What makes his so-called stash of bitcoins worth the effort of trying to go after him for a cut any more than how wealthy any one of the other multimillionaires or billionaires in the world happens to be?
Because if not, it's not like any proof of the authenticity of their claim will make any difference at all.
If you ask me, I think that the necessary information about her itunes account and password, given that the device itself was bequeathed in her will anyways, should have been stored in a sealed envelope which accompanied the physical copy of the will.
Knives and spoons are not connected to the internet, and in every case I can imagine, cannot be programmed to do things other than what the person that is physically holding them wants them to do.
With XP.... all it will take is a single exploit that can potentially give someone remote control of what runs on your computer...
That can happen with any version of any operating system, of course... but it's generally less problematic for current ones because they can actually be patched. After next month, XP won't be. So any vulnerabilities it might have that we don't know about yet will stay there. If or when those machines turn into Zombies, ISP's will be acting quite correctly to disconnect infected machines from their network.
I dunno... seems to be fine for me for every network I watch. I don't have cable and watch all my TV streamed from the networks. The only restriction I'm finding is that I can't watch shows older than a week (I have to enter subscription info for that), so I have to watch them sooner than that. Several of the shows that I watch are on ABC.
Who said anything about watching OTA? I was talking about watching stuff streamed from the network website. In my experience, most of the popular shows seem to be available a day or so after airing, which isn't really *THAT* big a deal... you just shift your tv watching schedule by one day.
.... many networks will stream a good portion of the shows that they air, usually only a day or so after initial broadcast... and typically leave them available for about a week. There's commercials, of course, but it's really not that bad a way to watch television. I'm not sure what need Aero was really trying to fill.
Is it not painfully obvious that the summary is either poorly worded or just plain wrong
The summary quoted the article. Yes, it's probably true that it's poorly worded, but if you can't find the whole idea laughable then you may be missing the point.
In general, yes, you are correct... but in matters concerning household income, it differs considerably. You are right that there is no scenario under which a child absolutely must know the information, but disclosing it to a child who is part of the household is not, by itself, considered a breach of the confidentiality... the child must further disclose the information to another person who was not implicitly authorized to know about it before the confidentiality agreement can be considered violated.
The dad erred when (i imagine) that it probably never occurred to him that his child would mention it to anyone else (or worse, brag about it publicly) so it's still ultimately his fault from a legal standpoint. Since the teen thought it was a cool thing to brag about, it's clear that the daughter placed some value upon it, so the fact that her actions have cost their family the very thing that she bragged about may ultimately end up affecting the daughter far more significantly than her dad.
You may want to read up on confidentiality agreements with regards to household income. It is not a breach of confidentiality to disclose such amounts to other people who are within the same household and family, since it directly affects them. The government is further allowed to be informed of all of your income regardless. A person still bears the burden of making sure that anyone he or she *does* tell, however, does not further publicize the matter... and this is how the confidentiality agreement was broken... whether it was by either not telling his daughter that she shouldn't be telling anyone else, or whether it was by not realizing that his daughter would have been so inclined to have publicized it.
Actually, the dad *IS* permitted within the confidentiality agreement to disclose such information to his own family, or anyone else residing permanently in his household, because matters of family income directly affect their well being. He is also, of course, obligated to disclose the amount to the IRS. What they are categorically *NOT* allowed to do is publicize that the settlement occurred or the amount, however. The dad should have made that point clear with his family when bringing the matter up. If he did tell them and the daughter did it anyways, then she's going to have to feel guilty about it because it cost them the very thing that she bragged about. The only way the dad may have done something wrong here is if he didn't actually mention that this was supposed to be kept fairly secret, or, possibly if he had any reason to previously suspect that his daughter would want to brag about it in the first place would have been legitimate reason to not mention it to her as well. But simply telling his family if he had no reason to suspect that any of them would say anything to anyone else is categorically *NOT* a confidentiality breach when the matter does directly affect them (as household income would).
