This is a normal outcome, particularly from a ruling rather than the more common settlement.
Court should not be the means of first-resort, but the means of last resort. Everyone who walks in the door should potentially have something significant to them to lose. Otherwise, why settle? Legal costs deter small players, unexpected adverse rulings have to deter large players.
People think RMS is unreasonable and as grasping as some of the commercialists he decries. Not in my experience.
I've had the same sort of [slow] email chat with him, and he is far more technical (and reasonable). I wouldn't want to speak for him, but the closest I got was that if source produced executable binary, then it was derivative. If the included source only affected the production of executable generated by other source, it was not derivative.
Selling counterfeit goods can be more serious if they are fraudulently sold as originals. Not only does the copyright hold lose (almost certain) revenue, but the purchaser is defrauded.
Streaming is known to be streaming. The purchaser is _not_ defrauded, although the copyright holder _might_ lose monopoly revenue.
Then people will have to evolve relevency filters rather than our current default "all information is relevant". Worked for 100,000s of years as hunter-gatherers, but subject to exploitation in an electric age, let alone a microelectronic age.
"Streaming" is mostly a clarification of law, much more threatening is the authorization of wiretap, perviously allowed only in "serious" cases and terrorism.
Privacy is basically a right of self-defense against prejudice. Asymmetric (privacy voilators are often virtuous in the area violated), but privacy has more characteristics than just the information being available.
Who matters: Abuses also happen when there are a priviliged set of monitors (police) and monitoring is not publicly accessible (webcams). Monitors benefit directly but others do not.
Worse is when data is retained unreasonably long and someone goes on a retrospective witchhunt. Cyber archive stalking.
Clarification is nice, especially in this case -- I had assumed around 30 GB/month was a reasonable amount. Now AT&T is telling me 150 GB is reasonable -- 5x more!
Furthermore, their overage rate $0.20/GB (in 50 GB chunks) is quite reasonable.
Some people will whine these are starting rates, and AT&T can change them. Certainly, but then they have to deal with their own precedents set internally. Somebody looks really bad if they have to raise alot, and they will fight.
Sure, but notice the privacy exceptions near the bottom, 2 of 6 includes "quasi public bodies" voluntary associations which would include Facebook (and/. for that matter). Sign-up, and you are volunteering their scope of your life for public discussion. Not all will be pleasant.
2 of 6 also includes the courts very explicity, which is the whole question here.
For which actions are people _NOT_ responsible? What acts in public deserve privacy? Crimes? Misdemenors? The real problem is prejudice, and I'd rather work on that.
This could have happened (and probably did) in the days of 35mm cameras, it is just more likely with cellphone cameras and networks.
Just why would any court want less evidence? The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better. There are rules about what evidence can be excluded, but those are for only very good reasons. Not just because one party doesn't like it.
In this case, tagging is like making a comment on a post. Free speech, subject to the limitations of libel. If she can show the tag is clearly wrong, then perhaps she can get it excluded as irrelevant. If not, tough. The jury will decide.
The fundamental thing is that people are responsible for all their actions -- on record all the time -- except in clear situations where there is an expectation of privacy. Not in any bar.
First, you'd be surprised how often the TV news gets consent. When they cannot, it probably qualifies as "news", for which they don't need consent. Second, a camera & mike stuffed in your face without objection might be construed as consent. A hidden mike could not be.
What is difficult about this folks? Some states allow taping conversations if one party consents, others require two/all party consent. There is a nice summary here and on wiki for our nice international readers.
Just what do you think got Linda Tripp in trouble? She taped Monica Lewinski in Maryland. Had she taped in Virgina or DC, the muchly aggreived and egregiously vindictive authorities would have to look harder for charges to trump up. When you are piquing authorities, do not expose your flank!
Just how and why are we hearing about this at all?
I'm quite hostile to SCO, but they still deserve all legal rights and priviliges. Otherwise, a trial means nothing.
This sort of consultancy would be done by SCO's attornies, and protected under attorney-work-product privilige. Justified by the reasonable assumption that different experts might well have different methods, tools and opinions.
I'm sure PP has good lawyers, I just wonder if the right ones have been consulted. Paypal could easily be viewed as a monopoly under which they have certain enhanced obligations.
Furthermore, Manning is a veteran (not sure conditions of discharge are relevant), and there are laws against discriminating against veterans.
"Unrestricted access" to banking is not very clear -- PP does have a reasonable right (and even duty) to know their customer, so [repeated] confirmation of bank account is reasonable. However, viewing deposits/withdrawals, let alone being able to effect same is egregious.
