instead of her daughter finding out by eavesdropping on a conversation, reading a letter or bank statement.
(1) Don't have conversations about legally privileged information, outside a secure meeting room.
(2) Bank statements should be locked up; don't give your daughter access to them.
If your daughter is tampering with your mail, then you have a bigger problem (breach of trust)
I wonder if this move, and the ensuing bad publicity, will ultimately cause more than $80,000 of damages.
Since he violated the settlement agreement, the school may be free to sue him for the damages.
The daughter may have flipped their fate from "extra vacation"; to, "being forced to give up their house", to cover the legal costs from the school's successful lawsuit against them over breach of contract.
What penalty? They agreed to a settlement, and signed a contract. The loudmouth twat breached the contract, and lost the payment the contract called for. The offer was $80K if the plaintiff would STFU. Plaintiff didn't STFU, plaintiff doesn't get the money.
Personally, I think "confidentiality for settlement" should be illegal anyways --- it's used by large companies to pressure individuals to keep quiet, OR as an excuse to deny payment for wrongs committed.
BUT confidentiality is standard language, AND the daughter IF SHE WERE MATURE enough to have this divulged to her, should have known to ask for permission before sharing this kind of information.
Yeah. "We screwed up. We should've known better, but we decided to do it anyway. Here's our penalty money."
"Oh, you screwed up. Your daughter didn't play by our rules. We take it all back...for teh win!"
They screwed up by divulging legally privileged information to a child, who has not yet reached the maturity to appropriately respect the confidentiality requirement.
As near as I can tell, there's nothing especially tech related in this story. She screwed up in a way that many before her have screwed up, it's just that she happened to use facebook to do it. Nothing to see here.
OK... then.... her daughter violated the terms of their settlement.
Time to proceed with the lawsuit, then, since there is no longer a settlement.
Yes, but instead they said "Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights."
Which seems to be 100% accurate, and is not defamatory.
They don't provide the explanation as to WHY Gema has chosen not to grant the respective rights in an acceptable manner;
however, Google is not GEMA's PR department.
"Any industry that is unregulated, good, or service, and might provide profits a useful function or benefit for some group of the population, is hereby banned."
In my view DNS operators should take responsibility to prevent damage to their customers by not blindly delegating * to root zone operators. Only delegate known TLDs and require manual blessing of all operators before admitting any new TLDs.
I agree.... ICANN was given their chance, and trust, AND they blew it.
Now a technical solution on the part of organizations administering DNS servers is warranted to head off this TLD foolishness.
Youtube has a right to not be neutral. It is their website, and they have the free speech rights to portray GEMA however they like, in their publications.
People wanted bitcoins to be free from any kind of government oversight or interference. Well that is never going to happen. As long as there is anything acting like money you are going to need some kind of oversight to keep things like this from happening.
Government oversight does not stop these things from happening.
Government oversight is a dramatic tactic to attempt to make people feel better and restore confidence.
The dishonest folks always find ways of working around the government.
Can you explain why government oversight didn't stop Lehman brothers? or Bernard Madoff?
There was ample government oversight, AND all the oversight was completely, totally, and utterly useless --- didn't protect anyone..
Stability of currency is absolutely needed for a vendor. If you had to change your pricing every 10 minutes how would you ever advertise anything?
Right now Overstock.com advertises US dollar prices and says you can pay using Bitcoin.
At the time of checkout, their payment provider charges you the buyer the price in BTC according to the current number of BTC's required at that moment to equal the product price.
The payment provider books the vendor's revenue in their own currency, so there's no risk for the vendor.
Since the payment provider is handling both sides of the transaction.... the only real risk now is the payment provider is now having to hold BTC, until someone either buys BTC from the payment provider, or a transaction occurs with a different vendor who has chosen to receive BTC, where the buyer choosing to pay in dollars.
I would expect a currency to be one of the least risky forms of property to be useful.
If you mined a few thousand of them back when the difficulty was so low you could do this with a GPU, or you bought a few thousand Bitcoins when they cost less than $0.10 a piece.
Then I wouldn't see them as very risky. Sure, you could lose 20 to 30% of the paper value on your 5000% gain.
But if you rebalance and diversify (buy hard assets).l... It is risky to hold bitcoin or Bitcoin-denominated assets, but not necessarily more risky than other speculative investments.
The value of your bitcoin has already fallen 25% because of the Mt. Gox failure.
Mt.Gox screwed up US dollar withdrawals taking delays of 4+ months to get some cash caused Bitcoins to trade higher on their exchange ---- since you needed to do a BTC withdrawl, if you wanted to get your money out.
