Standard practice, unfortunately.
Despite what folks may think.. the website itself will provide the necessary transparency. However, the redactions in the contract are to protect trade secrets, national security concerns (explaining integration with other confidential government systems), etc.
What we need, is the website, and for the website to provide the information clearly, and efficiently.
Who does it,a nd the details of the contract, are largely irrelevant.
When I first used the ribbon interface in O2K7, I despised it. It made me angry, frustrated, and thoroughly unproductive at my job.
Then I came to work one morning, no coffee, databases were down, and I was on 2.5 hours of sleep. Opened Word to work on a requirements/solution document... and it made sense. Not just sense, but blinded-by-science-this-is-stupidly-simple kind of sense.
Once I got the fact that everything I was used to was still there, albeit not in the same format, but actually grouped logically and intuitively, my productivity went up about 70% over when I was using O2K3.
The Ribbon actually makes sense, and perhaps the smartest thing MS every did to the Office suite. MY two cents, YMMV
More like, by Law Enforcement taking the dummy ATM before the folks attending Defcon could "examine" it, they preserved the chain of evidence, thereby ensuring that what is uncovered during their forensics work will hold up in a court of law to successfully prosecute the perpetrators.
Yep... those 15 or so people from/. would *sooo* outvoice the hundreds of thousands of satisfied regular consumers with their "My 'puter is broke and it's three years old, time to get a new one" mentality.
Good luck with that.
the reason you cannot buy a notebook without an OS is simple....
It's a standard part of the OEM contract between the manufacturer, MS, and and of the *Nix distro companies they sell on an OEM level. The reason it is there, is to ensure an "optimum customer experience" (read as: not everyone is a computer geek and can install/configure their own OS, regardless of whether or not/. feels they should). Additionally, the requirement ensures that the piracy issues (yes, piracy) commonly associated with OEM copies of MS OS'es are kept to a minimum.
The song copy that I buy is *my* property. I am constrained by copyright to not infringe it by creating and redistributing more copies.
/sigh. I realize that this is/., and it is this statement that is at the core of the misconception on what it is purchased.
Though the pretty colorful text on the screen says "Buy this song for 99 cents!"... you ain't. You are buying a license to access the file (regardless of whether or not it is DRM'ed).
Unless you created the file (AND THE CONTENT), you don't own it. And.. unless you copyright it, you still don't own it, legally.
I am a Verizon DSL customer... and this happens to be an excellent move.
My laptop runs WinXP (oh noes, the HORROR), however, since I rarely need a wifi connection while out with it, the fact that I can now GET one without having to worry about finding an unsecured wireless connection and stealing someone's bandwith is a damn good thing.
Sorry... but it is about damn time.
Security has gotten this halo around it, where those of lackluster abilities are setting the directions of company business based on the model of "OMG, a Bear!", while those of us analysts that actually produce information and analytics crucial to the company's success are sitting in the unemployment line.
Too often have I seen developmental work that would introduce efficiencies into the organization blocked a security analyst who hasn't the first clue about the work I do. That, and too many of the folks I fired end-ran the non-compete and conflict of interest policies to get somewhere they won't get fired from, because they are "security".
I am almost certain it has. Allow me some time to do the research for the proper citation.
One thing I do not understand about your post, however, is how a German court's decision has any bearing on the legal structure of the United States? As I live in the United States, I am, by necessity, bound by the laws of this country.
I'd have to agree. I always read the EULA's and contracts before I sign them... that way I understand what my rights are, and what my legal means of redress are.
The subsidy that comes with the device from AT&T specifically requires the use of their network. the $199 price is not the full retail price of the device... the full retail price is $699 (at least it was for the 16GB 3G).
Since AT&T's service requirement requires the use of their network... you may only use a AT&T SIM card.
Jailbreaking the device to use it on other networks is breaking the contract. Thus, not legal under the terms of agreement when the device was purchased at the 199 subsidized price.
Wireless providers in the US are NOT required to unlock your phone.
Giving up mod points in this thread to make an important point...
UNLESS you pay full retail price, you do NOT own the device.
Even then.. you only own the hardware, not the OS, which is only LICENSED to you. Nor do you, at that point, still have any right to use whatever SIM card you want to in it. NOR do you have any warranty.
Don't you people ever read contracts and EULA's anymore?
