So Google gets to run a stay resident updater. Now, every other software publisher whose software you have installed starts to do the same. That 500k is now 500k x # of Publishers.
Offer the updater, to those like you who want it. But provide a means to disable it, or change its behavior, for those who choose to do that.
Google is offering no choice in the matter except to not use their software at all.
That restriction is only in place in 2 states that I am aware of, Virginia and Massachusetts. In California, they are completely unenforceable, even if entered into out of state.
Other than that, they are generally considered enforceable throughout the US, and in most countries around the world.
That said, I think it would be unreasonable for anyone to demand a perpetual non-compete. Reasonable terms of say 2-3 years outside of the termination of your work for the company perhaps, but then I'd insist that the compensation take that non-compete into account.
But as for perpetual, I wouldn't sign it, flat out. Scratch it out, pencil in a substitution with a limit you are comfortable with, and resubmit it.
Cricket is offering (in a very few select markets) $40 unlimited usage wireless data service. The interviews/marketing they have done for it say they are truly meaning unlimited (though they do say that continuous non-stop use is not permitted, they specifically say there is no secret hidden limit). They discount it $5/mo if you also have wireless phone service with them.
"We expect our customers will be heavy, heavy data users, and we've never thought limits were a good idea," said Cricket senior manager for corporate communications Greg Lund.
Yes, they first endorsed it. Then they retracted it, and overturned that endorsement. It happened long before this was posted on slashdot.
Does that make the discussion moot? No, and the situation is far from resolved yet. But it means that he now has the right to appeal and it removes much of the pressure off of the Afghan President so that he has the option now to pardon the poor guy without being denouced as loudly.
American can bring democracy to a country, but every democracy, including our own, will go through periods where they do things that....to others and outsiders, and to those of their own who will come later, seem antethical to democracy. Slavery comes to mind for us, but that is by far not the only example. New democracies are not perfect, and we can't "impose" a perfect democracy.
But to anyone who says that this an example of why we should not have gotten involved, or that this is an example of things being as bad or worse than before, they are just plain being ignorant, idealistic, and unreasonable.
If the teacher told the student to close firefox, end of story, close firefox, work the rest out later. There is not time in the middle of a class working on an assignment to explain it to the teacher and get approval, like I said, there is a time and a place for doing that, and the middle of a class is NOT the time.
Because to determine if the kid is correct, and that his actions don't present a possible problem, cannot simply be resolved like that in the middle of class.
There was no harm in the student following the VERY reasonable instruction he was given, and then he could have pursued available options AFTER the fact to resolve the issue. Disobedience in the moment is NOT a reasonable course of action for the student, and would CERTAINLY warrant displinary action, and detention is not unreasonable.
Those are great points about firefox. And it would have been great to have them made to the teacher and to the school. But the time to do that was NOT in the middle of class in a classroom. The right thing to do, since there was no harm in following the immediate instruction, was to FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION, and then later find a way to make the excellent points you brought up, by talking to the teacher one on one, outside of class, or if necessary through other channels in the school.
THAT Would have been an appropriate way to handle it, simply saying that because the student was right, he didn't have to follow instruction is irresponsible and doesn't take into account the realities of classrooms, nor does it send the right message to our kids about how to properly handle their problems, how to utilize problem solving skills, or about how to pick and choose their fights.
You are very right about most of your points, however, just because hte student has found something the teacher isn't aware of does not mean that he disrupts the class when the teacher has given him/her an instruction. Even if, as in the hoax case that started this whole thread, the student is correct in that firefox could have been used to complete the assignment, that does NOT excuse him for not following the instruction.
Critical thinking and problem solving would mean he would follow the instruction, since there is NO immediate harm in not following it, and then seek to resolve the issue later with the teacher one on one, or via the appropriate school channels, resulting in the teacher being properly educated in a way that does not disrupt the class situation (of having to be in charge and directing 30+ other students through the same course work), and in the student learning how to handle his problems correctly in the future.
Hmmm, seems to me that I did explain myself. Perhaps you should go back and read my post.
His instruction to stop using firefox was not unreasonable. If he had told him to strip naked, that's unreasonable. Had he told him to strike another student, that's unreasonable. But please explain to me the harm in following the instruction to stop using firefox that makes it warrant immediate disobediance, rather than following simple problem solving skills to resolve the issue in a more appropriate fashion, in a more appropriate method?
If the hypothetical kid was being expelled for not following this single instruction for the first time, you may have had a point. But since that wasn't the case, the hypothetical kid was being given an appropriate punishment, and thus you are being nothing but over dramatic.
