That way you actually encourage people switching to linux.
Lemme stick some numbers out there for you. Of all the people currently using Windows, I would only say that about 10% feel comfortable in a Unix environment. And lets say that another 5% are beginners, but are willing to try. And of that 15% who might switch, at least half will switch right back again. So really, you only have roughly 7% of all personal computer users that would end up choosing Linux (and feeling comfortable with it).
Given these numbers, why would you even want to keep open source programs like Mozilla, Apache and the GIMP away from 93% of your possible user base? Why not expose as many people as possible to the chewy goodness of open source? Why cut them out because they are unwilling or unable to use anything except a operating system from Redmond, WA?
Don't they have anything else better to do than close down an extrememly helpful website because it has three letters on there?
Isn't this just typical of a scared group trying to save their market? Its the same old story:
10 years ago, they were the darlings of the media. Everyone couldn't get enough of their product. They stomped all other competition (ISA) until they were the exclusive provider in their market space (motherboards) for several years. But, technology advanced, and soon they weren't the best any more (AGP). New products arrived that did things better and faster in smaller space. And though they still have a majority market share, they know that they simply can't keep up.
* shakes head * Its always sad to watch a bus format die...
Instructions for use of this post: Insert tounge in cheek. Read as normal.
Aviation investigators said yesterday that a mobile phone may have caused a Saab 340 to crash shortly after take-off from Zurich airport last year, killing all 10 passengers and crew on board. Chris Mason, a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority, is quoted saying: "It would be the first time a mobile phone had caused a crash." Recent studies by the CAA in the UK have shown that radio waves from mobile phones while switched on can interfere with aircraft electronic and navigation systems and that the use of mobile phones aboard aircraft presents even greater safety risks. Jean Overney, leading investigations into the crash of Crossair flight LX 498 on January 10 last year, said: "Tests with the same aircraft model had shown that the Saab 340's navigation system could be disrupted by a mobile phone." He went on to say: "We have asked mobile phone operators to check whether a call was made or a message sent just before the crash. These are recorded precisely to the second. We need a court order to give us access, but should have this data by the end of May."
In most countries, the use of mobile phones on board a plane is outlawed . But passengers sometimes don't remember to switch off mobile phones, and in some cases have packed working phones in the aircraft hold. This has led to a series of alerts. Earlier his week, a Slovenian airliner made an emergency landing in Ljubljana after a portable phone caused the electronics system to malfunction and indicate a fire onboard. An investigation showed that the alarm had been caused by the mobile phone, which had been stowed in the luggage compartment and had not been switched off. Two years ago a Briton was sentenced to a year in jail by a Manchester court for "recklessly and negligently endangering" an international flight by refusing to switch off his phone.
but I was at least as annoyed by their "did you mean to search for"-redirects. If I did mean to search for it, I can bloody well click on the suggestion myself!
I can't disagree more. The "did you mean" only automatically redirects when your original search came up with no results. Otherwise, they give you the option, which I use almost constantly, since I am a horrible speller. Since they introduced that feature, I have never been redirected or guided to some place where I didn't want to go. In fact, I even use Google as a quick spell checker these days.
This is the kind of intellegent stuff that makes Google the best.
Then along comes $NEW_SITE to the rescue with a simple, straightforward, easily understandable and demonstrable searching feature.
And then every Tom, Dick and Harry that has limited intellegence and enough money will find themselves at the top of the list, and once again we will have to wade through pages of crap before finding what we want.
Nobody is forcing people to use Google. We use it because it is fast and it is accurate. They say: go out, make a name for yourself on the web, and we'll find you. Just because some no talent artist from Chicago or the SearchKing can't get anyone to care enough to link to their sites should be no skin off of Google's nose. If you don't like it, I am sure that Google won't miss you, they have enough loyal users who just want the real listings, not something placed there artificially becuase of money and backdoor politics.