So... well, I think that sums it up. Let me know if you still have questions.
To quote: "I'm not trespassing on your real property when I'm on a public road in front of your house using your wireless signals which extend off your property. In fact, if I'm your next-door neighbor and your wireless signals reach to my property, there's a stronger argument that you are trespassing on my real property by allowing your electromagnetic signals to enter my property."
If you are on a public road in front of my house, then yes, you are physically located on public property. But (and this is the important part, so pay attention), as soon as you step one inch (including connecting to an access point originating on my real property... you are trespassing. In addition, since you using bandwidth you are not paying for, nor have authorization to use... you are committing larceny as well.
Not only is the 'physical access' metaphor valid, it also extends to the theft of services (in this case, bandwith), not owned, nor paid for, nor authorized for your use, by you. Liek it or lump it, I care not which, wardriving, bandwith theft, and accessing systems (closed or not) for which you do not have explicit rights to use, is still illegal.
Really? Where did you come up with that brilliant idea, the movie "Hackers"?
I doubt that, in the legal sense, you could classify an "open" system as authorization to access said system.
By that definition, me running an unsecured wireless network and you accessing it is "authorization", however, the truth of the matter is you are trespassing on my real property.
If I leave my back gate open, and you walk in, you are still trespassing.
Accessing an "open" (and I use that term loosely) system... is the same thing.
Accessing ANY system without authorization of those that own said system, is still criminal. No matter how you may try to spin it.
I agree.
Anyone who breaks/broke/will break into a closed/open system without authorization... is a criminal, and should be treated as such.
To say one didn't "steal information", and therefore they are golden little poster child... is a liar.
Entering a system "just to see what we could do" is the same concept as breaking into a Best Buy when they left the back door open, and just looking around at the pretty televisions.
Just cause you don't take anything, doesn't mean that a crime has not occurred.
Slashdot Mirror
Standard practice, unfortunately. Despite what folks may think.. the website itself will provide the necessary transparency. However, the redactions in the contract are to protect trade secrets, national security concerns (explaining integration with other confidential government systems), etc. What we need, is the website, and for the website to provide the information clearly, and efficiently. Who does it,a nd the details of the contract, are largely irrelevant.
Would this include every tinfoil-hat wearing /. reader as well?
CTRL-Z still works just fine.
When I first used the ribbon interface in O2K7, I despised it. It made me angry, frustrated, and thoroughly unproductive at my job.
Then I came to work one morning, no coffee, databases were down, and I was on 2.5 hours of sleep. Opened Word to work on a requirements/solution document... and it made sense. Not just sense, but blinded-by-science-this-is-stupidly-simple kind of sense.
Once I got the fact that everything I was used to was still there, albeit not in the same format, but actually grouped logically and intuitively, my productivity went up about 70% over when I was using O2K3.
The Ribbon actually makes sense, and perhaps the smartest thing MS every did to the Office suite. MY two cents, YMMV
Hehe... not exactly ;)
More like, by Law Enforcement taking the dummy ATM before the folks attending Defcon could "examine" it, they preserved the chain of evidence, thereby ensuring that what is uncovered during their forensics work will hold up in a court of law to successfully prosecute the perpetrators.
C'mon, it was Defcon. Law Enforcement did the right thing... there are laws and regulation for a reason, you know.
Yep... those 15 or so people from /. would *sooo* outvoice the hundreds of thousands of satisfied regular consumers with their "My 'puter is broke and it's three years old, time to get a new one" mentality.
Good luck with that.
the reason you cannot buy a notebook without an OS is simple....
/. feels they should). Additionally, the requirement ensures that the piracy issues (yes, piracy) commonly associated with OEM copies of MS OS'es are kept to a minimum.
It's a standard part of the OEM contract between the manufacturer, MS, and and of the *Nix distro companies they sell on an OEM level. The reason it is there, is to ensure an "optimum customer experience" (read as: not everyone is a computer geek and can install/configure their own OS, regardless of whether or not
The song copy that I buy is *my* property. I am constrained by copyright to not infringe it by creating and redistributing more copies.
Though the pretty colorful text on the screen says "Buy this song for 99 cents!"... you ain't. You are buying a license to access the file (regardless of whether or not it is DRM'ed).
Unless you created the file (AND THE CONTENT), you don't own it. And.. unless you copyright it, you still don't own it, legally.