... tell anyone? Because if not, she can't be faulted for this... You can't blame somebody for mentioning something that is supposedly under NDA when you haven't told them that it was.
Many things that are under NDA you cannot even discuss with your immediate family anyways, but for things that would affect or concern them, such as a legal settlement that they receive the benefits of, the dad should have made it very clear that they weren't really allowed to talk about it to anyone.... ever, because that was a condition of receiving it in the first place, and they go back on that, then they will have to give it back.
Even a bragging teen will understand that much.
If, however, he had told his daughter and his daughter went and did it anyways, well... then, the daughter is going to have to live with feelings of guilt for however long it takes for her to get over the fact that bragging about it ended up costing them the very thing she was bragging about.
... but are they hoping to create enough for the population to sustain itself through breeding? Or are they just going to create such creatures to live in isolation?
I might be thinking of something else, and somebody who may have appropriate reference material handy please feel free to correct me, but from what I think I remember reading about the Mammoth back when I as learning about such creatures in school is that they were by all indications very social creatures, particularly the females, generally living in communities, and not at all solitary... and creating only a very small number of them could arguably be considered a type of animal cruelty.
A person who is sitting in the driver's seat of a car that is not moving is not actually "driving" the car anywhere, and thus is technically not really a driver at that moment.
Try being jobless after your unemployment benefits have run out, and not being able to even get a stinking minimum wage job because everybody who even looks at you sideways from such places judges you as so ridiculously overqualified that they don't want to spend the time training you (since they expect you will high-tail it out of there as soon as something that is more within your field comes along... an evaluation that, in the end, is actually entirely correct).
I've seen enough wrong numbers online to not trust what I find there.. usually, I imagine, it's the case that the numbers that I find are just seriously out of date rather than out of any deliberate intent to deceive.
I'm not especially smarter or wiser than anybody else. If I can think to do this, then anybody else should be able to as well.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes his so-called stash of bitcoins worth the effort of trying to go after him for a cut any more than how wealthy any one of the other multimillionaires or billionaires in the world happens to be?
Because if not, it's not like any proof of the authenticity of their claim will make any difference at all.
If you ask me, I think that the necessary information about her itunes account and password, given that the device itself was bequeathed in her will anyways, should have been stored in a sealed envelope which accompanied the physical copy of the will.
It's not the only predictor, just the single best identifiable one.
Touche.
Then I wouldn't be physically holding it anymore.
Knives and spoons are not connected to the internet, and in every case I can imagine, cannot be programmed to do things other than what the person that is physically holding them wants them to do.
With XP.... all it will take is a single exploit that can potentially give someone remote control of what runs on your computer...
That can happen with any version of any operating system, of course... but it's generally less problematic for current ones because they can actually be patched. After next month, XP won't be. So any vulnerabilities it might have that we don't know about yet will stay there. If or when those machines turn into Zombies, ISP's will be acting quite correctly to disconnect infected machines from their network.
[nt]
I dunno... seems to be fine for me for every network I watch. I don't have cable and watch all my TV streamed from the networks. The only restriction I'm finding is that I can't watch shows older than a week (I have to enter subscription info for that), so I have to watch them sooner than that. Several of the shows that I watch are on ABC.
I get that too... but only for shows that are older than a week.
Who said anything about watching OTA? I was talking about watching stuff streamed from the network website. In my experience, most of the popular shows seem to be available a day or so after airing, which isn't really *THAT* big a deal... you just shift your tv watching schedule by one day.
So it's trying to fill the needs of people who have an overinflated sense of entitlement? Okay.... got it.
.... many networks will stream a good portion of the shows that they air, usually only a day or so after initial broadcast... and typically leave them available for about a week. There's commercials, of course, but it's really not that bad a way to watch television. I'm not sure what need Aero was really trying to fill.
The summary quoted the article. Yes, it's probably true that it's poorly worded, but if you can't find the whole idea laughable then you may be missing the point.
