There is a difference between reserving the rights to change (including increase) prices, etc and making a change but still actively telling people old, inaccurate information.
It isn't like they got a paper ad and one changed the prices, and the ad is out of date.
The website keeps serving pages that are inaccurate. That would be like one continuing to print paper ads that have old information, even after one made the change that rendered the info on the site inaccurate and in this case, where they were informed of the discrepency. ("knew or had reason to know")
False advertising on the Internet is still false advertising, no new laws are needed, it is illegal in any medium. In general things illegal in one medium are illegal in all, unless the law specifies otherwise.
This isn't a rights or "Internet" or online case primarily, it is a case of false representations that happened to be on the Internet. Not fundamentally different than if it had been in a newspaper or radio ad, or a billboard, etc.
Stayed long enough to learn C#? That's being an optimist. If he didn't already know C# do you think the company would have trained him or even let him learn on his own when they could just fire him and hire someone that already knows it?
Chances are very good you were going to get laid off soon anyway - they'd say they needed someone who was "already up to speed with the latest Microsoft tools".
Companies don't seem to retrain people, they just fire them and hire ones that are already at the required level of proficiency in whatever tool/environment/software/etc the company falls in love with next.
If a UNIX using company goes M$, the UNIX people will almost always get laid off - they won't be given the option of trying to adapt. The company will want "fresh blood" and people who don't need to be retrained, and who are already ready to perform 100% from the get go, and people who are "able to be made naturally to think in the new programming paradigm, etc".
This also gives them an excuse to fire the older workers without getting caught for age discrimination and hire younger, lower paid, less senior, easily moldable, replacements.
When asking that, ask youself if there is anyway to get around the FBI coming after you for a DMCA violation like they did to Sklyarov of Adobe e-Book PDF cracking fame.
Perhaps anti-trust rules might disallow them from using the DMCA that way.
But it seems the DMCA even overrides the Constitution, never mind the anti-trust laws.
Do anti-trust obligations prevent Microsoft from using the DMCA to outlaw programs and/or methods to prevent Microsoft's blocking of windows update on WINE from working?
For people in your situation, it would be nice to have an option to disable Java and flash except on your Intranet and trusted sites
Like IE Security zones, enable those for your Intranet and other sites you want/need to have that functionality, and have it off by default on other sites.
Always set IE and Mozilla to check items in cache everytime.
A VERY slight performance hit versus bad content (even 2 minutes old can be very bad - e.g. eBay, stock trades, bank sites, Intranet apps).
At work I always set IE to "Always check", had too many problems with the "Arbitrarily" setting (ok, it is called "Automatically" but my name is more accurate).
The GPL is a license for REDISTRIBUTION, not USE, hence it is not an EULA.
EULAs use contract law to take away rights.
GPL gives you extra rights.
These are rights not provided by copyright law in exchange for agreement to the GPL. Following the GPL means you have a license and will not be considered infringing the exclusive rights of the copyright holder by making copies. ec.
You can fail to agree to the GPL and still USE the software, you just can't exercise any exclusive rights under 17 USC (US Federal law).
I ain't a lawyer, and the above is US centric anyway.
Isn't it up to the MAME team whether they want to protect against their product being used with illegal games, and how/if they want to enforce that?
Isn't it up to the copyright holders to sue for copyright infringement if they so wish, and not up to him?
Doesn't he lack "standing" (a legal term with a legal definition) to sue?
Person A can't sue because B is (allegedly) committing a civil wrong against person C.
And Person A getting a trademark on person C's stuff to sue B is a violation of C's rights and could suhject A to being sued by C, and a fraudulent trademark wouldn't give A standing to sue B.
A would be UltraCade, B would be the illegal game sellers/users, and C would be MAME.
Is my logic faulty, or is my logic correct and the law isn't logical on this point, or am I right?
Furthermore, even if you agree with UltraCade's actions to eliminate illegal MAME machines (his stated purpose, but once he gets the trademark, who knows...), one must still respect the rule of law.
Allowing a trademark to be granted to a third party would go against the rule of law, regardless of whether it may be for a "noble" cause. "Noble" causes cause a lot of harm, some people think the DMCA was for a "noble cause" (supporting rights of authors, enhancing creation of works, etc - though we know better - it still passed Congress and was signed into law by CLINTON, so the Democrats can hurt our rights too - don't just bash Republicans even though it seems popular on this website to do so).
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between reserving the rights to change (including increase) prices, etc and making a change but still actively telling people old, inaccurate information.
It isn't like they got a paper ad and one changed the prices, and the ad is out of date.
The website keeps serving pages that are inaccurate. That would be like one continuing to print paper ads that have old information, even after one made the change that rendered the info on the site inaccurate and in this case, where they were informed of the discrepency. ("knew or had reason to know")
That is just plain wrong.
I'd settle for them not crashing into the pier.
a ccident/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/15/ferry.
False advertising on the Internet is still false advertising, no new laws are needed, it is illegal in any medium. In general things illegal in one medium are illegal in all, unless the law specifies otherwise.
This isn't a rights or "Internet" or online case primarily, it is a case of false representations that happened to be on the Internet. Not fundamentally different than if it had been in a newspaper or radio ad, or a billboard, etc.
If your company sues IBM you should quit your job. :)
If you had stayed there long enough to learn C#
Stayed long enough to learn C#? That's being an optimist. If he didn't already know C# do you think the company would have trained him or even let him learn on his own when they could just fire him and hire someone that already knows it?
