though the story may be consistent with all so-far revealed facts.
It would seem that would give the little guy the opportunity to stick it to the scumbag company. "$80,000 to keep quiet? I don't know.... It might be kinda hard (wink, wink) for that amount. It might take $120,000...."
That's how they got to $80,000 (probably not explicitly, but it is implicit in the concept of negotiation.)
There is no violation of the settlement, as the parents (the father?) did nothing wrong.!
The violation occurred when (one of) the parents told the daughter.
If that is all that happened, the father would still have the settlement. The Miami Herald article suggests that even if the school learned privately that the daughter knew, the courts would probably rule that the settlement was not violated. The parent is being penalized for starting the chain of events that led to the very public disclosure of the settlement.
I wonder what would have happened if the daughter merely revealed that there was a settlement, without any details? That might be public information anyway, or easily inferred from public information.
With regard to European law, I know that in Britain, a losing plaintiff is likely to be saddled with the respondent's costs. This prevents a lot of frivolous lawsuits, but it suppresses justified ones as well. I am not aware of a good solution to this (I don't know how it is in the rest of Europe, either.)
I'm not sure it's really all that harsh.Now, if the settlement included rescinding the $60,000 award to plaintiff's attorneys, which would then cost Mr. Snay real money out of his pocket, that would be a much tougher pill to swallow.
He will have to pay the attorneys' fees for the appeals, regardless of whether he ultimately wins.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignorance indeed. Funny that people automatically assume that Creationism and Science cannot coexist.
The issue here is evolution. Any version of creationism that denies evolution is incompatible with science.
I thought the evidence previously presented, that Nicholas Szabo was Satoshi, was plausible, albeit circumstantial. I suspect that this Satoshi Nakamato's involvement with Bitcoin was not as the primary innovator or leader, while the the person(s) who did play those roles prefer for Newsweek (and the rest of the world) to think otherwise.
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
Michael's got to pay for getting his eponymous company back, and he won't be able to do that just by selling computers.
NDA's can apply to an agreement whether the person knows about it or not. (At least here in the UK) People have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution here for simply spreading gossip on Twitter that inadvertently crossed the line of some hidden NDA. The most pernicious kind of NDA puts knowledge of the agreement itself into the document so the parties are not even allowed to say that there is an NDA.
Are you referring to the so-called 'super injunctions'? They are not so much NDAs as they are gag orders - they are certainly not agreements when they are forced on you.
The first amendment is supposed to stop that sort of nonsense in the USA.
You don't have to teach web developers DELETE or DROP - many web sites will happily let anyone run either statement from the comfort of the login page.
Worse things can and do happen - like someone making off with confidential data.
My concern over these 'minimal knowledge' courses is that their graduates will be unprepared to deal with complex issues like security. On the other hand, given the dismal state of security, they might improve things, in which case I am in favor.
This article does not contain any description of calculus-like activities that five-year-olds are participating in. There's a lot of 'this is cool' commentary without any description of what 'this' actually is.
The NDA is irrelevant to the fact that you made a statement, about the exact wording of the article, that can unarguably be seen to be false, simply by reading the exact words of the article.
You've no facts to use. You are speculating with prejudice. Courts are not rational actors.
On the contrary, it is a fact that Mr. Snay has stated in a deposition that he explicitly told his daughter.
FWIW, I regard the incident as something like an unfortunate accident with disproportionately severe consequences, and I hope the family gets to keep the settlement, but I don't think the prospects look good. I would be interested in knowing what the outcome would have been if the daughter had actually guessed the existence and nature of the settlement. If you have any facts about how the circuit court came to its decision in favor of Mr. Snay, I would be interested.
Besides, you aren't listening to what I say, only arguing about what you think I meant in one post and comparing it to what you think I meant in another, and calling me wrong.
I am responding to what you write, and if that's different from what you think, you need to get your thoughts and/or words better organized. For example, in the above quote, you seem to think that you are not contradicting yourself if the positions in question are in different posts. If that's not what you meant, then you made your statement unclear by bringing separate posts into it (and if it is what you meant, then you are simply wrong.)
Here's just one example:
The court's finding later may reverse this. If it does, then the court will have decided twice in opposite ways. Does that make court illogical as well?
The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
Exactly what I said. It is both, but separated by time or other distinction. The same facts will be found to be two opposite things. One at first glance (the lower court ruling that this article was about) and another can be found when more scrutiny is applied. Both are true. Both are correct.
It does not follow from my answer to your question that both judgments are correct. That would be a contradiction. In reality, at most one of these judgments is correct. Ultimately, it is by the rules of the court that the one from the higher court is chosen.
As for the sentence "The same facts will be found to be two opposite things", that's just gibberish. No-one could divine with any degree of certainty what you thought that meant.
Let me remind you of the original issue: Mysidia stated that the Snay's best option would have been to fabricate a story in which they never actually told the daughter about the settlement (implying that she guessed), and I pointed out that any such plan would have depended on the daughter never revealing that this was false. Your response was a non-sequitur on several grounds, not least because, as anyone who had read the exact wording of the article would know, and contrary to what you were assuming at that time, there is no doubt now that the daughter had been told that there was a favorable settlement, a fact that makes any speculation over whether she guessed both irrelevant and factually mistaken. The extent of uncertainty over what was said to the daughter was exaggerated in your mind, because you did not read the articles with sufficient diligence. You should understand that your personal ignorance is not evidence of a general lack of knowledge.
