Perhaps the most damning evidence against Paypal is that when I change the option from pay via bank account to pay via credit card, every time, I get a Yes/No screen that specifically says that paying by bank acount transfer is as secure and safe as paying via credit card. This is not true, and this language will almost certainly end up coming back to haunt PayPal.
This database is very infuriating, especially given the many states where official reprimands of doctors are not made public.
Two weeks ago, the MA legislature passed a bill called Taylor's Law, that orginally called for putting reprimands of doctors online. The doctor lobby got that provision shot down, arguing that it might stop doctors from freely talking to the board.
If patients in MA can't find out who the problem doctors are, I don't see why doctors should be able to see the names of patients who sued.
Furthermore, membership should definitely be required to add people to the list, otherwise, any quack who gets justifiably sued can easily add his or her patients to the list out of spite.
EB should be criminally charged for dealing in stolen goods. By violating that 15 day law and by refusing to turn over the stolen goods, EB is no longer acting as a retail store--they are acting as a fence.
Regardless of whether or not EB knew the goods were stolen when they purchased them from the thief, they did not not take reasonable precautions to ensure that they weren't stolen, such as follow the 15 day law.
EB's actions were simply reprehensible, and I, for one, will no longer deal with them.
Caught red-handed doing what, exactly? Giving a company money? Getting money? (Depending if you were referring to SCO or Mircrosoft)...
Subpeonas can only be obtained from one of the parties that is involved in a lawsuit, so it can be subpeoned by Red Hat, IBM, AutoZone, Novell, or Daimler-Chrysler. It is not a quick process.
As for "is it possible to use this as evidence", that depends on whether or not it is relevant. What exact crime has been committed here? No crime has been committed on SCO's part, well, not related to getting money from Microsoft, anyways... The only possible crime is an anti-trust violation by Microsoft, and that is not relevent to any of the SCO-related cases.
While this might have an effect in the court of public opinion, and I certainly think that it should (big bad Microsoft, trying to kill off its competitors using SCO as a weapon), I don't see its bearing in the legal arena. Regardless of whether or not Microsoft is bankrolling this lawsuit to stiffle competition from Linux, SCO either owns or doesn't own the code that they are trying to claim as theirs. If they own it, they'll win their lawsuits, regardless of who is paying for them.
Smoking gun? Well, maybe, if you're looking at a Microsoft violation of their anti-trust agreement, but it really has not bearing on the court cases.
Berlind makes no mention of the validity of SCO's claims--his argument is simply based on the existance of the lawsuits. That's like telling the manager of the local fast food franchise to give in to the mob's protection racket, because if you don't pay them off and your store gets trashed, you might get fired. Even if the local mob is two 12 year olds with nerf guns. It is idiotic to argue for imdemnification without analysing the threat posed by the SCO lawsuits. Anyone can file a lawsuit--it doesn't mean you should pay a 3rd party to indemnify you.
Um, no. In most cases, you're talking around $10 for a CD. For $9.99 from the Apple store, you get a full album that you can listen to on your computer or burn it onto a CD as many times as you like and take it wherever you want to go. You don't get a case or art, but why the heck do you need media? Buy some blank CDs, burn it and look, you have media.
And this is the point that I don't understand--David Boies is an excellent attorney, and to this point, he has had a very good reputation.... He's worked with the US Department of Justice on the Microsoft anti-trust case. He was lead counsel for Napster.
Why, all of a sudden, is Boies taking a case which is not only going to put him in a very unpopular light with much of the cyberspace denizens, but also seems to be an incredibly weak (or non-existant) case as well? And before anyone jumps in with money, I really doubt he's hurting...
As a civil libertarian, I have no problems with this technology being used to track children. The tracking technologies in the New York Times article are features--the various tracking services from the cell phone serivce providers were alled turned on with the knowledge, consent, and at the request of the account holder. The parents payed the bills and gave the kids the phones--the intrusive nature of the tracking devices is a tradeoff.
It certainly sucks for the kids who are being tracked, but no ethical or legal rules are being violated, and it doesn't rustle my feathers.
I do become concerned when this technology is used outside of the parent-child relationship. Employers should NOT be able to track their employees at all times.... If a company gives its workers cell phones and requires them to be available outside of work hours via the cell phone, the company still shouldn't have the ability to monitor its worker's activities during those non-work hours. Spouses should not have the ability to spy on one another either. This technology should not be activated by the government without a warrant based on probable cause.
And don't think you are safe if your cell phone does not have built in GPS technology--some states have the ability to find you even without the GPS tech. Massachusetts, for example, is currently installing hardware and software that can find the location of any cellphone within the state, regardless of the age of the phone. Matthew Pratt's (the kid from the NYT article who kept his old phone to avoid being tracked by his folks) phone would not shield him from monitoring by the govt. in MA (and anywhere outfitted with similar technology). My cell phone, a Motorola T730, only broadcasts the location data if I dial 911, but again, with the type of technology MA is installing, I can be found regardless, so long as the phone as on.
This new technology is far more sensitive then the old method of using 3 towers to triangulate the signal. I don't have access to the Boston Globe archives from here (there was an article on this about a week and half ago or so), but as I recall, the system is accurate within a few meters, and again, this is without using GPS. Any cell phone, regardless of age and featureset.
Right now, the FCC is refusing to get into the debate, leaving this issue to sort itself out on its own. This is a mistake. Without guidelines, tracking very well might become widespread because it is forced down the throats of people who get their cell phones through their companies, schools, or otherwise don't pay their own bill. Once people don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy, to use the legal terminology, anyone can use the tracking services to track people. The data is even admissible in court.