Now if the kid had a long history of disobediance, had many detentions and suspensions for his disobediance, then maybe a more harsh punishment would have been in order. In this case, had it been real, the kid would have served detention, NOT for using Firefox, but for not following the instruction of his teacher.
Uh, no. It doens't show that the kid can think for himself and solve his own problems. If he could do those things, he would have complied with the teachers command in situ and then later found time to talk to the teacher when it would not be disruptive to the classroom and made his case. Then the teacher would have more information on which to base their decision and could seek guidance from those in the school or district or can be trusted to provide advice to the teacher on these types of situations.
THAT would have been a great way of showing good problem solving skills. Disobeying during class, just because he didn't see a valid reason for the instruction, only shows that he has no respect for authority, and no sense of how to properly deal with problems and difficult situations.
Yes, I know this whole story is a hoax, but had it been real, the detention would have certainly been valid, and the kid would have hopefully learned a very very important lesson about how to handle those types of situations not only in the rest of his academic life, but in his "real" life as well.
Yeah, what these people who are saying the hypothetical kid did was correct do not understand the logical extension of their positions.
Say the kid was stopped by the police for something he didn't do. He knows he didn't do it, the cop is convinced he did. The cop tells him that he is being detained, and goes to handcuff the kid. Should the kid fight the cop to prevent being handcuffed for suspicion of something he didn't do? No, and if he did, the Tazing, Macing, or ass kicking he would get as a result, not to mention the then VERY VALID charge of resisting arrest, would be entirely justified.
In the described situation in the classroom, you teach the kid to comply with the teacher, and then seek to talk to the teacher in a private discussion and explain what he was doing, to prevent future misunderstandings. The teacher can then check it out with the school's IT staff or others who are entrusted to make those decisions, and if the student is still not happy, then he should continue to comply with the request not to run firefox in class while he goes throughs channels to see if the policy can be changed. That is the responsible way to teach our kids to handle their problems. To teach them that they do not have to obey someone in a position of authority just because they know they are in the right is to teach them the entirely wrong way of resolving things in the real world.
Part of teaching kids to become adults is teaching them the proper way of handling things. Anyone who thinks you should be teaching kids to disobey anything that they do not agree with simply because they do not see a justification for the instruction, is quite simply being an idiot. If this had been a real situation and not a hoax, the student should have immediately complied, and then later perhaps sought to talk to the teacher and explain his side of the situation. Disobeying in the moment, in front of the entire class, is NEVER the appropriate way to go unless the request being made is clearly unreasonable (such as an order to strip naked in front of the class). There is clearly a distinction between things that are unreasonable and reasonable, and the situation described in this hoax situation is not one where disobediance is a reasonable response.
Yeah, not to mention that these people who are complaining about this have no problem when someone of their own political belief slant engages in the same behaviors to make their points. They see that as just standard operating procedure, and correct, because the result is something they agree with. But god forbid, when those who are on the other side of the issue do it, its PROPOGANDA and every other negative buzz word they can throw at it.
Someone tell me since when has it been unlawful for the government to go out and make its case and drum up PR for its policies and actions? It's ok when its a policy (or government for that matter) that they support, no that's not "PROPOGANDA", but when they don't support the administration or policy, its something sinister and bad.
This type of thing really gets very old, and that slashdot is so full of it is one of the reasons slashdot continues to decline as a place of useful and interesting information.
I don't know, to me the morons are those commenting here who just took CmdrTaco's words as true without checking the facts. Had any of you actually READ the bill, you would see just how far CmdrTaco has slipped from reality.
Shame on him, shame on this site. I could forgive the political "slant" that we always see in anything marginally political posted on the site, but this time, its an outright lie about what the bill says and does. There is NO way any reasonable person could read the bill and come to any rational conclusion that looks anything at all like CmdrTaco's summary.
Whatever thin vestige of credibility this site had as a "news" site is gone with this post.
Burglary, there has always been a distinction between "commercial" and "residential" burglary, and in most states if the residents are in the home when it is being burglarized there an enhancement that makes it a violent crime, just for them being in the home, even if they are unaware of the burglary in progress.
There are many many others, it has been enshrined in laws for hundreds of years.
But DUI is not a bad example anyway. The laws were changed because the society felt that the punishments needed to be more severe because of the great potential for harm as a result of the action, even if that harm didn't come about during the commission of the specific act in question. That is how the law works and evolves.
