You must have missed the all the articles about credit card info being stolen (just the first one I can think of) or never received one of the many notices going around saying, "You've been issued a new card number because of a data breached that may have affected your account" yet. Also, PCI compliance (which is what you are think of) doesn't require all information to be removed. Here's the actual overview if you want to know.
I could obviously be completely wrong, but I imagine they inherited something along the lines of what we call "Common law" in the US (or equivalent) when they set that up. Not too different from starting with someone else's code base and forking it. You also get all the cruft up to that point. Though, IANAGL (I Am Not A German Lawyer).
What I think many people miss is that legalese is a programming language. It is the way we structure society (which is a sort of massively parallel machine). In any program that receives tweaks from time to time, there comes a point where a complete rewrite is not only helpful, but necessary. We have reached that point in western countries. Long overdue in my opinion. Will it be easy? Hell no! But the alternative is to just watch things get even worse. Could things get worse? Certainly, but at least then we can blame people who are still alive, rather than people ho have been dead for hundreds of years, and do something about it.
I just did it with 5.0.375.38 beta on Ubuntu and it worked, even after closing all chrome instances, restarting Chrome and starting a new incognito window.
And his math skills need some work (check his pond reference: 400,000 gallons != 1000 barrels) There are an awful lot of things that don't add up in his article.
I didn't say it was a good thing, just that in Germany this case seems to show that will be the result, and the next part is my guess on what they would take as the next step. I don't agree with it, I'm just pointing out what I'd expect for a repeat 'offender'.
Your last line brings up a good point. Can you be a common carrier if your terms of service forbid running an open hotspot (I'm pretty sure mine does through Comcast)? Can they even legally forbid that in their TOS (I'm assuming they can, but I've seen plenty of contracts with unenforceable clauses before)?
I wasn't trying to say what I think should happen, just what I'd expect based upon what happened in this case. Personally, I agree with your stance on this, though that may not have come across very well in my comment.
Then you get fined if someone breaks the law using your connection. Do it enough and you'll probably get charged with aiding and abetting. Though IANAL, it seems obvious enough. If you want to be an ISP, then you have to keep records indicating who your customers are (even if they aren't paying anything) so that the criminal can be found. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but it seems easy enough to understand, given our typical current legal structure (I'm assuming Germany isn't too terribly different from the US in some regards, so maybe I'm way off base).
Slashdot Mirror
Where have you seen motorcycles banned?!?
This is true. When I clean the cat box it is only because my eyes sting that I know the ammonia smell is very bad.
OTOH, irritating smells (like a co-worker's foot odor) doesn't bother me. And so far hasn't been harmful. ;-)
I have no sense of smell, you insensitive clod! *
*That's not a joke.
You must have missed the all the articles about credit card info being stolen (just the first one I can think of) or never received one of the many notices going around saying, "You've been issued a new card number because of a data breached that may have affected your account" yet. Also, PCI compliance (which is what you are think of) doesn't require all information to be removed. Here's the actual overview if you want to know.
I could obviously be completely wrong, but I imagine they inherited something along the lines of what we call "Common law" in the US (or equivalent) when they set that up. Not too different from starting with someone else's code base and forking it. You also get all the cruft up to that point. Though, IANAGL (I Am Not A German Lawyer).
What I think many people miss is that legalese is a programming language. It is the way we structure society (which is a sort of massively parallel machine). In any program that receives tweaks from time to time, there comes a point where a complete rewrite is not only helpful, but necessary. We have reached that point in western countries. Long overdue in my opinion. Will it be easy? Hell no! But the alternative is to just watch things get even worse. Could things get worse? Certainly, but at least then we can blame people who are still alive, rather than people ho have been dead for hundreds of years, and do something about it.
That's not what she said...
Do you know of better benchmarks somewhere?
On this newer (but not nearly top of the line) system running Ubuntu, FF 3.6.3 gets a 300 and Chrome 5.0.375.38 beta gets a 2152. This is from the page at http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v3/run.html
I just did it with 5.0.375.38 beta on Ubuntu and it worked, even after closing all chrome instances, restarting Chrome and starting a new incognito window.
That would be due to my mountain lion repelling rock. I'm willing to sell it for $500 obo.
Why don't we ask the program?
Too bad they tend to break backward compatibility. And the maintenance fees on the old version can be a royal pain.
In their defense, his comedy could be pretty cutting edge.
Seriously. What part of prior do they not understand?
No, no, White meat, not Wight meat!
And his math skills need some work (check his pond reference: 400,000 gallons != 1000 barrels) There are an awful lot of things that don't add up in his article.
The other other white meat.
I didn't say it was a good thing, just that in Germany this case seems to show that will be the result, and the next part is my guess on what they would take as the next step. I don't agree with it, I'm just pointing out what I'd expect for a repeat 'offender'.
Your last line brings up a good point. Can you be a common carrier if your terms of service forbid running an open hotspot (I'm pretty sure mine does through Comcast)? Can they even legally forbid that in their TOS (I'm assuming they can, but I've seen plenty of contracts with unenforceable clauses before)?
I wasn't trying to say what I think should happen, just what I'd expect based upon what happened in this case. Personally, I agree with your stance on this, though that may not have come across very well in my comment.
Then you get fined if someone breaks the law using your connection. Do it enough and you'll probably get charged with aiding and abetting. Though IANAL, it seems obvious enough. If you want to be an ISP, then you have to keep records indicating who your customers are (even if they aren't paying anything) so that the criminal can be found. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but it seems easy enough to understand, given our typical current legal structure (I'm assuming Germany isn't too terribly different from the US in some regards, so maybe I'm way off base).
Only on /. would someone say that like it's a bad thing. ;^)
...Don't you think someone would love to serve malware from, or deface microsoft.com? It hasn't been,...
Was the part I was responding to not bold enough for you? There, I fixed it for you.
Or 2 live things that want to make a third. Again, unless you're shooting a movie, or that's your job.
Really? seems to differ and wasn't the only reference I could find for microsoft.com defaced (seventh link).