Freud, Adler, Jung, and Chomsky all have made the same mistake, namely the belief that their particular theory can explain all human behavior.
I'm not sure about this author, but I did not get that out of Dawkins. Remember, in oversimplified form, for Dawkins, the purpose of life is to replicate genes. If memes can be another tool of genes to replicate themselves, so be it.
The law is very generous in the US truth, as in "I made a reasonable effort to find the evidence before I made a statement about this." Despite some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the media, you really have to be indifferent to the truth before you lose a defamation case in the USA.
What if the company disputes whether my alligations are the truth? What if had posted this information anonymously? What if, what if, what if...?
That was why I argued elsewhere that they should have to show a prima facie case that this was indeed libel. Companies should not be able to break through anonymity just because they are peeved, but they should be able to try to find out who harmed them.
Besides, in this particular case, its still not certain (or apparent to me at least) that what the anonymous poster said about Xircom is false. Regardless, he is still loosing his privacy.
How anonymous was the person originally. Most of these "anonymous" posts are like crank calls, easy enough to trace if you've given someone the incentive to do it.
Solution: don't criminalize speech. Especially just because its in the intrests of some company.
It's not criminal except in very limited circumstances--lying to a court is supposed to be a crime. I really don't want to give liars a free pass.
You seem to be confused about what defamation means in the US. Do you really think that it is okay to knowingly and wilfully tell a lie about someone else? The rest of your criticism doesn't defend that position, so I am guessing that you are not using the American definition of defamation as I understand it.
Whistlblowing is not defamation. Telling people about the evils of someone else's behavior is not defamation. Telling lies to hurt someone is defamation.
Companies do not want to sue whistleblowers. When the whistleblower shows up with a ton of evidence in the courtroom that everything they said was absolutely true, CEOs tend to lose their job. CEOs don't like losing their jobs.
If a company can verify that the whistleblower was or may have been telling the truth, they try very quietly to root out the whistleblower and punish him quietly. Anything else is bad PR and getting caught punishing the whistleblower, especially if the company has any commercial relationship with the federal government, is likely to be against the law.
So far, defamation has only been alleged. Is an allegation of harm sufficient grounds to compell a service provider to turn over the identity of an anonymous user? What level of proof should be required? If anonymitiy can be shattered by a simple allegation, then your anonymitiy extends only to those without the means to file suit. For those with attorneys on retainer, your anonymity is fleeting.
I would like to see the courts require that those who allege that they were defamed to provide a prima facie case that they were defamed before they are given the names of those who appear to have lied about them. Many of these suits appear to be attempts to root out local malcontent employees.
So far, defamation has only been alleged. Is an allegation of harm sufficient grounds to compell a service provider to turn over the identity of an anonymous user? What level of proof should be required? If anonymitiy can be shattered by a simple allegation, then your anonymitiy extends only to those without the means to file suit. For those with attorneys on retainer, your anonymity is fleeting.
I would like to see the courts require that those who allege that they were defamed to provide a prima facie case that they were defamed before they have a chance to find out who has lied about them. Much of this appears to be an attempt to root out local malcontents.
Hypothetically, lets say I notice some harmful buisness practices by a large company. For instance, I notice its destroying the environment or using sweatshops in third world contries.
I decide to go out and make a big deal about it to the media (who probably wouldn't care anyways) but it happens to injure the reputation of the company and it looses shareholders.
This is right on the edge of the definition of this particular law.
Nope, this isn't even close to actionable in the US. Truth is always a complete defense. In the US you aren't likely to get into trouble unless you knew or should have known that you were telling a lie. If you repeat something that turns out to be false, but you reasonably thought was true, you are safe.
I cannot think of a case where defamation would be criminal.
This would be a uniform act that is done on a state-by-state basis in the US (La. does not generally participate in the uniform acts).
The law would define what the default is if the commercial transaction is covered by the state and your contract is silent on that point. Large companies will not tolerate most of these default provisions. It will only apply to you if you agree to have disputes settled under the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.