That means that by not licensing the patents for free they're violating the GPL. Wonder if that infringement on the GPL could be used to invalidate their claim for money on Linux?
So very wrong. If you were right, that would mean that I could write a GPLed program that reimplements the MP3 patent, and then tell Thompson Media that their patent is violating the GPL.
What the section you quoted really means is that if the Linux code in question is covered by a patent (even a free one), then it cannot be protected by the GPL at all, because only unemcumbered code is free from restrictions (so to speak).
So esentially, if SCOs to proved to be correct, that would make the GPL invalid for those portions of code, and thus it would be free game for anybody to use the code. Then SCO could be free to grab the code and enforce their patents anyway, an effort must made easier by removing that pesky GPL.
The fact that a different division of the company is distributing the patented code under the guise of an license that does not allow for patents is a bit suspect, and I assume you could glom onto that as an example of SCO not protecting their patents.
However, I would bet they probably don't care, since invalidating the GPL on the code would only work in their favor anyway. I guess they'll just keep plodding along trying to burn the candle at both ends and see where the chips may fall.
I don't know how keen I am on having every ad agency in the country know my viewing habits, but you are right.
I don't know how much I care about that. In my opinion, if they are going to broadcast an ad anyway, they might as well use something that appeals me as well as something applicable to my life situation (hint: more beer commercials, less tampon commercials).
I have yet to hear a compelling argument why targeted advertising is so bad, but if anyone out there wants to give it a shot, I'm all ears...
Ok, some people might call it socialism. But, Its still cut from the same cloth.
hen it is hard to discredit the idea that the only reasons there are hungry people in the world are social issues.
Its very easy to discredit it. You must be reading too much Karl Marx and too little J.R.R. Tolkin, because you missed a big point - human nature is weak and greedy. The reason there are hungry people in the world is because anywhere human beings care to congegrate, there is somebody there willing to screw his fellow man.
Americans give millions of dollars to charity each year, but only a small amount of that ends up in the hands of those who need it? What doesn't get skimmed off the top by the local charities gets looted by officials in other countries.
Have you noticed how good the various despots of the world look compared to their citizens? Saddam Hussein sure doesn't look like he is hurting for food. Yet his people are starving.
Socialism sounds like a great idea, but its fundamentally flawed in the fact that we just can help being greedy. You just expect everyone to abide by the rules, but it just doesn't work like that. Somebody will always be there to cheat the system, and take from the needy. I'm not for letting children starve, but I sure as hell don't support redistributing our wealth so that some asshole can have three dozen palaces and starve his citizens at the same time.
Doesn't this also apply to the huge number of reported Linux holes?
If you are refering to the "quietly exploited" comment of the parent post, then yes, it definately applies to the open source (operating system and otherwise) security holes.
But most open source security holes are fixed almost immediately (and that includes win32 based projects as well), and I have never heard of a open source maintainer that refused to fix an exploit because they didn't feel it was important enough to bother with.
I don't agree with the editorial slant of the main article, since bugs are everywhere, but I only know of one group that routinely and publicly refuses to fix security holes because they don't feel it is "important" enough.
It's a video game. If it pisses you off, turn off the computer, go outside and take a walk.
I used to think that too, until I saw some of the prices on the online auctions for the virtual crap that you can aquire in this game. And then I was very scared. Having never played the game, or indeed ever met anyone who has played the game, I was appalled that somebody would spend so much real money on a virtual item (thousands and thousands of dollars).
I then realized that this isn't just a minor diversion. There are people out there that have some serious issues with these sorts of games. If you can envision somebody paying a couple of thousand of dollars for a sword of some sort, then "turning off the computer" may not be as easy as it sounds.
Of course, I might be barking up the wrong tree. Maybe everyone out there spending the money for these items is a retired dot com millionare who has the time and money to afford the game. And if that is true, then I apologize. But if just one person is spending money they don't have to advance themselves in an online game, then this article is dead on, and it is not pretty.