Throughout history punishment for crimes has always taken into account what could have happened as a result of an act above what actually happened, and used that as an aggravating factor for increased sentencing. As I pointed out in the DUI example, that very principle is enshrined throughout our legal system in the US.
1) these are not "kids" they are adults
2) crime + computer =! light punishment
And it is VASTLY different than breaking into a teacher's desk. You are breaking into the systems of university. Even if you only intended to change a grade or two, the potential for damage as a result of careless or reckless actions is huge. And they have no way of knowing if you did something more severe or not. Further, they continued to break into the system numerous times, making numerous grade changes. They had the usernames and passwords of numerous administrators, and who knows what else they could have accessed with those had they tried.
Besides when someone is being charged, they ALWAYS charge everything they can.
It's like the shoplifter, where the police have a reasonable belief that the person intended to commit the shoplifting when they entered the store, then finds herself charged with Burglary. Entering the premises with the intent to commmit is the definition of burglary.
So they will charge everything initially, and then as the prosecutor gets a more full picture of the case, the defendents, and the extent of the crimes committed, what actually goes to trial or is negotiated in a plea deal is a different issue entirely.
And yes, when someone is arrested for a crime, you aren't just punishing them for the harm they caused, but for the harm they could have caused as well. For example, a DUI driver who hurt no one and caused no property damage can still go to prison for multiple offenses.
It is interesting that almost all the states are Democratic led, and that we are in an election cycle as this all comes about....
That said, they are actually suing because the EPA was supposed to grant an exemption to California, that also would allow the states to adopt California's standards in place of the less restrictive federal ones. This is an area where the Federal government has claimed absolute authority, not allowing states to regulate beyond the federal rules even if they pass stricter ones. The law in question included a provision for the exemption to grandfather California in, and to be fair to the other states, give them the option of adopting California's standard. The EPA has dragged its feet on this exemption, and that is what is at the heart of this alleged lawsuit.
I wonder how they plan to get around Sovereign Immunity though. The tort claims act requires a federal employee to have acted in a manner in which he knew he was causing damages to the injured party, and the Tucker Act requires that the US be a party to a contract that is in dispute in the case. Absent that, the Congress has to grant permission through passing a bill, that then must be signed and approved by the President (or have his Veto overriden) to authorize lawsuits of a particular type/subject matter (referred to as Abrogating Immunity).
But...our current Surpreme Court may actually be very sympathetic to the principles behind this suit. Already they have handed down a series of decisions dramatically curtailing the power of the federal government to compel the states to observe laws passed by Congress or agency regulations implementing them under the banner of states' rights. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, Justice Thomas affirmed a virtually boundless proposition that the states are sovereign powers, absolutely coequal with the national government. States's Rights can only be expected to be strengthened by the current court, not weakened.
So it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. The Government may see the way the court has been moving with regard to States' Rights decisions, and act to curtail this case from getting there to prevent a further erosion of the government's ability to use the big stick to get the states in line.
You know, that would all be true, except...well, if it isn't. And it isn't.
If Apple is offering warranty service to their customer, they don't get to pick and choose which ones to offer it to. And the laws regarding consumer protections and warranties provide that certain types of exclusions to get out of providing their contractually obligated warranty service are not lawful, and give consumers certain rights.
They can put into their warranty documents any conditions they like, but it doesn't mean that those conditions are legal and will be upheld.
Non-profits are not the only type of entity that would fall under a catch all. Like I said, org was the original "catch all" generic tld, intended for any use. One of the stated foreseen usages at inception was for individuals, actually, more so than anything. It was always that way, and ICANN preserved its heritage when it was granted to the PIR to run it, that though they could develop a "Brand" around non-profits using it, they were specifically instructed to maintain its generic use status and allow any use of it. org was a generic 3 letter reference, and was "pronounceable" like the other 3 letter TLDs.
There is nothing in the history of domain policy indicating that.org was ever intended as a restricted use domain for non-profits.
"It was an art project, meant to entertain career-day visitors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.I.T. sophomore assured security officials after she had been arrested at Boston's airport yesterday."
She did not say that it was an art project until AFTER she was taken into custody. And I've not seen any news report that contradicts that. I've seen some that didn't specify, and I can see how someone could mistakenly come to that conclusion, but any report that started specifics on it has stated she didn't say it until she was in custody. In fact, she did not answer at all when asked before she was arrested.
Slashdot Mirror
And every time you rerun one of the google apps, it reloads the updater and sets it to auto run again.
So no, this isn't a solution.