That meant you needed to buy mtgoxBTC with your mtgoxUSD, and then withdraw BTC, to deposit at another exchange that could actually provide you your dollars.
This served to artificially inflate the apparent "market value" of BTC on MtGox exchange; which eventually affected the prices quoted by other exchanges as well.
Of course, now that Mt.Gox shows signs of apparent insolvency the value of BOTH a mtGoxUSD and a mtGoxBTC will hit the floor, and the prices of Bitcoins on the other exchanges could be expected to drop 25 to 30% to reflext no longer being artificially boosted up by MtGox shenanigans.
That makes a bill ever so much more complicated. For example, I find myself looking away from the road fairly often to check my speedometer. Sometimes my fuel gauge at the same time.
I'm wondering why we don't have "audible speedometers" mandatory now. Your vehicle should look up your GPS position, or read a signal off a nearby sign, and figure out the speed limit of the road you're on. Then check for conditions such as low-light, fog or rain.
A designated tone could be used to indicate what percentage of the speed limit you are at.
If you're going too fast, your car should start alerting you and verbally tell you "You are going too fast, please slow down".
If your fuel drops below 1/4 tank, you should get a verbal reminder about fuel.
What you suggest might work, but if it's not enshrined in a contract, they might decide to come up with some bullshit excuse for firing you or laying you off.
You may never realize the upside from your risk, even though THEY realize the upside from the risk you are taking.
You can and should get both that AND some kind of legally enshrined promise.
Be sure you can trust that you're not being screwed. Some(many?) employers are sociopaths and will take you for a ride on future promises.
You should assume this by default. Before you take a huge risk, you should ensure that you will be adequately compensated for the risk.
If they can't compensate you today: get a guarantee of future compensation if they are successful.
In other words: the pay difference should translate into tangible future benefit.
Businesses have a way of recording investments.... it's in the form of either issuing you equity shares, or signing a promissory note, for the difference in pay.
If you're an owner, you are less likely to be screwed.
Require something legally enshrined on the books, for your troubles.
economics of suing thousands of Canadians for downloading a movie for personal purposes is likely to lead to hundreds of thousands in losses for rights holders."
They just have to sue the one or two that doesn't pay the expensive settlement demand, in order to make examples out of them.
Tier1 ISP do not sell to residential. Verizon as a whole owns both Tier1 and Tier2 ISPs.
Huh? Sure there are Tier1 carriers that have some residential networks. Verizon is one of them.
The essential definition of a Tier1 carrier is that they buy transit from nobody, and a common trait is they provide free peering or access to nobody, except other Tier1s with specific requirement such as traffic ratios, and anyone else requesting peering is told to buy transit.
We're talking about the Tier2 ISP. Tier2 ISPs, which sell residential connections, always always try to get free bandwidth.
No... every provider tries to get free data transfer, provided they can do it without losing.
Even Tier1's want free bandwidth, but only if they are not sacrificing more in revenue opportunities than they are getting.
According to Cogent, Verizon is quoting Cogent a price that is 10x the industry average for transit, and Cogent isn't even buying transit, they're buying a non-transit connection.
"The industry average" is not the definition of "fair price".
You can price a service 50 times the industry average, and in some cases, that price is too low, for what is actually being delivered.
Verizon has a network that nobody else has and that nobody else can get or build, and when you have that: you get to charge a premium.
Netflix streaming video service likely represents higher usage and longer paths through Verizon's network than the industry average.
Isn't Netflix using Amazon's hosting solutions, though? If so, then the decision to use Cogent would come down to Bezos & Co.
We know Netflix makes extensive use of the Amazon cloud.
It doesn't really matter though --- Netflix is ultimately responsible.
Do you think it matters if Netflix opens the ticket with Cogent, or if Netflix opens the ticket with Amazon, who in turn opens tickets with Cogent?
Of course... Verizon customers are also in a position to open tickets.
If enough Verizon customers open tickets, then I suspect, they will have to do something.
But because of Verizon's massive size, you either need a bunch of high dollar-value Verizon clients opening tickets, OR tens of millions of residential users, with enough intelligence and research to get past level 1 support screeners and get a "real" ticket open.
Slashdot Mirror
instead of her daughter finding out by eavesdropping on a conversation, reading a letter or bank statement.
(1) Don't have conversations about legally privileged information, outside a secure meeting room.
(2) Bank statements should be locked up; don't give your daughter access to them. If your daughter is tampering with your mail, then you have a bigger problem (breach of trust)
I wonder if this move, and the ensuing bad publicity, will ultimately cause more than $80,000 of damages.
Since he violated the settlement agreement, the school may be free to sue him for the damages.