Because I can hook up and get laid from AOL chat rooms
Wow, I'm sorry, but thats just really sad to me that you chose to use those words.
I'm from rural Wyoming, so we didn't have many computers when I was a kid - so there was lots of good old fashioned masterbating to hard copy porn. I sure don't remember hearing any of my friends say that they "hooked up and got laid" with the centerfold of miss July 1987.
I'm older so maybe I don't understand. Whats the difference between masterbating to words on a screen and a picture on a page? Why would the words "got laid" even be remotely in the picture?
So Raslky spied on you? He has posted your home address on public websites, and joked openly about doing bodily harm to you?
Hell, lets do it one better - have you ever even recieved a spam from this guy? Or are you just pissed because there is somebody out there doing something that you don't approve of?
He'll have to deal with that as part of the price of that big old (nasty looking) yuppie palace he bought himself.
Oh, yeah - what does he have to deal with? What is your so called price of his chosen profession? Phone calls? Junk mail? Pizzas? Pictures of his house?
How about destroying his property? How about killing all his plants? How about killing his cat? What is your just price?
And where does your justice end? I've got a friend that makes parts for control mechanisms that get placed into missiles (among other things). At some point in time, I am sure that one of those missiles has killed an innocent child somewhere Should he be stalked? Pictures taken of his house and car?
And everywhere in the world there are people that hate things: abortions, fur, and Gomer Pyle. Should they use whatever action they feel is justified to make people "wake up and see" that they are doing something percieved as wrong? What if somebody hates nerds or computer programmers or fans of Star Trek? Then what?
Call it christian claptrap if you want, but I personally think there is something to this whole "respect each other" idea. Its a pretty novel concept, if you ask me. Maybe you should try it some time, you might like it.
He's an infamous celebrity. People want pictures. He can deal with it. At least he doesn't live in Hollywood where there aren't tour buses full of people driving by and taking pictures. Yet.
Not many celebrities are openly threatened with deadly force on a regular basis. You don't often hear "Harrison Ford, that piece of shit". But take a look at the messages in this article and at other spam related articles throughout the ages on/. There are people out there, who, for whatever reason, really, really hate this guy.
So we moved from junk mail, to satellite pictures, to pictures taken in front of this guy's house. How long until somebody destroys his property, or kills his cat? How long until somebody drops off something that explodes?
This guy is a celebrity like Saddam Hussein is a celebrity. Hell, people like OJ more than this guy.
Lets quit with the jokes and the funny ha-has and give this guy a break before somebody gets hurt, mmkay folks?
Take an extreme and fictitous example, a food company uses a secret ingredient and has all its employees sign a NDA to preserve the secrecy of that ingredient. An employee discovers that the secret ingredient is rat poison, what should they do? I would say the should report it to the authorities and the press, and the company should not have recourse to law through the NDA.
I agree - in fact it is your duty to report any illegal activities. But that should be reported to the authorities, not splattered all over half a dozen web sites before you get around to actually providing that pesky thing called proof.
Consider an old practice of IBM. They used to sell printers with a switch that changed the speed of the printer hidden inside the printer. They sold upgrades to these printers that involved an engineer visiting the customer's premises snd flicking the switch when the customer wasn't looking. Pure and simple IBM used secrecy to rip off customers. Trade secret or sharp practice?
Ah, but was it illegal? If so, then your point stands, but you simply can't be violating your signed agreements just because a company acts in a manner that you find repulsive. You can choose not to sign the agreement. You can choose to terminate your employment once you discover the truth. You are simply asked not to reveal the secrets once you have learned them.
And if you feel that it is illegal, then go tell a lawer or the approprate agency, and they will tell a judge, who will decide if it is potentially illegal, or just ethically corrupt.
But no matter the situation, taking confidental information that you promised to cover up and posting it on the web is wrong. I don't give a damn about your opinion, or your morals, or even the complete lack of ethics that 80% of these companies have. Its illegal for now. If you don't like it, then lobby to have the law changed. Until then, I say sign on the dotted line and live up to your oaths.
