What makes you think that they have no backup security? Even the Slashdot article did not imply that Medeco locks were all that protected the Whitehouse and the Pentagon.
> In the absence of law, providers, such as Google, will write naturally terms of use that > mostly benefit themselves.
Real providers with whom you have a contract are obligated by law to do whatever the contract says they have to do (assuming that you hold up your end by paying the bill). Advertising agencies such as Google that provide free services for promotional purposes have no legal obligations to their "users" whatever. Nor should they.
The only data S-O requires Google to back up is their own financial data. They have no legal obligation whatsoever to the users of their free services. They could delete all of the OP's data right now for any reason or none and he would have no recourse.
>...the San Francisco Chronicle opines that the US Federal courts are likely to fall in > line with the decision in the way they interpret California law.
Of course they will. The California Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on California law.
> Most other states still have non-compete laws on the books...
No. They do not have anti-non-compete laws on the books.
>...and it's not clear this ruling will affect them.
It is perfectly clear how this ruling will affect them: not at all. They are not California.
Or, if you want to go high-tech, have make transparencies and arrange for an overhead projector at each site. I hear you can even make transparencies with a computer these days.
I know what cookies are, how they work, and what they do. I went to www.cuil.com and immediately clicked on the "About" link. There were no "preferences" to be saved.
But then, the search function won't work without Javascript and the "info" page garbles itself in my browser (Firefox 3.0) so I'm not surprised at the superfluous cookies.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you read that?
What makes you think that they have no backup security? Even the Slashdot article did not imply that Medeco locks were all that protected the Whitehouse and the Pentagon.
> In the absence of law, providers, such as Google, will write naturally terms of use that
> mostly benefit themselves.
Real providers with whom you have a contract are obligated by law to do whatever the contract says they have to do (assuming that you hold up your end by paying the bill). Advertising agencies such as Google that provide free services for promotional purposes have no legal obligations to their "users" whatever. Nor should they.
> Has anyone ever tried calling them? I've never dealt with Google's customer service,
> but they may be helpful.
I'm sure they are, for customers. This guy, however, is not a customer. He is a user of a free service.
The only data S-O requires Google to back up is their own financial data. They have no legal obligation whatsoever to the users of their free services. They could delete all of the OP's data right now for any reason or none and he would have no recourse.
> Google has their own backups I am sure.
What makes you think that they back up the users' data? (Note: users, not customers.)
Perhaps you might want to read up on just what a meteor actually is. Hint: all meteors are "near Earth".
> ...customers didn't book with them direct...
The customers might be able to make a case that the sites were acting as their agents.
> ...the San Francisco Chronicle opines that the US Federal courts are likely to fall in
> line with the decision in the way they interpret California law.
Of course they will. The California Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on California law.
> Most other states still have non-compete laws on the books...
No. They do not have anti-non-compete laws on the books.
> ...and it's not clear this ruling will affect them.
It is perfectly clear how this ruling will affect them: not at all. They are not California.
No. And "grammer" is not correct either.
> Their professor, George Ledin, has showed them how to penetrate even the best antivirus
> software.
That and $.10 will get you a year's supply of fake Viagra.
> So little of what the TSA is doing is any more than illusion.
"Any more"?
> Like the patriot graph.
No. The Patriot Tree (Yes, I know it isn't a tree, but we're talking marketing now. Details don't matter.)
Just add all those names to the no-fly list.
They were voluntarily handed over.
> I thought we'd gotten away from the days of "e"-everything.
Right. Now we're into the days of "i"-everything.
Perhaps he should try getting his software from someone who creates it with their brains instead of their muscle.
Well?
...an easel, and some Magic Markers.
Or, if you want to go high-tech, have make transparencies and arrange for an overhead projector at each site. I hear you can even make transparencies with a computer these days.
By biting the heads off live chickens.
From the article:
I read that as three alerts, only one of which is an "actual event". It could still be useful if applied properly, of course.
> You could actually HIRE HUMANS, say 20 of'em, at $75K each to watch 5 screens each, and
> have a 1:1 ratio of accuracy.
Never pulled guard duty, did you? you won't get a "1:1 ratio of accuracy" even if you hire someone for each individual camera.
...once it becomes known what sets it off.
> and how long do you honestly expect that to last?
If they keep on as they are it will have no trouble lasting the entire life of the company.
I know what cookies are, how they work, and what they do. I went to www.cuil.com and immediately clicked on the "About" link. There were no "preferences" to be saved.
But then, the search function won't work without Javascript and the "info" page garbles itself in my browser (Firefox 3.0) so I'm not surprised at the superfluous cookies.