So Google gets to run a stay resident updater. Now, every other software publisher whose software you have installed starts to do the same. That 500k is now 500k x # of Publishers.
Offer the updater, to those like you who want it. But provide a means to disable it, or change its behavior, for those who choose to do that.
Google is offering no choice in the matter except to not use their software at all.
That restriction is only in place in 2 states that I am aware of, Virginia and Massachusetts. In California, they are completely unenforceable, even if entered into out of state. Other than that, they are generally considered enforceable throughout the US, and in most countries around the world. That said, I think it would be unreasonable for anyone to demand a perpetual non-compete. Reasonable terms of say 2-3 years outside of the termination of your work for the company perhaps, but then I'd insist that the compensation take that non-compete into account. But as for perpetual, I wouldn't sign it, flat out. Scratch it out, pencil in a substitution with a limit you are comfortable with, and resubmit it.
Cricket is offering (in a very few select markets) $40 unlimited usage wireless data service. The interviews/marketing they have done for it say they are truly meaning unlimited (though they do say that continuous non-stop use is not permitted, they specifically say there is no secret hidden limit). They discount it $5/mo if you also have wireless phone service with them.
From the articlewhere I found out about it:
Yes, they first endorsed it. Then they retracted it, and overturned that endorsement. It happened long before this was posted on slashdot.
Does that make the discussion moot? No, and the situation is far from resolved yet. But it means that he now has the right to appeal and it removes much of the pressure off of the Afghan President so that he has the option now to pardon the poor guy without being denouced as loudly.
American can bring democracy to a country, but every democracy, including our own, will go through periods where they do things that....to others and outsiders, and to those of their own who will come later, seem antethical to democracy. Slavery comes to mind for us, but that is by far not the only example. New democracies are not perfect, and we can't "impose" a perfect democracy.
But to anyone who says that this an example of why we should not have gotten involved, or that this is an example of things being as bad or worse than before, they are just plain being ignorant, idealistic, and unreasonable.
Long before this was posted, the Afghan senate voted to overturn the death sentence.
If the teacher told the student to close firefox, end of story, close firefox, work the rest out later. There is not time in the middle of a class working on an assignment to explain it to the teacher and get approval, like I said, there is a time and a place for doing that, and the middle of a class is NOT the time.
Because to determine if the kid is correct, and that his actions don't present a possible problem, cannot simply be resolved like that in the middle of class.
There was no harm in the student following the VERY reasonable instruction he was given, and then he could have pursued available options AFTER the fact to resolve the issue. Disobedience in the moment is NOT a reasonable course of action for the student, and would CERTAINLY warrant displinary action, and detention is not unreasonable.
Those are great points about firefox. And it would have been great to have them made to the teacher and to the school. But the time to do that was NOT in the middle of class in a classroom. The right thing to do, since there was no harm in following the immediate instruction, was to FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION, and then later find a way to make the excellent points you brought up, by talking to the teacher one on one, outside of class, or if necessary through other channels in the school.
THAT Would have been an appropriate way to handle it, simply saying that because the student was right, he didn't have to follow instruction is irresponsible and doesn't take into account the realities of classrooms, nor does it send the right message to our kids about how to properly handle their problems, how to utilize problem solving skills, or about how to pick and choose their fights.
You are very right about most of your points, however, just because hte student has found something the teacher isn't aware of does not mean that he disrupts the class when the teacher has given him/her an instruction. Even if, as in the hoax case that started this whole thread, the student is correct in that firefox could have been used to complete the assignment, that does NOT excuse him for not following the instruction.
Critical thinking and problem solving would mean he would follow the instruction, since there is NO immediate harm in not following it, and then seek to resolve the issue later with the teacher one on one, or via the appropriate school channels, resulting in the teacher being properly educated in a way that does not disrupt the class situation (of having to be in charge and directing 30+ other students through the same course work), and in the student learning how to handle his problems correctly in the future.
Hmmm, seems to me that I did explain myself. Perhaps you should go back and read my post.
His instruction to stop using firefox was not unreasonable. If he had told him to strip naked, that's unreasonable. Had he told him to strike another student, that's unreasonable. But please explain to me the harm in following the instruction to stop using firefox that makes it warrant immediate disobediance, rather than following simple problem solving skills to resolve the issue in a more appropriate fashion, in a more appropriate method?
If the hypothetical kid was being expelled for not following this single instruction for the first time, you may have had a point. But since that wasn't the case, the hypothetical kid was being given an appropriate punishment, and thus you are being nothing but over dramatic.