I for one find this extremely disgusting. I understand that businesses need to protect their trade secrets, but I think this crosses the line.
Lemme see. The guy signed an agreement, took the confidental information, and purposely violated the agreement and posted the information on the internet. Oh, yeah, there was a line crossed, but news flash - it wasn't Apple.
If I had a company, and one of my employees breaks any NDA agreements like that, I'm gonna fire him first and turn him over the authorities second.
I don't care what sort of Stallmanistic view of society you have, you cannot possibly believe that somebody should be allowed to sign an agreement, and then break it because they feel that "information should be free".
When you sign your name to an agreement - thats it. You can't just go back later and say "oh, I was kidding". I hope when they throw the book at this guy, it hits him square in the forehead.
Preserving such historical sites is important for future generations.
Unfortunately, we have absolutely no idea how to preserve a ship under water.
In fact, we are sitting around helplessly watching the Titanic and the ships at Pearl Harbor disintegrate (which, BTW is a very bad thing - since the ships at Pearl still have a lot of fuel trapped within them). The only way we can "preserve" a ship is to raise it out of the water, and that can only be done under certain circumstances.
So +10 points for the thought, but -100 for complete inability do to anything about it.
Slashdot Mirror
That way you actually encourage people switching to linux.
Lemme stick some numbers out there for you. Of all the people currently using Windows, I would only say that about 10% feel comfortable in a Unix environment. And lets say that another 5% are beginners, but are willing to try. And of that 15% who might switch, at least half will switch right back again. So really, you only have roughly 7% of all personal computer users that would end up choosing Linux (and feeling comfortable with it).
Given these numbers, why would you even want to keep open source programs like Mozilla, Apache and the GIMP away from 93% of your possible user base? Why not expose as many people as possible to the chewy goodness of open source? Why cut them out because they are unwilling or unable to use anything except a operating system from Redmond, WA?
Free as in speech, indeed.
Don't they have anything else better to do than close down an extrememly helpful website because it has three letters on there?
Isn't this just typical of a scared group trying to save their market? Its the same old story:
10 years ago, they were the darlings of the media. Everyone couldn't get enough of their product. They stomped all other competition (ISA) until they were the exclusive provider in their market space (motherboards) for several years. But, technology advanced, and soon they weren't the best any more (AGP). New products arrived that did things better and faster in smaller space. And though they still have a majority market share, they know that they simply can't keep up.
* shakes head * Its always sad to watch a bus format die...
Instructions for use of this post: Insert tounge in cheek. Read as normal.
Reposted from
here
CELLPHONE MAY HAVE CAUSED FATAL CRASH.
12 January 2001
From News Wire Reports
Aviation investigators said yesterday that a mobile phone may have caused a Saab 340 to crash shortly after take-off from Zurich airport last year, killing all 10 passengers and crew on board. Chris Mason, a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority, is quoted saying: "It would be the first time a mobile phone had caused a crash." Recent studies by the CAA in the UK have shown that radio waves from mobile phones while switched on can interfere with aircraft electronic and navigation systems and that the use of mobile phones aboard aircraft presents even greater safety risks. Jean Overney, leading investigations into the crash of Crossair flight LX 498 on January 10 last year, said: "Tests with the same aircraft model had shown that the Saab 340's navigation system could be disrupted by a mobile phone."
He went on to say: "We have asked mobile phone operators to check whether a call was made or a message sent just before the crash. These are recorded precisely to the second. We need a court order to give us access, but should have this data by the end of May."
In most countries, the use of mobile phones on board a plane is outlawed . But passengers sometimes don't remember to switch off mobile phones, and in some cases have packed working phones in the aircraft hold. This has led to a series of alerts. Earlier his week, a Slovenian airliner made an emergency landing in Ljubljana after a portable phone caused the electronics system to malfunction and indicate a fire onboard. An investigation showed that the alarm had been caused by the mobile phone, which had been stowed in the luggage compartment and had not been switched off. Two years ago a Briton was sentenced to a year in jail by a Manchester court for "recklessly and negligently endangering" an international flight by refusing to switch off his phone.