In general, yes, you are correct... but in matters concerning household income, it differs considerably. You are right that there is no scenario under which a child absolutely must know the information, but disclosing it to a child who is part of the household is not, by itself, considered a breach of the confidentiality... the child must further disclose the information to another person who was not implicitly authorized to know about it before the confidentiality agreement can be considered violated.
The dad erred when (i imagine) that it probably never occurred to him that his child would mention it to anyone else (or worse, brag about it publicly) so it's still ultimately his fault from a legal standpoint. Since the teen thought it was a cool thing to brag about, it's clear that the daughter placed some value upon it, so the fact that her actions have cost their family the very thing that she bragged about may ultimately end up affecting the daughter far more significantly than her dad.
You may want to read up on confidentiality agreements with regards to household income. It is not a breach of confidentiality to disclose such amounts to other people who are within the same household and family, since it directly affects them. The government is further allowed to be informed of all of your income regardless. A person still bears the burden of making sure that anyone he or she *does* tell, however, does not further publicize the matter... and this is how the confidentiality agreement was broken... whether it was by either not telling his daughter that she shouldn't be telling anyone else, or whether it was by not realizing that his daughter would have been so inclined to have publicized it.
Actually, the dad *IS* permitted within the confidentiality agreement to disclose such information to his own family, or anyone else residing permanently in his household, because matters of family income directly affect their well being. He is also, of course, obligated to disclose the amount to the IRS. What they are categorically *NOT* allowed to do is publicize that the settlement occurred or the amount, however. The dad should have made that point clear with his family when bringing the matter up. If he did tell them and the daughter did it anyways, then she's going to have to feel guilty about it because it cost them the very thing that she bragged about. The only way the dad may have done something wrong here is if he didn't actually mention that this was supposed to be kept fairly secret, or, possibly if he had any reason to previously suspect that his daughter would want to brag about it in the first place would have been legitimate reason to not mention it to her as well. But simply telling his family if he had no reason to suspect that any of them would say anything to anyone else is categorically *NOT* a confidentiality breach when the matter does directly affect them (as household income would).
Many things that are under NDA you cannot even discuss with your immediate family anyways, but for things that would affect or concern them, such as a legal settlement that they receive the benefits of, the dad should have made it very clear that they weren't really allowed to talk about it to anyone.... ever, because that was a condition of receiving it in the first place, and they go back on that, then they will have to give it back.
Even a bragging teen will understand that much.
If, however, he had told his daughter and his daughter went and did it anyways, well... then, the daughter is going to have to live with feelings of guilt for however long it takes for her to get over the fact that bragging about it ended up costing them the very thing she was bragging about.
I might be thinking of something else, and somebody who may have appropriate reference material handy please feel free to correct me, but from what I think I remember reading about the Mammoth back when I as learning about such creatures in school is that they were by all indications very social creatures, particularly the females, generally living in communities, and not at all solitary... and creating only a very small number of them could arguably be considered a type of animal cruelty.
Yes, but summary did explicitly say "driver".
A person who is sitting in the driver's seat of a car that is not moving is not actually "driving" the car anywhere, and thus is technically not really a driver at that moment.
Try being jobless after your unemployment benefits have run out, and not being able to even get a stinking minimum wage job because everybody who even looks at you sideways from such places judges you as so ridiculously overqualified that they don't want to spend the time training you (since they expect you will high-tail it out of there as soon as something that is more within your field comes along... an evaluation that, in the end, is actually entirely correct).
cups-pdf is usually one of the first ones I put on./
I've seen enough wrong numbers online to not trust what I find there.. usually, I imagine, it's the case that the numbers that I find are just seriously out of date rather than out of any deliberate intent to deceive.
I'm not especially smarter or wiser than anybody else. If I can think to do this, then anybody else should be able to as well.
So, like... a golf cart?
Say what?
No.... seriously... what?
Is Apple fucking insane?