Having been contradicted by the facts in this case, you attempted to rephrase your position, and managed to contradict yourself over whether the daughter's guessing of the facts would or would not be grounds for voiding the settlement. This is not particularly important, as it has already been established by Mr. Snay's own deposition that this is not what happened, and your arguments here are only part of a futile attempt to unsay what you had previously stated. It is, however, an indication of your predilection for invalid arguments.
That you don't understand doesn't make me wrong...
Here's another contradiction, all in one thread:
"We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement'
"The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it.'
Your language here is refreshingly straightforward, so if the evident meaning is not what you meant, the problem is yours.
...It just makes you dumb.
A loser's tacit admission that he has lost.
Just saying 'nope' isn't an argument. The fact remains that the logical contradiction in your position, that you are incapable of explaining away, means that your original claims have collapsed.
The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself. First you argue that the agreement could be saved by claiming that the daughter guessed the salient details of the agreement. Now you say "she could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing" (that's from the exact wording of your post.)
Yes, I'm claiming both. The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it. If the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached. Whether it has hasn't been proven.
Your latest position, "if the news leaks because someone guessed the outcome, then the NDA is presumed breached" implies that the strategy you proposed in your earlier posts will not work.:
better is to coach her into a plausible story. "we didn't tell you any of the details. We told you that the matter was over, and we now had money to go to Europe. That you inferred that we won was not from us telling you that we won. If you mess this one up, we'll cut up your passport and you'll never go."
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
You appear to think that when you contradict yourself, you can choose either position to make a point. In reality, logic dictates that your argument has collapsed - reductio ad absurdum, as logicians used to call it, appropriately enough in this case.
You appear to miss the point. She could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing. There's no "proof" (at least provided in TFA) the NDA was breached.
Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself. First you argue that the agreement could be saved by claiming that the daughter guessed the salient details of the agreement. Now you say "she could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing" (that's from the exact wording of your post.)
If he's stupid enough to lose even more money by appealing such a clear-cut decision then I suspect age was the least of the reasons he was let go in the first place.
To be fair, the fact that the circuit court ruled in his favor on the NDA violation issue suggests that it wasn't that clear-cut.
Reading the exact wording, it's quite possible that the daughter just guessed...
Reading the exact wording, we see that "Snay's father said in depositions that he and his wife knew they had to say something to their daughter..."
And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
If we once again read the exact words of the article, we see that "Snay, however, immediately told his daughter that he’d settled and was happy with the results."
That's not exactly a guess from a smile.
If you are going to speculate about what happened, you should at least first familiarize yourself with what's already been said.
We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement, nor what was told to the daughter, it's possible that it wasn't breached, and we'll never have enough information to determine it. Yes, the daughter coud always sabotage it by saying things she guesses, correct or otherwise, but now that she knows the trouble it causes, I think it is more likely she won't talk, not less.
You appear to miss the point. She wouldn't sabotage the ruse by guessing, but she could by letting slip the truth about what she was told.
And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
Well, on the one hand, we have the fact that two courts have examined this issue, with lawyers presenting what are presumably their best arguments, and the courts have, at this point, decided that the NDA was violated. On the other hand, we have your entirely speculative hypothesis that what was said to the daughter didn't amount to a violation - a hypothesis that necessarily implies that Snay's lawyers were spectacularly incompetent, given the outcome so far.
After due consideration, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence is against your proposition that what was said to the daughter was too vague to violate the NDA.
Reading the exact wording, it's quite possible that the daughter just guessed...
Reading the exact wording, we see that "Snay's father said in depositions that he and his wife knew they had to say something to their daughter..."
Unless the story presented by this 'good lawyer' is factually correct, my point still stands, even though the story may be consistent with all so-far revealed facts.
I concur. Unbelievable this was approved to be posted. It's highly irrelevant to why i come to this website in the first place.
It's outrageous that Slashdot has failed to conform exactly with your wishes.
Yes, this is a worthless story that was just posted here solely as fodder for people to come and complaint about anything Facebook-related.
At this point, only one of 182 comments say anything negative about Facebook itself.
It would seem that would give the little guy the opportunity to stick it to the scumbag company. "$80,000 to keep quiet? I don't know.... It might be kinda hard (wink, wink) for that amount. It might take $120,000...."
That's how they got to $80,000 (probably not explicitly, but it is implicit in the concept of negotiation.)
This is their best bet: claim not to have told her about it.
The fatal flaw in this ruse is that it depends on the daughter keeping quiet.
There is no violation of the settlement, as the parents (the father?) did nothing wrong.!
The violation occurred when (one of) the parents told the daughter.
If that is all that happened, the father would still have the settlement. The Miami Herald article suggests that even if the school learned privately that the daughter knew, the courts would probably rule that the settlement was not violated. The parent is being penalized for starting the chain of events that led to the very public disclosure of the settlement.
I wonder what would have happened if the daughter merely revealed that there was a settlement, without any details? That might be public information anyway, or easily inferred from public information.
With regard to European law, I know that in Britain, a losing plaintiff is likely to be saddled with the respondent's costs. This prevents a lot of frivolous lawsuits, but it suppresses justified ones as well. I am not aware of a good solution to this (I don't know how it is in the rest of Europe, either.)
I'm not sure it's really all that harsh.Now, if the settlement included rescinding the $60,000 award to plaintiff's attorneys, which would then cost Mr. Snay real money out of his pocket, that would be a much tougher pill to swallow.
He will have to pay the attorneys' fees for the appeals, regardless of whether he ultimately wins.