Holy shit, that's too funny!
but I was at least as annoyed by their
"did you mean to search for"-redirects.
If I did mean to search for it, I can bloody
well click on the suggestion myself!
I can't disagree more. The "did you mean" only automatically redirects when your original search came up with no results. Otherwise, they give you the option, which I use almost constantly, since I am a horrible speller. Since they introduced that feature, I have never been redirected or guided to some place where I didn't want to go. In fact, I even use Google as a quick spell checker these days.
This is the kind of intellegent stuff that makes Google the best.
Don't forget Froogle (http://froogle.google.com) too! There always seems to be something new and tasty coming out of Google labs... :)
Then along comes $NEW_SITE to the rescue with a simple, straightforward, easily understandable and demonstrable searching feature.
And then every Tom, Dick and Harry that has limited intellegence and enough money will find themselves at the top of the list, and once again we will have to wade through pages of crap before finding what we want.
Nobody is forcing people to use Google. We use it because it is fast and it is accurate. They say: go out, make a name for yourself on the web, and we'll find you. Just because some no talent artist from Chicago or the SearchKing can't get anyone to care enough to link to their sites should be no skin off of Google's nose. If you don't like it, I am sure that Google won't miss you, they have enough loyal users who just want the real listings, not something placed there artificially becuase of money and backdoor politics.
That means that by not licensing the patents for free they're violating the GPL. Wonder if that infringement on the GPL could be used to invalidate their claim for money on Linux?
So very wrong. If you were right, that would mean that I could write a GPLed program that reimplements the MP3 patent, and then tell Thompson Media that their patent is violating the GPL.
What the section you quoted really means is that if the Linux code in question is covered by a patent (even a free one), then it cannot be protected by the GPL at all, because only unemcumbered code is free from restrictions (so to speak).
So esentially, if SCOs to proved to be correct, that would make the GPL invalid for those portions of code, and thus it would be free game for anybody to use the code. Then SCO could be free to grab the code and enforce their patents anyway, an effort must made easier by removing that pesky GPL.
The fact that a different division of the company is distributing the patented code under the guise of an license that does not allow for patents is a bit suspect, and I assume you could glom onto that as an example of SCO not protecting their patents.
However, I would bet they probably don't care, since invalidating the GPL on the code would only work in their favor anyway. I guess they'll just keep plodding along trying to burn the candle at both ends and see where the chips may fall.
Two questions:
1) The avsforum.com is hard to navigate. Got a direct link to the software?
2) Dare I ask about Linux?
Just buy an XBox. Problems solved :)
Yeah, and when I get tired of playing Halo, I could play... uh... umm... well... more Halo!
I don't know how keen I am on having every ad agency in the country know my viewing habits, but you are right.
I don't know how much I care about that. In my opinion, if they are going to broadcast an ad anyway, they might as well use something that appeals me as well as something applicable to my life situation (hint: more beer commercials, less tampon commercials).
I have yet to hear a compelling argument why targeted advertising is so bad, but if anyone out there wants to give it a shot, I'm all ears...
psst.. In the future, you probably should read this
before making an ass out of yourself.
Just a suggestion.
Ok, some people might call it socialism. But, Its still cut from the same cloth.
hen it is hard to discredit the idea that the only reasons there are hungry people in the world are social issues.
Its very easy to discredit it. You must be reading too much Karl Marx and too little J.R.R. Tolkin, because you missed a big point - human nature is weak and greedy. The reason there are hungry people in the world is because anywhere human beings care to congegrate, there is somebody there willing to screw his fellow man.
Americans give millions of dollars to charity each year, but only a small amount of that ends up in the hands of those who need it? What doesn't get skimmed off the top by the local charities gets looted by officials in other countries.