Wouldn't it be logical for the telemarketers to simply not hand out their info. unless they make a sale of some sort? How does one get sufficient info. to file a complaint against them?
All of my music is ripped and on my laptop. All my friends have done the same. Why? Not to share files-we don't. As college students, it is more convenient for us not to have to schlep CDs back and forth from home and school. Further, we don't need to worry about theft. (Well, we're still careful of our computers, of course, but we need them anyways!)
In fact, nearly all of my classmates, even those who don't rip their CDs, don't have a standalone CD player. We all use the CD player in our computer to play music.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the most damning evidence against Paypal is that when I change the option from pay via bank account to pay via credit card, every time, I get a Yes/No screen that specifically says that paying by bank acount transfer is as secure and safe as paying via credit card. This is not true, and this language will almost certainly end up coming back to haunt PayPal.
Two weeks ago, the MA legislature passed a bill called Taylor's Law, that orginally called for putting reprimands of doctors online. The doctor lobby got that provision shot down, arguing that it might stop doctors from freely talking to the board.
If patients in MA can't find out who the problem doctors are, I don't see why doctors should be able to see the names of patients who sued.
Furthermore, membership should definitely be required to add people to the list, otherwise, any quack who gets justifiably sued can easily add his or her patients to the list out of spite.
Regardless of whether or not EB knew the goods were stolen when they purchased them from the thief, they did not not take reasonable precautions to ensure that they weren't stolen, such as follow the 15 day law.
EB's actions were simply reprehensible, and I, for one, will no longer deal with them.
Subpeonas can only be obtained from one of the parties that is involved in a lawsuit, so it can be subpeoned by Red Hat, IBM, AutoZone, Novell, or Daimler-Chrysler. It is not a quick process.
As for "is it possible to use this as evidence", that depends on whether or not it is relevant. What exact crime has been committed here? No crime has been committed on SCO's part, well, not related to getting money from Microsoft, anyways... The only possible crime is an anti-trust violation by Microsoft, and that is not relevent to any of the SCO-related cases.
Smoking gun? Well, maybe, if you're looking at a Microsoft violation of their anti-trust agreement, but it really has not bearing on the court cases.
Berlind makes no mention of the validity of SCO's claims--his argument is simply based on the existance of the lawsuits. That's like telling the manager of the local fast food franchise to give in to the mob's protection racket, because if you don't pay them off and your store gets trashed, you might get fired. Even if the local mob is two 12 year olds with nerf guns. It is idiotic to argue for imdemnification without analysing the threat posed by the SCO lawsuits. Anyone can file a lawsuit--it doesn't mean you should pay a 3rd party to indemnify you.
Um, no. In most cases, you're talking around $10 for a CD. For $9.99 from the Apple store, you get a full album that you can listen to on your computer or burn it onto a CD as many times as you like and take it wherever you want to go. You don't get a case or art, but why the heck do you need media? Buy some blank CDs, burn it and look, you have media.
Why, all of a sudden, is Boies taking a case which is not only going to put him in a very unpopular light with much of the cyberspace denizens, but also seems to be an incredibly weak (or non-existant) case as well? And before anyone jumps in with money, I really doubt he's hurting...
As a civil libertarian, I have no problems with this technology being used to track children. The tracking technologies in the New York Times article are features--the various tracking services from the cell phone serivce providers were alled turned on with the knowledge, consent, and at the request of the account holder. The parents payed the bills and gave the kids the phones--the intrusive nature of the tracking devices is a tradeoff. It certainly sucks for the kids who are being tracked, but no ethical or legal rules are being violated, and it doesn't rustle my feathers. I do become concerned when this technology is used outside of the parent-child relationship. Employers should NOT be able to track their employees at all times.... If a company gives its workers cell phones and requires them to be available outside of work hours via the cell phone, the company still shouldn't have the ability to monitor its worker's activities during those non-work hours. Spouses should not have the ability to spy on one another either. This technology should not be activated by the government without a warrant based on probable cause. And don't think you are safe if your cell phone does not have built in GPS technology--some states have the ability to find you even without the GPS tech. Massachusetts, for example, is currently installing hardware and software that can find the location of any cellphone within the state, regardless of the age of the phone. Matthew Pratt's (the kid from the NYT article who kept his old phone to avoid being tracked by his folks) phone would not shield him from monitoring by the govt. in MA (and anywhere outfitted with similar technology). My cell phone, a Motorola T730, only broadcasts the location data if I dial 911, but again, with the type of technology MA is installing, I can be found regardless, so long as the phone as on. This new technology is far more sensitive then the old method of using 3 towers to triangulate the signal. I don't have access to the Boston Globe archives from here (there was an article on this about a week and half ago or so), but as I recall, the system is accurate within a few meters, and again, this is without using GPS. Any cell phone, regardless of age and featureset. Right now, the FCC is refusing to get into the debate, leaving this issue to sort itself out on its own. This is a mistake. Without guidelines, tracking very well might become widespread because it is forced down the throats of people who get their cell phones through their companies, schools, or otherwise don't pay their own bill. Once people don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy, to use the legal terminology, anyone can use the tracking services to track people. The data is even admissible in court.
Wouldn't it be logical for the telemarketers to simply not hand out their info. unless they make a sale of some sort? How does one get sufficient info. to file a complaint against them?
All of my music is ripped and on my laptop. All my friends have done the same. Why? Not to share files-we don't. As college students, it is more convenient for us not to have to schlep CDs back and forth from home and school. Further, we don't need to worry about theft. (Well, we're still careful of our computers, of course, but we need them anyways!) In fact, nearly all of my classmates, even those who don't rip their CDs, don't have a standalone CD player. We all use the CD player in our computer to play music.