Many of the default provisions violate consumer protection statutes, so they will not be effective against home users either. The people who will get screwed if the software publishers have their way are the small businesses that cannot get a company to change the terms and conditions but are not protected by consumer protection laws.
This is a state by state operation. Even if Washington State rolls over for their software publishers, other states can make it illegal or economically irrational to license software under UCITA because it is against public policy. They can further stop the effect of this law by extending consumer protection statutes to all purchases who are not the position to negotiate terms and conditions of the license.
Encourage your state to pass consumer protection laws that say that any company that uses shrinkwrap agreements to license software have:
Warrants that the product may be tested for 30 days and can be returned for any cause that the customer cause for a full refund at that time;
Self-help reposessors must provide a bond of $1,000,000 or more against any damages that may be caused by self-help repossession;
Companies must at least refund all money spent, at any time during the life of the license, if the product fails to work as described in any documentation from the company.
This would be a uniform act that is done on a state-by-state basis in the US (La. does not generally participate in the uniform acts).
The law would define what the default is if the commercial transaction is covered by the state and your contract is silent on that point. Large companies will not tolerate most of these default provisions.
Many of the default provisions violate consumer protection statutes, so they will not be effective against home users either. The people who will get screwed if the software publishers have their way are the small businesses that cannot get a company to change the terms and conditions but are not protected by consumer protection laws.
This is a state by state operation. Even if Washington State rolls over for their software publishers, other states can make it illegal or economically irrational to license software under UCITA because it is against public policy. They can further stop the effect of this law by extending consumer protection statutes to all purchases who are not the position to negotiate terms and conditions of the license.
Encourage your state to pass consumer protection laws that say that any company that uses shrinkwrap agreements to license software have:
Warrants that the product may be tested for 30 days and can be returned for any cause that the customer cause for a full refund at that time;
Self-help reposessors must provide a bond of $1,000,000 or more against any damages that may be caused by self-help repossession;
Companies must at least refund all money spent, at any time during the life of the license, if the product fails to work as described in any documentation from the company.
ZD is just reposting MSNBC reports. Maybe its because MSFT doesn't have anyone doing great hacks on their stuff anymore, that they just lump everyone else together.
I'm not exactly sure I understand the full definition or implication of the phrase "clean room." Is Microsoft able to write a version of Java, as long as it uses no Sun code and is compatible with Sun Java? Does this mean that there could be a GNU Java project that could be called Java as long as it was compatible with Sun?
Not only can you not use Sun's source, but you cannot look at Sun's source to develop your own source. Those developers who have looked at the Sun source cannot be used in developing a clean room implementation because that would taint the clean room.
As for the preliminary rulings, the Sun win was much more important than the two minor and expected Microsoft wins.
People like to say nice things about other people, do nice things for other people, and give nice things to other people. On the whole, humans are naturally gregarious. Self-deprecating acceptance of these things can often be misunderstood as lack of graciousness, even rudeness, especially by those who aren't familiar with you or your demeanor.
Public statements of modesty have so gotten out of hand that now, unfortunately, they almost always ring false. Enjoy the well-deserved complement and give one to someone else.
I had a professor who went to grad school with Bill Joy. It was his opinion that Bill could have presented his BSD work for a Ph D if he were interested.
It appears to me that our legislative system is designed not to be efficient. Sometimes, that is good.
While other parliamentary systems have proportional representation, the UK does not. This means that the majority party in Parliament received its majority even though it did not necessarily receive a majority of votes. Lady Thatcher ruled with an iron hand without a majority. The current parliamentary system in Britain makes the Prime Minister a temporary tyrant who can only be stopped if the backbenchers of his own party rebel. Given that party discipline is traditionally much stronger in the UK than the US, that is normally very unlikely.
Proportional representation gets rid of minority-elected government problem, but replaces it with unstable coalitions (Italy's government falls about once a year, Israel just elected representatives from a dozen parties to their parliament).
I doubt that we would reign in the CIA and NSA if we had a parliamentary system. After all, Congress and the President have already approved what they do, why would that stop?