Have you noticed how good the various despots of the world look compared to their citizens? Saddam Hussein sure doesn't look like he is hurting for food. Yet his people are starving.
Socialism sounds like a great idea, but its fundamentally flawed in the fact that we just can help being greedy. You just expect everyone to abide by the rules, but it just doesn't work like that. Somebody will always be there to cheat the system, and take from the needy. I'm not for letting children starve, but I sure as hell don't support redistributing our wealth so that some asshole can have three dozen palaces and starve his citizens at the same time.
Doesn't this also apply to the huge number of reported Linux holes?
If you are refering to the "quietly exploited" comment of the parent post, then yes, it definately applies to the open source (operating system and otherwise) security holes.
But most open source security holes are fixed almost immediately (and that includes win32 based projects as well), and I have never heard of a open source maintainer that refused to fix an exploit because they didn't feel it was important enough to bother with.
I don't agree with the editorial slant of the main article, since bugs are everywhere, but I only know of one group that routinely and publicly refuses to fix security holes because they don't feel it is "important" enough.
Wow - I wish I had signed up for the "Fool the Shit out of People 101" class instead of these useless computer science courses.
Whats next? Grifting 203 and the ever popular "Three card Monte" elective? All requirements for the BS in BS, of course.
"Yo, biotch, how do I get the trunk open?"
Not calling him biotch would be a good start.
It's a video game. If it pisses you off, turn off the computer, go outside and take a walk.
I used to think that too, until I saw some of the prices on the online auctions for the virtual crap that you can aquire in this game. And then I was very scared. Having never played the game, or indeed ever met anyone who has played the game, I was appalled that somebody would spend so much real money on a virtual item (thousands and thousands of dollars).
I then realized that this isn't just a minor diversion. There are people out there that have some serious issues with these sorts of games. If you can envision somebody paying a couple of thousand of dollars for a sword of some sort, then "turning off the computer" may not be as easy as it sounds.
Of course, I might be barking up the wrong tree. Maybe everyone out there spending the money for these items is a retired dot com millionare who has the time and money to afford the game. And if that is true, then I apologize. But if just one person is spending money they don't have to advance themselves in an online game, then this article is dead on, and it is not pretty.
Because I can hook up and get laid from AOL chat rooms
Wow, I'm sorry, but thats just really sad to me that you chose to use those words.
I'm from rural Wyoming, so we didn't have many computers when I was a kid - so there was lots of good old fashioned masterbating to hard copy porn. I sure don't remember hearing any of my friends say that they "hooked up and got laid" with the centerfold of miss July 1987.
I'm older so maybe I don't understand. Whats the difference between masterbating to words on a screen and a picture on a page? Why would the words "got laid" even be remotely in the picture?
Why anyone would waste their time on such utter non-sense and psuedo science is beyond me.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go get in line to watch Lord of the Rings.
act as you would have others act upon you
So Raslky spied on you? He has posted your home address on public websites, and joked openly about doing bodily harm to you?
Hell, lets do it one better - have you ever even recieved a spam from this guy? Or are you just pissed because there is somebody out there doing something that you don't approve of?
He'll have to deal with that as part of the price of that big old (nasty looking) yuppie palace he bought himself.
Oh, yeah - what does he have to deal with? What is your so called price of his chosen profession? Phone calls? Junk mail? Pizzas? Pictures of his house?
How about destroying his property? How about killing all his plants? How about killing his cat? What is your just price?
And where does your justice end? I've got a friend that makes parts for control mechanisms that get placed into missiles (among other things). At some point in time, I am sure that one of those missiles has killed an innocent child somewhere Should he be stalked? Pictures taken of his house and car?
And everywhere in the world there are people that hate things: abortions, fur, and Gomer Pyle. Should they use whatever action they feel is justified to make people "wake up and see" that they are doing something percieved as wrong? What if somebody hates nerds or computer programmers or fans of Star Trek? Then what?