See this post: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140416&ci
Chances are very good you were going to get laid off soon anyway - they'd say they needed someone who was "already up to speed with the latest Microsoft tools".
Companies don't seem to retrain people, they just fire them and hire ones that are already at the required level of proficiency in whatever tool/environment/software/etc the company falls in love with next.
If a UNIX using company goes M$, the UNIX people will almost always get laid off - they won't be given the option of trying to adapt. The company will want "fresh blood" and people who don't need to be retrained, and who are already ready to perform 100% from the get go, and people who are "able to be made naturally to think in the new programming paradigm, etc".
This also gives them an excuse to fire the older workers without getting caught for age discrimination and hire younger, lower paid, less senior, easily moldable, replacements.
Cut back on the LSD, dude. :)
If 16 (or 17) is to be old enough to be killed by the government, it should be old enough to vote.
That was a glaring inconsistancy.
Just like when you needed to be 21 to vote, but only 18 to get sent to Vietnam during the war.
#include
:)
int main() {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 25964951; i++) {
printf("1");
}
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Is that better?
When asking that, ask youself if there is anyway to get around the FBI coming after you for a DMCA violation like they did to Sklyarov of Adobe e-Book PDF cracking fame.
Perhaps anti-trust rules might disallow them from using the DMCA that way.
But it seems the DMCA even overrides the Constitution, never mind the anti-trust laws.
Do anti-trust obligations prevent Microsoft from using the DMCA to outlaw programs and/or methods to prevent Microsoft's blocking of windows update on WINE from working?
For people in your situation, it would be nice to have an option to disable Java and flash except on your Intranet and trusted sites
Like IE Security zones, enable those for your Intranet and other sites you want/need to have that functionality, and have it off by default on other sites.
Any browser developers listening?
Companies don't always do what makes them money.
Companies do what THEY THINK makes them money.
The 2 are often different. (and that is responsible for a lot of business failures).
Always set IE and Mozilla to check items in cache everytime.
A VERY slight performance hit versus bad content (even 2 minutes old can be very bad - e.g. eBay, stock trades, bank sites, Intranet apps).
At work I always set IE to "Always check", had too many problems with the "Arbitrarily" setting (ok, it is called "Automatically" but my name is more accurate).
Easy decision.
eBay shouldn't be held liable if they use a web standard and the browser misimplements or ignores a required feature.
They shouldn't be liable for 3rd party bugs.
Else, not only is that unfair, you give a good reason for sites to browser blacklist.
It's not SELF-censorship if it is ILLEGAL for you not to do it.
It is being required to assist the government in its censorship.
SELF-censorship is if someone censors something and is not under duress to do so.
Having it be illegal to not censor something counts as (extreme) duress.
The GPL is a license for REDISTRIBUTION, not USE, hence it is not an EULA.
EULAs use contract law to take away rights.
GPL gives you extra rights.
These are rights not provided by copyright law in exchange for agreement to the GPL. Following the GPL means you have a license and will not be considered infringing the exclusive rights of the copyright holder by making copies. ec.
You can fail to agree to the GPL and still USE the software, you just can't exercise any exclusive rights under 17 USC (US Federal law).
I ain't a lawyer, and the above is US centric anyway.
People sign the papers that come with a new house without reading them more often than not. :(
$1000 for paying the guy off.
:)
$100,000 for new servers which can handle the Slashdotting.
Sample EULA:
1. Total grant of rights by you to us:
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
2. Penalty for violation
YOU ARE ON YOUR WAY TO DESTRUCTION
3. Dispute provision
YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE, MAKE YOUR TIME
FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
DC motor?
The only place you'll see DC motors outside of toys and electric shavers is light rail/trolleys/subways/etc.
Household electricity is AC, and those machines use AC motors.
Isn't it up to the MAME team whether they want to protect against their product being used with illegal games, and how/if they want to enforce that?
Isn't it up to the copyright holders to sue for copyright infringement if they so wish, and not up to him?
Doesn't he lack "standing" (a legal term with a legal definition) to sue?
Person A can't sue because B is (allegedly) committing a civil wrong against person C.
And Person A getting a trademark on person C's stuff to sue B is a violation of C's rights and could suhject A to being sued by C, and a fraudulent trademark wouldn't give A standing to sue B.
A would be UltraCade, B would be the illegal game sellers/users, and C would be MAME.
Is my logic faulty, or is my logic correct and the law isn't logical on this point, or am I right?
Furthermore, even if you agree with UltraCade's actions to eliminate illegal MAME machines (his stated purpose, but once he gets the trademark, who knows...), one must still respect the rule of law.
Allowing a trademark to be granted to a third party would go against the rule of law, regardless of whether it may be for a "noble" cause. "Noble" causes cause a lot of harm, some people think the DMCA was for a "noble cause" (supporting rights of authors, enhancing creation of works, etc - though we know better - it still passed Congress and was signed into law by CLINTON, so the Democrats can hurt our rights too - don't just bash Republicans even though it seems popular on this website to do so).
Slashdot destroyed the URL tag
t ml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132197,00.h
Until you get fired for travelling 30,000 mph in a 65 zone because the GPS said so. :)
Here is a story where the GPS did just that:
Bush's Justice Department unfortunately DOES cling to that definition.
Verizon was allowed to buy MCI. Point proved.