Sorry.
I am a Verizon DSL customer... and this happens to be an excellent move. My laptop runs WinXP (oh noes, the HORROR), however, since I rarely need a wifi connection while out with it, the fact that I can now GET one without having to worry about finding an unsecured wireless connection and stealing someone's bandwith is a damn good thing.
Sorry... but it is about damn time. Security has gotten this halo around it, where those of lackluster abilities are setting the directions of company business based on the model of "OMG, a Bear!", while those of us analysts that actually produce information and analytics crucial to the company's success are sitting in the unemployment line. Too often have I seen developmental work that would introduce efficiencies into the organization blocked a security analyst who hasn't the first clue about the work I do. That, and too many of the folks I fired end-ran the non-compete and conflict of interest policies to get somewhere they won't get fired from, because they are "security".
As for crypto marketing, "military grade" seems to be the appellation of choice. Pity it means absolutely nothing...
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Standard That should help explain what MIL-SPEC actually means, and why it does have value.
Fucking entitlement generation.
Amen.
I am almost certain it has. Allow me some time to do the research for the proper citation.
One thing I do not understand about your post, however, is how a German court's decision has any bearing on the legal structure of the United States? As I live in the United States, I am, by necessity, bound by the laws of this country.
In the US, the EULA is a legally binding contact, and thus, sets the terms under which the items covered by said contract are used.
I'd have to agree. I always read the EULA's and contracts before I sign them... that way I understand what my rights are, and what my legal means of redress are.
The subsidy that comes with the device from AT&T specifically requires the use of their network. the $199 price is not the full retail price of the device... the full retail price is $699 (at least it was for the 16GB 3G). Since AT&T's service requirement requires the use of their network... you may only use a AT&T SIM card. Jailbreaking the device to use it on other networks is breaking the contract. Thus, not legal under the terms of agreement when the device was purchased at the 199 subsidized price. Wireless providers in the US are NOT required to unlock your phone.
Giving up mod points in this thread to make an important point... UNLESS you pay full retail price, you do NOT own the device. Even then.. you only own the hardware, not the OS, which is only LICENSED to you. Nor do you, at that point, still have any right to use whatever SIM card you want to in it. NOR do you have any warranty. Don't you people ever read contracts and EULA's anymore? So... well, I think that sums it up. Let me know if you still have questions.
To quote:
"I'm not trespassing on your real property when I'm on a public road in front of your house using your wireless signals which extend off your property. In fact, if I'm your next-door neighbor and your wireless signals reach to my property, there's a stronger argument that you are trespassing on my real property by allowing your electromagnetic signals to enter my property."
If you are on a public road in front of my house, then yes, you are physically located on public property. But (and this is the important part, so pay attention), as soon as you step one inch (including connecting to an access point originating on my real property... you are trespassing. In addition, since you using bandwidth you are not paying for, nor have authorization to use... you are committing larceny as well.
Not only is the 'physical access' metaphor valid, it also extends to the theft of services (in this case, bandwith), not owned, nor paid for, nor authorized for your use, by you. Liek it or lump it, I care not which, wardriving, bandwith theft, and accessing systems (closed or not) for which you do not have explicit rights to use, is still illegal.
Once a thief, always a thief.
Really? Where did you come up with that brilliant idea, the movie "Hackers"?
I doubt that, in the legal sense, you could classify an "open" system as authorization to access said system.
By that definition, me running an unsecured wireless network and you accessing it is "authorization", however, the truth of the matter is you are trespassing on my real property.
If I leave my back gate open, and you walk in, you are still trespassing.
Accessing an "open" (and I use that term loosely) system... is the same thing.
Accessing ANY system without authorization of those that own said system, is still criminal. No matter how you may try to spin it.
I agree. Anyone who breaks/broke/will break into a closed/open system without authorization... is a criminal, and should be treated as such. To say one didn't "steal information", and therefore they are golden little poster child... is a liar. Entering a system "just to see what we could do" is the same concept as breaking into a Best Buy when they left the back door open, and just looking around at the pretty televisions. Just cause you don't take anything, doesn't mean that a crime has not occurred.
Amen.
Come on already... Steve Jobs != Apple, regardless of what some poorly informed investors may have believed.
Maybe ... but they're still dicks, any way you slice it, and that's why I decided to go for a G1 instead.
And that... is the free market at work.