Call it christian claptrap if you want, but I personally think there is something to this whole "respect each other" idea. Its a pretty novel concept, if you ask me. Maybe you should try it some time, you might like it.
He's an infamous celebrity. People want pictures. He can deal with it. At least he doesn't live in Hollywood where there aren't tour buses full of people driving by and taking pictures. Yet.
/. There are people out there, who, for whatever reason, really, really hate this guy.
Not many celebrities are openly threatened with deadly force on a regular basis. You don't often hear "Harrison Ford, that piece of shit". But take a look at the messages in this article and at other spam related articles throughout the ages on
So we moved from junk mail, to satellite pictures, to pictures taken in front of this guy's house. How long until somebody destroys his property, or kills his cat? How long until somebody drops off something that explodes?
This guy is a celebrity like Saddam Hussein is a celebrity. Hell, people like OJ more than this guy.
Lets quit with the jokes and the funny ha-has and give this guy a break before somebody gets hurt, mmkay folks?
Take an extreme and fictitous example, a food company uses a secret ingredient and has all its employees sign a NDA to preserve the secrecy of that ingredient. An employee discovers that the secret ingredient is rat poison, what should they do? I would say the should report it to the authorities and the press, and the company should not have recourse to law through the NDA.
I agree - in fact it is your duty to report any illegal activities. But that should be reported to the authorities, not splattered all over half a dozen web sites before you get around to actually providing that pesky thing called proof.
Consider an old practice of IBM. They used to sell printers with a switch that changed the speed of the printer hidden inside the printer. They sold upgrades to these printers that involved an engineer visiting the customer's premises snd flicking the switch when the customer wasn't looking. Pure and simple IBM used secrecy to rip off customers. Trade secret or sharp practice?
Ah, but was it illegal? If so, then your point stands, but you simply can't be violating your signed agreements just because a company acts in a manner that you find repulsive. You can choose not to sign the agreement. You can choose to terminate your employment once you discover the truth. You are simply asked not to reveal the secrets once you have learned them.
And if you feel that it is illegal, then go tell a lawer or the approprate agency, and they will tell a judge, who will decide if it is potentially illegal, or just ethically corrupt.
But no matter the situation, taking confidental information that you promised to cover up and posting it on the web is wrong. I don't give a damn about your opinion, or your morals, or even the complete lack of ethics that 80% of these companies have. Its illegal for now. If you don't like it, then lobby to have the law changed. Until then, I say sign on the dotted line and live up to your oaths.
I for one find this extremely disgusting. I understand that businesses need to protect their trade secrets, but I think this crosses the line.
Lemme see. The guy signed an agreement, took the confidental information, and purposely violated the agreement and posted the information on the internet. Oh, yeah, there was a line crossed, but news flash - it wasn't Apple.
If I had a company, and one of my employees breaks any NDA agreements like that, I'm gonna fire him first and turn him over the authorities second.
I don't care what sort of Stallmanistic view of society you have, you cannot possibly believe that somebody should be allowed to sign an agreement, and then break it because they feel that "information should be free".
When you sign your name to an agreement - thats it. You can't just go back later and say "oh, I was kidding". I hope when they throw the book at this guy, it hits him square in the forehead.
Nah - you're thinking of the East River.
Wouldn't they just throw them in the nearest river? Why would you put someone in a trunk and drive them all over Manhattan just because of tradition?
Preserving such historical sites is important for future generations.
Unfortunately, we have absolutely no idea how to preserve a ship under water.
In fact, we are sitting around helplessly watching the Titanic and the ships at Pearl Harbor disintegrate (which, BTW is a very bad thing - since the ships at Pearl still have a lot of fuel trapped within them). The only way we can "preserve" a ship is to raise it out of the water, and that can only be done under certain circumstances.
So +10 points for the thought, but -100 for complete inability do to anything about it.