Now if the kid had a long history of disobediance, had many detentions and suspensions for his disobediance, then maybe a more harsh punishment would have been in order. In this case, had it been real, the kid would have served detention, NOT for using Firefox, but for not following the instruction of his teacher.
Uh, no. It doens't show that the kid can think for himself and solve his own problems. If he could do those things, he would have complied with the teachers command in situ and then later found time to talk to the teacher when it would not be disruptive to the classroom and made his case. Then the teacher would have more information on which to base their decision and could seek guidance from those in the school or district or can be trusted to provide advice to the teacher on these types of situations.
THAT would have been a great way of showing good problem solving skills. Disobeying during class, just because he didn't see a valid reason for the instruction, only shows that he has no respect for authority, and no sense of how to properly deal with problems and difficult situations.
Yes, I know this whole story is a hoax, but had it been real, the detention would have certainly been valid, and the kid would have hopefully learned a very very important lesson about how to handle those types of situations not only in the rest of his academic life, but in his "real" life as well.
Yeah, what these people who are saying the hypothetical kid did was correct do not understand the logical extension of their positions.
Say the kid was stopped by the police for something he didn't do. He knows he didn't do it, the cop is convinced he did. The cop tells him that he is being detained, and goes to handcuff the kid. Should the kid fight the cop to prevent being handcuffed for suspicion of something he didn't do? No, and if he did, the Tazing, Macing, or ass kicking he would get as a result, not to mention the then VERY VALID charge of resisting arrest, would be entirely justified.
In the described situation in the classroom, you teach the kid to comply with the teacher, and then seek to talk to the teacher in a private discussion and explain what he was doing, to prevent future misunderstandings. The teacher can then check it out with the school's IT staff or others who are entrusted to make those decisions, and if the student is still not happy, then he should continue to comply with the request not to run firefox in class while he goes throughs channels to see if the policy can be changed. That is the responsible way to teach our kids to handle their problems. To teach them that they do not have to obey someone in a position of authority just because they know they are in the right is to teach them the entirely wrong way of resolving things in the real world.
I'm guessing you are a teenager?
Part of teaching kids to become adults is teaching them the proper way of handling things. Anyone who thinks you should be teaching kids to disobey anything that they do not agree with simply because they do not see a justification for the instruction, is quite simply being an idiot. If this had been a real situation and not a hoax, the student should have immediately complied, and then later perhaps sought to talk to the teacher and explain his side of the situation. Disobeying in the moment, in front of the entire class, is NEVER the appropriate way to go unless the request being made is clearly unreasonable (such as an order to strip naked in front of the class). There is clearly a distinction between things that are unreasonable and reasonable, and the situation described in this hoax situation is not one where disobediance is a reasonable response.
Yeah, not to mention that these people who are complaining about this have no problem when someone of their own political belief slant engages in the same behaviors to make their points. They see that as just standard operating procedure, and correct, because the result is something they agree with. But god forbid, when those who are on the other side of the issue do it, its PROPOGANDA and every other negative buzz word they can throw at it.
Someone tell me since when has it been unlawful for the government to go out and make its case and drum up PR for its policies and actions? It's ok when its a policy (or government for that matter) that they support, no that's not "PROPOGANDA", but when they don't support the administration or policy, its something sinister and bad.
This type of thing really gets very old, and that slashdot is so full of it is one of the reasons slashdot continues to decline as a place of useful and interesting information.
I don't know, to me the morons are those commenting here who just took CmdrTaco's words as true without checking the facts. Had any of you actually READ the bill, you would see just how far CmdrTaco has slipped from reality.
Shame on him, shame on this site. I could forgive the political "slant" that we always see in anything marginally political posted on the site, but this time, its an outright lie about what the bill says and does. There is NO way any reasonable person could read the bill and come to any rational conclusion that looks anything at all like CmdrTaco's summary.
Whatever thin vestige of credibility this site had as a "news" site is gone with this post.
Burglary, there has always been a distinction between "commercial" and "residential" burglary, and in most states if the residents are in the home when it is being burglarized there an enhancement that makes it a violent crime, just for them being in the home, even if they are unaware of the burglary in progress.
There are many many others, it has been enshrined in laws for hundreds of years.
But DUI is not a bad example anyway. The laws were changed because the society felt that the punishments needed to be more severe because of the great potential for harm as a result of the action, even if that harm didn't come about during the commission of the specific act in question. That is how the law works and evolves.