Think of this as a philosophy text from a mathematician. Some people will see it a gibberish, some will see only the specifics of the text, others will have their thinking jolted by the book. The final group is the one that doesn't "know what it's really about". Every philospher and philosophy professor should be required to read this book once a year. It would do a great job on the "skullful of mush" problem.
The traditional hardware manufacturers (Compaq, Dell, Gateway, Micron, even IBM, etc.) had shown themselves to be craven cowards who would do anything to keep Microsoft from harming them (kind of like a protection racket).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the tip.
I wonder if this is another case where the PoMos are postliterate as well.
I'm not sure about this author, but I did not get that out of Dawkins. Remember, in oversimplified form, for Dawkins, the purpose of life is to replicate genes. If memes can be another tool of genes to replicate themselves, so be it.
Huh?
The law is very generous in the US truth, as in "I made a reasonable effort to find the evidence before I made a statement about this." Despite some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the media, you really have to be indifferent to the truth before you lose a defamation case in the USA.
That was why I argued elsewhere that they should have to show a prima facie case that this was indeed libel. Companies should not be able to break through anonymity just because they are peeved, but they should be able to try to find out who harmed them.
Besides, in this particular case, its still not certain (or apparent to me at least) that what the anonymous poster said about Xircom is false. Regardless, he is still loosing his privacy.
How anonymous was the person originally. Most of these "anonymous" posts are like crank calls, easy enough to trace if you've given someone the incentive to do it.
Solution: don't criminalize speech. Especially just because its in the intrests of some company.
It's not criminal except in very limited circumstances--lying to a court is supposed to be a crime. I really don't want to give liars a free pass.
Whistlblowing is not defamation. Telling people about the evils of someone else's behavior is not defamation. Telling lies to hurt someone is defamation.
If a company can verify that the whistleblower was or may have been telling the truth, they try very quietly to root out the whistleblower and punish him quietly. Anything else is bad PR and getting caught punishing the whistleblower, especially if the company has any commercial relationship with the federal government, is likely to be against the law.
This is not a crime. No one is guilty. That said, you do not have the right to harm people anonymously.
I would like to see the courts require that those who allege that they were defamed to provide a prima facie case that they were defamed before they are given the names of those who appear to have lied about them. Many of these suits appear to be attempts to root out local malcontent employees.
I would like to see the courts require that those who allege that they were defamed to provide a prima facie case that they were defamed before they have a chance to find out who has lied about them. Much of this appears to be an attempt to root out local malcontents.
I decide to go out and make a big deal about it to the media (who probably wouldn't care anyways) but it happens to injure the reputation of the company and it looses shareholders.
This is right on the edge of the definition of this particular law.
Nope, this isn't even close to actionable in the US. Truth is always a complete defense. In the US you aren't likely to get into trouble unless you knew or should have known that you were telling a lie. If you repeat something that turns out to be false, but you reasonably thought was true, you are safe.
I cannot think of a case where defamation would be criminal.
The law would define what the default is if the commercial transaction is covered by the state and your contract is silent on that point. Large companies will not tolerate most of these default provisions. It will only apply to you if you agree to have disputes settled under the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.
Many of the default provisions violate consumer protection statutes, so they will not be effective against home users either. The people who will get screwed if the software publishers have their way are the small businesses that cannot get a company to change the terms and conditions but are not protected by consumer protection laws.
This is a state by state operation. Even if Washington State rolls over for their software publishers, other states can make it illegal or economically irrational to license software under UCITA because it is against public policy. They can further stop the effect of this law by extending consumer protection statutes to all purchases who are not the position to negotiate terms and conditions of the license.
Encourage your state to pass consumer protection laws that say that any company that uses shrinkwrap agreements to license software have:
- Warrants that the product may be tested for 30 days and can be returned for any cause that the customer cause for a full refund at that time;
- Self-help reposessors must provide a bond of $1,000,000 or more against any damages that may be caused by self-help repossession;
- Companies must at least refund all money spent, at any time during the life of the license, if the product fails to work as described in any documentation from the company.