The daughter may have flipped their fate from "extra vacation"; to, "being forced to give up their house", to cover the legal costs from the school's successful lawsuit against them over breach of contract.
What penalty? They agreed to a settlement, and signed a contract. The loudmouth twat breached the contract, and lost the payment the contract called for. The offer was $80K if the plaintiff would STFU. Plaintiff didn't STFU, plaintiff doesn't get the money.
Personally, I think "confidentiality for settlement" should be illegal anyways --- it's used by large companies to pressure individuals to keep quiet, OR as an excuse to deny payment for wrongs committed.
BUT confidentiality is standard language, AND the daughter IF SHE WERE MATURE enough to have this divulged to her, should have known to ask for permission before sharing this kind of information.
Yeah. "We screwed up. We should've known better, but we decided to do it anyway. Here's our penalty money." "Oh, you screwed up. Your daughter didn't play by our rules. We take it all back...for teh win!"
They screwed up by divulging legally privileged information to a child, who has not yet reached the maturity to appropriately respect the confidentiality requirement.
As near as I can tell, there's nothing especially tech related in this story. She screwed up in a way that many before her have screwed up, it's just that she happened to use facebook to do it. Nothing to see here.
OK... then.... her daughter violated the terms of their settlement. Time to proceed with the lawsuit, then, since there is no longer a settlement.
I don't but my town water facility does. Fair chance yours does, too.
They put chlorine in the water. Bleach contains substances besides chlorine that are more hazardous, even in small amounts.
But they offered to grant you one and that fact was ignored in Youtubes title card.
Who cares what they offered? The deal was not accepted, therefore, they CHOSE not to grant Google permission after the deal was not accepted.
Maybe I offered you a license, if you will pay me $1,00,00,000 per unique view of the video stream.
You refused? Then you can't say I didn't grant you the rights!
Yes, but instead they said "Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights."
Which seems to be 100% accurate, and is not defamatory.
They don't provide the explanation as to WHY Gema has chosen not to grant the respective rights in an acceptable manner; however, Google is not GEMA's PR department.
"Any industry that is unregulated, good, or service, and might provide profits a useful function or benefit for some group of the population, is hereby banned."
In my view DNS operators should take responsibility to prevent damage to their customers by not blindly delegating * to root zone operators. Only delegate known TLDs and require manual blessing of all operators before admitting any new TLDs.
I agree.... ICANN was given their chance, and trust, AND they blew it.
Now a technical solution on the part of organizations administering DNS servers is warranted to head off this TLD foolishness.
Having new TLDs beside .com should be better for the internet. Multiple name spaces should facilitate load sharing between DNS servers.
No it won't. Everyone still needs a .COM.
Alternate TLDs are a novelty market.
Youtube has a right to not be neutral. It is their website, and they have the free speech rights to portray GEMA however they like, in their publications.
People wanted bitcoins to be free from any kind of government oversight or interference. Well that is never going to happen. As long as there is anything acting like money you are going to need some kind of oversight to keep things like this from happening.
Government oversight does not stop these things from happening.
Government oversight is a dramatic tactic to attempt to make people feel better and restore confidence.
The dishonest folks always find ways of working around the government.
Can you explain why government oversight didn't stop Lehman brothers? or Bernard Madoff?
There was ample government oversight, AND all the oversight was completely, totally, and utterly useless --- didn't protect anyone..
Stability of currency is absolutely needed for a vendor. If you had to change your pricing every 10 minutes how would you ever advertise anything?
Right now Overstock.com advertises US dollar prices and says you can pay using Bitcoin.
At the time of checkout, their payment provider charges you the buyer the price in BTC according to the current number of BTC's required at that moment to equal the product price.
The payment provider books the vendor's revenue in their own currency, so there's no risk for the vendor.
Since the payment provider is handling both sides of the transaction.... the only real risk now is the payment provider is now having to hold BTC, until someone either buys BTC from the payment provider, or a transaction occurs with a different vendor who has chosen to receive BTC, where the buyer choosing to pay in dollars.
I would expect a currency to be one of the least risky forms of property to be useful.
If you mined a few thousand of them back when the difficulty was so low you could do this with a GPU, or you bought a few thousand Bitcoins when they cost less than $0.10 a piece.
Then I wouldn't see them as very risky. Sure, you could lose 20 to 30% of the paper value on your 5000% gain. But if you rebalance and diversify (buy hard assets).l... It is risky to hold bitcoin or Bitcoin-denominated assets, but not necessarily more risky than other speculative investments.
The value of your bitcoin has already fallen 25% because of the Mt. Gox failure.