Throughout history punishment for crimes has always taken into account what could have happened as a result of an act above what actually happened, and used that as an aggravating factor for increased sentencing. As I pointed out in the DUI example, that very principle is enshrined throughout our legal system in the US.
1) these are not "kids" they are adults 2) crime + computer =! light punishment And it is VASTLY different than breaking into a teacher's desk. You are breaking into the systems of university. Even if you only intended to change a grade or two, the potential for damage as a result of careless or reckless actions is huge. And they have no way of knowing if you did something more severe or not. Further, they continued to break into the system numerous times, making numerous grade changes. They had the usernames and passwords of numerous administrators, and who knows what else they could have accessed with those had they tried. Besides when someone is being charged, they ALWAYS charge everything they can. It's like the shoplifter, where the police have a reasonable belief that the person intended to commit the shoplifting when they entered the store, then finds herself charged with Burglary. Entering the premises with the intent to commmit is the definition of burglary. So they will charge everything initially, and then as the prosecutor gets a more full picture of the case, the defendents, and the extent of the crimes committed, what actually goes to trial or is negotiated in a plea deal is a different issue entirely. And yes, when someone is arrested for a crime, you aren't just punishing them for the harm they caused, but for the harm they could have caused as well. For example, a DUI driver who hurt no one and caused no property damage can still go to prison for multiple offenses.
It is interesting that almost all the states are Democratic led, and that we are in an election cycle as this all comes about....
That said, they are actually suing because the EPA was supposed to grant an exemption to California, that also would allow the states to adopt California's standards in place of the less restrictive federal ones. This is an area where the Federal government has claimed absolute authority, not allowing states to regulate beyond the federal rules even if they pass stricter ones. The law in question included a provision for the exemption to grandfather California in, and to be fair to the other states, give them the option of adopting California's standard. The EPA has dragged its feet on this exemption, and that is what is at the heart of this alleged lawsuit.
I wonder how they plan to get around Sovereign Immunity though. The tort claims act requires a federal employee to have acted in a manner in which he knew he was causing damages to the injured party, and the Tucker Act requires that the US be a party to a contract that is in dispute in the case. Absent that, the Congress has to grant permission through passing a bill, that then must be signed and approved by the President (or have his Veto overriden) to authorize lawsuits of a particular type/subject matter (referred to as Abrogating Immunity).
But...our current Surpreme Court may actually be very sympathetic to the principles behind this suit. Already they have handed down a series of decisions dramatically curtailing the power of the federal government to compel the states to observe laws passed by Congress or agency regulations implementing them under the banner of states' rights. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, Justice Thomas affirmed a virtually boundless proposition that the states are sovereign powers, absolutely coequal with the national government. States's Rights can only be expected to be strengthened by the current court, not weakened.
So it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. The Government may see the way the court has been moving with regard to States' Rights decisions, and act to curtail this case from getting there to prevent a further erosion of the government's ability to use the big stick to get the states in line.
Not in the US, the right against self-incrimination is absolute, and has resisted any attempt to weaken it.
You know, that would all be true, except...well, if it isn't. And it isn't.
If Apple is offering warranty service to their customer, they don't get to pick and choose which ones to offer it to. And the laws regarding consumer protections and warranties provide that certain types of exclusions to get out of providing their contractually obligated warranty service are not lawful, and give consumers certain rights.
They can put into their warranty documents any conditions they like, but it doesn't mean that those conditions are legal and will be upheld.
Non-profits are not the only type of entity that would fall under a catch all. Like I said, org was the original "catch all" generic tld, intended for any use. One of the stated foreseen usages at inception was for individuals, actually, more so than anything. It was always that way, and ICANN preserved its heritage when it was granted to the PIR to run it, that though they could develop a "Brand" around non-profits using it, they were specifically instructed to maintain its generic use status and allow any use of it. org was a generic 3 letter reference, and was "pronounceable" like the other 3 letter TLDs.
.org was ever intended as a restricted use domain for non-profits.
There is nothing in the history of domain policy indicating that
Try again....
"It was an art project, meant to entertain career-day visitors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.I.T. sophomore assured security officials after she had been arrested at Boston's airport yesterday."
She did not say that it was an art project until AFTER she was taken into custody. And I've not seen any news report that contradicts that. I've seen some that didn't specify, and I can see how someone could mistakenly come to that conclusion, but any report that started specifics on it has stated she didn't say it until she was in custody. In fact, she did not answer at all when asked before she was arrested.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/us/22airport.html?ref=us