UCITA is a bad idea.The law would define what the default is if the commercial transaction is covered by the state and your contract is silent on that point. Large companies will not tolerate most of these default provisions.
Many of the default provisions violate consumer protection statutes, so they will not be effective against home users either. The people who will get screwed if the software publishers have their way are the small businesses that cannot get a company to change the terms and conditions but are not protected by consumer protection laws.
This is a state by state operation. Even if Washington State rolls over for their software publishers, other states can make it illegal or economically irrational to license software under UCITA because it is against public policy. They can further stop the effect of this law by extending consumer protection statutes to all purchases who are not the position to negotiate terms and conditions of the license.
Encourage your state to pass consumer protection laws that say that any company that uses shrinkwrap agreements to license software have:
- Warrants that the product may be tested for 30 days and can be returned for any cause that the customer cause for a full refund at that time;
- Self-help reposessors must provide a bond of $1,000,000 or more against any damages that may be caused by self-help repossession;
- Companies must at least refund all money spent, at any time during the life of the license, if the product fails to work as described in any documentation from the company.
UCITA is a bad idea.ZD is just reposting MSNBC reports. Maybe its because MSFT doesn't have anyone doing great hacks on their stuff anymore, that they just lump everyone else together.
Not only can you not use Sun's source, but you cannot look at Sun's source to develop your own source. Those developers who have looked at the Sun source cannot be used in developing a clean room implementation because that would taint the clean room.
As for the preliminary rulings, the Sun win was much more important than the two minor and expected Microsoft wins.
People like to say nice things about other people, do nice things for other people, and give nice things to other people. On the whole, humans are naturally gregarious. Self-deprecating acceptance of these things can often be misunderstood as lack of graciousness, even rudeness, especially by those who aren't familiar with you or your demeanor.
Public statements of modesty have so gotten out of hand that now, unfortunately, they almost always ring false. Enjoy the well-deserved complement and give one to someone else.
I had a professor who went to grad school with Bill Joy. It was his opinion that Bill could have presented his BSD work for a Ph D if he were interested.
It appears to me that our legislative system is designed not to be efficient. Sometimes, that is good.
While other parliamentary systems have proportional representation, the UK does not. This means that the majority party in Parliament received its majority even though it did not necessarily receive a majority of votes. Lady Thatcher ruled with an iron hand without a majority. The current parliamentary system in Britain makes the Prime Minister a temporary tyrant who can only be stopped if the backbenchers of his own party rebel. Given that party discipline is traditionally much stronger in the UK than the US, that is normally very unlikely.
Proportional representation gets rid of minority-elected government problem, but replaces it with unstable coalitions (Italy's government falls about once a year, Israel just elected representatives from a dozen parties to their parliament).
I doubt that we would reign in the CIA and NSA if we had a parliamentary system. After all, Congress and the President have already approved what they do, why would that stop?
Plato, eat your heart out.
Think of this as a philosophy text from a mathematician. Some people will see it a gibberish, some will see only the specifics of the text, others will have their thinking jolted by the book. The final group is the one that doesn't "know what it's really about". Every philospher and philosophy professor should be required to read this book once a year. It would do a great job on the "skullful of mush" problem.
They also have a number of different site names for their e-mail to go to. Some mail is directed to gorewebsite.com and bounces.
I noticed that The Onion is now available in spotty distribution around the country. Do they charge for it in some places? Or is it free everywhere?
If these are local calls that go from one telco to another one, the originating telco pays the completing telco.
If these are called long distance calls, the originating telco does not pay the completing telco.
And there is a welfare program for suburbanites and farmers in there that might be affected, too.
The traditional hardware manufacturers (Compaq, Dell, Gateway, Micron, even IBM, etc.) had shown themselves to be craven cowards who would do anything to keep Microsoft from harming them (kind of like a protection racket).
If you could provide one piece of evidence for creation, I would appreciate it. You know it would be the first one.