This is no different from leaving your door unlocked and getting robbed. It does not take away from the guilt of the robber, but you could have easily prevented it by locking the door.
She could have prevented those pics from being posted by not posing for them in the first place.
I doubt much of anything will come of this. Since she is the model in the images, she was not the photographer and therefore has no claim to the images whatsoever. Since she is merely going for their removal, she was more than likely a willing participant in the photo shoot.
That being so, while it may be embarassing for her to have to deal with those images getting out, that is the risk you take when you engage in that behavior. She was supposed to think of the consequences before she agreed to be photographed.
The boyfriend might be open to criminal charges depending on if Oregon has laws against posting pictures of that nature without the consent of the individual(s) modeling for the shot. Or he might be liable for inciting harassment on either a criminal or civil level.
I hope Yahoo stands their ground on this one. This woman made her bed, now it is time to sleep in it.
Your sister in one person who actually purchases something from these shops versus many more who don't.
Say the shop makes $3/hr profit from each seat in the place. Your sister contributes her $3 but 10 people are in there for 4 hours using the Wi-Fi and not buying anything. So the owner has your sister's $3 from the one hour she was there but has lost $120 from those 10 seats.
Re:I applaud Vodafone.
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 1
I would add Individual Ringtones to your list. People make fun of me for demanding that feature saying it is a frill, but to me it is more important than having a second display on the outside.
I love how I can assign each different person a ringtone and so when one plays I know who it is so I can either pull it out and take the call or reach into my pocket and silence the phone.
Because now we can get cheap booze online. Before I stumbled upon it in Whole Foods, I would have to drive almost an hour and a half depending on how I-275/696 where to get the meade I like since I could not mail order it.
With the disappearance of older PCI slots, how do you intend to use the cards you have now?
My Pentium II Xeon motherboard has around 6 32-bit PCI slots. My Intel Xeon motherboard that I replaced that system with only has 4 as two slots were replaced by 64bit PCI slots. I used 5 slots on the Pentium II Xeon so two cards had to go.
Thankfully the new motherboard came with an ethernet controller built into it so that card was nuked. The only other option I would have had would have been to drop the money on a 64Bit SCSI controller.
My next system will require me to do even more dropping and change my video card since my Quadro 4 is AGP and those are not used on Xeon64 motherboards. And the best configuration I see for a board of the brands I like is 2 or 3 standard PCI slots. Which means I wil lhave to sacrifice another card which thankfully the USB 2.0 one can remain in the Xeon 2.8 system it is in now.
The laptop in question was a retail model so there is no "choice" in the OS other than buying a $200 upgrade in the store.
Second, HP was not going to offer the 64bit version of XP which my friend was going to buy but HP for some reason thought that their customers would not want a 64bit version of Windows to go with their 64bit laptops. Plus HP had serious honesty issues in telling my friend who owns the laptop that the machine would not run it. Imagine the tech's embarassment when my friend told him that the last beta copy worked just fine for him on it.
The fact his copy is ineligable for MS' trade-in is just salt in the wound. But apparently MS got a little ticked off at HP and things are changing.
HP has behaved like this in the past. They lied about the $400 iPaq a lot of people bought not being upgradable to 2003 SE (in spite of the fact a lot of it was written and tested on it) so you'll drop another $400+ to buy a new one to get it.
They make AMD64 notebooks that come with Windows XP Home and then screw customers out WinXP 64Bit by not offering themselves and by shipping them with XP Home making them ineligable for Microsoft's trade-in program.
You know I heard that Canadians call Americans that as some sort of insult. As much as I like Canada, you guys need to come up with a new one since that one has been around for ages and really only insults the states the comprised the Confederate States during the Civil War.
God I love the arrogance of the US. It is shit like this that shows that the US really is imperialistic. If it cannot invade other countries like Iraq, it tries to subvert the legal system to make the laws echo its own.
I still do not see why the US even needs the DMCA. There is nothing in that law other than dismantling of fair use rights that is not covered by either pre-existing copyright law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. If we do not need it, no other country does.
And why is Canada such a big deal? You would think they would want a place like China where piracy is rampant to adopt a DMCA before Canada. But then again Chinese courts have not ruled downloading MP3s off the net legal like Canadian courts did.
$30/mo is the full price of contractual monthly service.
I quickly went to their site and configured a phone using my Zip and the option to add it was not there. Their site about the hotspots did not include anything about bundling so I assumed it was not an option.
I wonder if SBC does the same for Cingular customers. But then again the only SBC AP I know of is at Barnes & Noble which sucks here because it's between a bigger Borders store a block away and Borders Store #001 is nearby in the other direction.