Mt.Gox screwed up US dollar withdrawals taking delays of 4+ months to get some cash caused Bitcoins to trade higher on their exchange ---- since you needed to do a BTC withdrawl, if you wanted to get your money out. That meant you needed to buy mtgoxBTC with your mtgoxUSD, and then withdraw BTC, to deposit at another exchange that could actually provide you your dollars.
This served to artificially inflate the apparent "market value" of BTC on MtGox exchange; which eventually affected the prices quoted by other exchanges as well.
Of course, now that Mt.Gox shows signs of apparent insolvency the value of BOTH a mtGoxUSD and a mtGoxBTC will hit the floor, and the prices of Bitcoins on the other exchanges could be expected to drop 25 to 30% to reflext no longer being artificially boosted up by MtGox shenanigans.
Seven words comes to mind...
,
Embezzlement, Insider theft, Accounting fraud,
Bitcoin's Enron
.
That makes a bill ever so much more complicated. For example, I find myself looking away from the road fairly often to check my speedometer. Sometimes my fuel gauge at the same time.
I'm wondering why we don't have "audible speedometers" mandatory now. Your vehicle should look up your GPS position, or read a signal off a nearby sign, and figure out the speed limit of the road you're on. Then check for conditions such as low-light, fog or rain.
A designated tone could be used to indicate what percentage of the speed limit you are at.
If you're going too fast, your car should start alerting you and verbally tell you "You are going too fast, please slow down".
If your fuel drops below 1/4 tank, you should get a verbal reminder about fuel.
What you suggest might work, but if it's not enshrined in a contract, they might decide to come up with some bullshit excuse for firing you or laying you off.
You may never realize the upside from your risk, even though THEY realize the upside from the risk you are taking.
You can and should get both that AND some kind of legally enshrined promise.
Be sure you can trust that you're not being screwed. Some(many?) employers are sociopaths and will take you for a ride on future promises.
You should assume this by default. Before you take a huge risk, you should ensure that you will be adequately compensated for the risk.
If they can't compensate you today: get a guarantee of future compensation if they are successful.
In other words: the pay difference should translate into tangible future benefit.
Businesses have a way of recording investments.... it's in the form of either issuing you equity shares, or signing a promissory note, for the difference in pay. If you're an owner, you are less likely to be screwed.
Require something legally enshrined on the books, for your troubles.
economics of suing thousands of Canadians for downloading a movie for personal purposes is likely to lead to hundreds of thousands in losses for rights holders."
They just have to sue the one or two that doesn't pay the expensive settlement demand, in order to make examples out of them.
And the charade continues
so why can't people manage to get past the Microsoft antitrust thing,
Because Microsoft is still engaged in Anti-free-software, Anti-free-open-standards practices. See Microsoft Circles the Wagons To Defeat ODF In the UK
Tier1 ISP do not sell to residential. Verizon as a whole owns both Tier1 and Tier2 ISPs.
Huh? Sure there are Tier1 carriers that have some residential networks. Verizon is one of them.
The essential definition of a Tier1 carrier is that they buy transit from nobody, and a common trait is they provide free peering or access to nobody, except other Tier1s with specific requirement such as traffic ratios, and anyone else requesting peering is told to buy transit.
We're talking about the Tier2 ISP. Tier2 ISPs, which sell residential connections, always always try to get free bandwidth.
No... every provider tries to get free data transfer, provided they can do it without losing. Even Tier1's want free bandwidth, but only if they are not sacrificing more in revenue opportunities than they are getting.
According to Cogent, Verizon is quoting Cogent a price that is 10x the industry average for transit, and Cogent isn't even buying transit, they're buying a non-transit connection.
"The industry average" is not the definition of "fair price". You can price a service 50 times the industry average, and in some cases, that price is too low, for what is actually being delivered.
Verizon has a network that nobody else has and that nobody else can get or build, and when you have that: you get to charge a premium.
Netflix streaming video service likely represents higher usage and longer paths through Verizon's network than the industry average.
Isn't Netflix using Amazon's hosting solutions, though? If so, then the decision to use Cogent would come down to Bezos & Co.
We know Netflix makes extensive use of the Amazon cloud.
It doesn't really matter though --- Netflix is ultimately responsible.
Do you think it matters if Netflix opens the ticket with Cogent, or if Netflix opens the ticket with Amazon, who in turn opens tickets with Cogent?
Of course... Verizon customers are also in a position to open tickets. If enough Verizon customers open tickets, then I suspect, they will have to do something.
But because of Verizon's massive size, you either need a bunch of high dollar-value Verizon clients opening tickets, OR tens of millions of residential users, with enough intelligence and research to get past level 1 support screeners and get a "real" ticket open.