My own personal belief is that this stems from resource control. Companies pay their employees for the time and they pay service providers for the connection and that meny gets wasted when people are not doing their jobs and the resources are being used for personal gain. I know it seems like a small thing but it probably stems from an "all of nothing" policy.
In addition, as someone earlier pointed out in an earlier post, the company may also be shielding itself from litigation if one staff member is creating an intolerable environment through any of the usual vehicles (racism, sexism, sexual harassment, etc.) and while the instigator is the cause they are not a good source monetary gain whereas the company is and it is fairly easy to convince a jury the company was negligent. Additionally, what happens if an employee shows up on RIAA/MPAA's radar?
The expectation is that companies are be omnicient and omnipresent in regards to their staff's activities even though it is not realistic.
The main issue I have with this is that companies do not even *tell* their employees which to me ought to be illegal. When I worked for a system integrator/support agency there was a client who would monitor e-mails and refused to inform his employees. So my co-worker who was their regular support rep would sit down with new employees and during account creation would inform them of the monitoring.
How companies handle it leaves much to be desired too. Another coworker from that system integrator I used to work for has a brilliant strategy for how companies should deal with net abuse - simply drag the offender in, put the fear of god into them, and then let word of the infraction spread. It generally worked too because after one company put that into practice, abuse of the internet connection ceased. Every so often someone would test and see if the company dropped its gaurd and the process repeats itself.
You have hit one of the nails right on the head. In our lawsuit-happy society this is an unfortunate step some companies need to take. Juries have been known to side with the victim even though the victim never went to HR/management about it or they did and were not satisfied with results that were not instantaneous. I would love to sit on one of those juries and derail it.
Is this supposed to shock anyone? A business charging money for a service is nothing new folks.
If Verizon/TMobile/SBC/etc were smart though, they would bundle the services. Have DSL or Cell service and for an extra $5/$10 you get unlimited access to their APs and such. If they make you pay full like T-Mobile seems to, they're dumb.
Easy. Deploy a little program called "Spyware Blaster". Even before I switched to FireFox AdAware was having a tough time finding things to remove. Every scan only turned up tracking cookies.
Slashdot Mirror
This is no different from leaving your door unlocked and getting robbed. It does not take away from the guilt of the robber, but you could have easily prevented it by locking the door.
She could have prevented those pics from being posted by not posing for them in the first place.
I doubt much of anything will come of this. Since she is the model in the images, she was not the photographer and therefore has no claim to the images whatsoever. Since she is merely going for their removal, she was more than likely a willing participant in the photo shoot.
That being so, while it may be embarassing for her to have to deal with those images getting out, that is the risk you take when you engage in that behavior. She was supposed to think of the consequences before she agreed to be photographed.
The boyfriend might be open to criminal charges depending on if Oregon has laws against posting pictures of that nature without the consent of the individual(s) modeling for the shot. Or he might be liable for inciting harassment on either a criminal or civil level.
I hope Yahoo stands their ground on this one. This woman made her bed, now it is time to sleep in it.
Your sister in one person who actually purchases something from these shops versus many more who don't.
Say the shop makes $3/hr profit from each seat in the place. Your sister contributes her $3 but 10 people are in there for 4 hours using the Wi-Fi and not buying anything. So the owner has your sister's $3 from the one hour she was there but has lost $120 from those 10 seats.
I would add Individual Ringtones to your list. People make fun of me for demanding that feature saying it is a frill, but to me it is more important than having a second display on the outside.
I love how I can assign each different person a ringtone and so when one plays I know who it is so I can either pull it out and take the call or reach into my pocket and silence the phone.
Because now we can get cheap booze online. Before I stumbled upon it in Whole Foods, I would have to drive almost an hour and a half depending on how I-275/696 where to get the meade I like since I could not mail order it.
Did you enjoy the cocktail onion sized hail at least?
Think of it along the same lines as Walmart.
Well it's nice to know now only am I the son of a terrorist, but now a mafia boss too. Nice.
They're probably typeos from the transfer.
That's fine. But are PCI-X slots backawards compatible with 2.1+ cards?
With the disappearance of older PCI slots, how do you intend to use the cards you have now?
My Pentium II Xeon motherboard has around 6 32-bit PCI slots. My Intel Xeon motherboard that I replaced that system with only has 4 as two slots were replaced by 64bit PCI slots. I used 5 slots on the Pentium II Xeon so two cards had to go.
Thankfully the new motherboard came with an ethernet controller built into it so that card was nuked. The only other option I would have had would have been to drop the money on a 64Bit SCSI controller.
My next system will require me to do even more dropping and change my video card since my Quadro 4 is AGP and those are not used on Xeon64 motherboards. And the best configuration I see for a board of the brands I like is 2 or 3 standard PCI slots. Which means I wil lhave to sacrifice another card which thankfully the USB 2.0 one can remain in the Xeon 2.8 system it is in now.
The laptop in question was a retail model so there is no "choice" in the OS other than buying a $200 upgrade in the store.
Second, HP was not going to offer the 64bit version of XP which my friend was going to buy but HP for some reason thought that their customers would not want a 64bit version of Windows to go with their 64bit laptops. Plus HP had serious honesty issues in telling my friend who owns the laptop that the machine would not run it. Imagine the tech's embarassment when my friend told him that the last beta copy worked just fine for him on it.
The fact his copy is ineligable for MS' trade-in is just salt in the wound. But apparently MS got a little ticked off at HP and things are changing.
HP has behaved like this in the past. They lied about the $400 iPaq a lot of people bought not being upgradable to 2003 SE (in spite of the fact a lot of it was written and tested on it) so you'll drop another $400+ to buy a new one to get it.
They make AMD64 notebooks that come with Windows XP Home and then screw customers out WinXP 64Bit by not offering themselves and by shipping them with XP Home making them ineligable for Microsoft's trade-in program.
Microsoft and Oracle too. And poor Adobe...
You know I heard that Canadians call Americans that as some sort of insult. As much as I like Canada, you guys need to come up with a new one since that one has been around for ages and really only insults the states the comprised the Confederate States during the Civil War.
Personally, I would like to see US citizens given refugee status in Canada or Europe. The shockwaves of that would be so fun to watch.
I am waiting for a gay couple to try it with Canada.
God I love the arrogance of the US. It is shit like this that shows that the US really is imperialistic. If it cannot invade other countries like Iraq, it tries to subvert the legal system to make the laws echo its own.
I still do not see why the US even needs the DMCA. There is nothing in that law other than dismantling of fair use rights that is not covered by either pre-existing copyright law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. If we do not need it, no other country does.
And why is Canada such a big deal? You would think they would want a place like China where piracy is rampant to adopt a DMCA before Canada. But then again Chinese courts have not ruled downloading MP3s off the net legal like Canadian courts did.
$30/mo is the full price of contractual monthly service.
I quickly went to their site and configured a phone using my Zip and the option to add it was not there. Their site about the hotspots did not include anything about bundling so I assumed it was not an option.
I wonder if SBC does the same for Cingular customers. But then again the only SBC AP I know of is at Barnes & Noble which sucks here because it's between a bigger Borders store a block away and Borders Store #001 is nearby in the other direction.
My own personal belief is that this stems from resource control. Companies pay their employees for the time and they pay service providers for the connection and that meny gets wasted when people are not doing their jobs and the resources are being used for personal gain. I know it seems like a small thing but it probably stems from an "all of nothing" policy.
In addition, as someone earlier pointed out in an earlier post, the company may also be shielding itself from litigation if one staff member is creating an intolerable environment through any of the usual vehicles (racism, sexism, sexual harassment, etc.) and while the instigator is the cause they are not a good source monetary gain whereas the company is and it is fairly easy to convince a jury the company was negligent. Additionally, what happens if an employee shows up on RIAA/MPAA's radar?
The expectation is that companies are be omnicient and omnipresent in regards to their staff's activities even though it is not realistic.
The main issue I have with this is that companies do not even *tell* their employees which to me ought to be illegal. When I worked for a system integrator/support agency there was a client who would monitor e-mails and refused to inform his employees. So my co-worker who was their regular support rep would sit down with new employees and during account creation would inform them of the monitoring.
How companies handle it leaves much to be desired too. Another coworker from that system integrator I used to work for has a brilliant strategy for how companies should deal with net abuse - simply drag the offender in, put the fear of god into them, and then let word of the infraction spread. It generally worked too because after one company put that into practice, abuse of the internet connection ceased. Every so often someone would test and see if the company dropped its gaurd and the process repeats itself.
You have hit one of the nails right on the head. In our lawsuit-happy society this is an unfortunate step some companies need to take. Juries have been known to side with the victim even though the victim never went to HR/management about it or they did and were not satisfied with results that were not instantaneous. I would love to sit on one of those juries and derail it.
Is this supposed to shock anyone? A business charging money for a service is nothing new folks.
If Verizon/TMobile/SBC/etc were smart though, they would bundle the services. Have DSL or Cell service and for an extra $5/$10 you get unlimited access to their APs and such. If they make you pay full like T-Mobile seems to, they're dumb.
Shocking isn't it? It seems just only last week Alabama discovered the Wheel, and Fire. Now they have Internet. Will wonders never cease?
My condolences to you.
I know. Then poor Larry Ellison and Scott McNeally would be the only major tech windbags left.
Easy. Deploy a little program called "Spyware Blaster". Even before I switched to FireFox AdAware was having a tough time finding things to remove. Every scan only turned up tracking cookies.