I haven't made myself clear: Yes, when big blocks aren't available, the kernel will stitch together scattered pages in whichever Discriptor Table to make whatever malloc() is required. The MMU will make this transparent and nothing should crash. But it won't necessarily be quick -- 1 MB takes 256 4kB pages.
On some frequency, I like to bring a box down to minimum processes, clear/tmp, run fsck's, drop_caches, and restart procs. The proof is in `free` and SsyRq-M. Linux/*BSD/Unix are _much_ lower maintenence than MS-Windows, but not _zero_.
Manually cleaning up/tmp is fairly easy. Memory fragmentation is still an issue because old blocks can break up big blocks such that large blocks are no longer available. Try the Magic SysReqest - M.
Even if you don't have power accidents or hung hardware, it is probably a good idea to reboot Unix and other Linux-like boxen every so often. To clear out memory fragmentation and (horrors!) kernel memory leaks and stale kmallocs().
How often is a good question. Perhaps yearly on a lighly loaded box (I like doing it in Dec so `ps` shows me the year). Maybe monthly on a loaded box. I have noticed a speed-up.
Then what are you saying? I would argue that those who play these games without respect for their friends both need and will very likely receive a sorely needed lesson in respect and consideration for others. The game is actually good because it drives that.
"Wahh! People aren't being social the way I think they should be. Make them stop."
Sorry, but no-one gets to be the arbiter of voluntary human interactions. No-one is forcing you to participate, and decrying others for what they clearly _mutually_ enjoy is interference.
To be sure, many errors are made. Feelings get hurt. The real test of person's worth is how they recover from errors. Not making any is camouflage.
Agreed. As read in the summary, it appeared TiVo was sending out some sort of patch/signal that would render the device inoperable. A malicious attack, a felony in most countries. The reality is they are stopping sending data that helps the device function. Not a felony or tort, but perhaps a breech of contract.
The summary writer deliberately exaggerated to arouse an audience. Deceit. Equal opportunity, editurds can be trolling slashtards too! Live down to the lowest of the audience and you will lose many.
As your gut is telling you, something looks fishy around here: Why hire (& train) you? They should be have someone in their existing organization who knows much more about their customer service and therefore could do a better job.
It sounds like they're planning a hatchet job and are too embarrassed/worried about it to do it openly and honestly. They want you to help them swing the axe suddenly. Beware, you will be next.
As for ethics, I'm not sure what ethical duty you owe to existing employees while you are not. Once you become an employee, terms of hire govern. I see no problem with "scabbing". But even then, you might have some ethical obligations towards customers especially if you see the offshoring significantly reducing (more than an accent) the value they paid for.
Who is running the defense? I thought a boilerplate defense move was to counter-sue the moment a quarter-serious suit was served.
The countersuit would be for fraud, or legal expenses or somesuch. Very dependant on the jurisdiction, but always to prevent the aggressors from just dismissing their own claim and retreating to fight another day when the climate was better.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a normal outcome, particularly from a ruling rather than the more common settlement.
Court should not be the means of first-resort, but the means of last resort. Everyone who walks in the door should potentially have something significant to them to lose. Otherwise, why settle? Legal costs deter small players, unexpected adverse rulings have to deter large players.
People think RMS is unreasonable and as grasping as some of the commercialists he decries. Not in my experience.
I've had the same sort of [slow] email chat with him, and he is far more technical (and reasonable). I wouldn't want to speak for him, but the closest I got was that if source produced executable binary, then it was derivative. If the included source only affected the production of executable generated by other source, it was not derivative.
Streaming is known to be streaming. The purchaser is _not_ defrauded, although the copyright holder _might_ lose monopoly revenue.
Then people will have to evolve relevency filters rather than our current default "all information is relevant". Worked for 100,000s of years as hunter-gatherers, but subject to exploitation in an electric age, let alone a microelectronic age.
"Streaming" is mostly a clarification of law, much more threatening is the authorization of wiretap, perviously allowed only in "serious" cases and terrorism.
Maybe Scott could find takes at 30% lower cost, but these aren't the numbers. Current policing costs ~1%.
Privacy is basically a right of self-defense against prejudice. Asymmetric (privacy voilators are often virtuous in the area violated), but privacy has more characteristics than just the information being available.
Who matters: Abuses also happen when there are a priviliged set of monitors (police) and monitoring is not publicly accessible (webcams). Monitors benefit directly but others do not.
Worse is when data is retained unreasonably long and someone goes on a retrospective witchhunt. Cyber archive stalking.
Clarification is nice, especially in this case -- I had assumed around 30 GB/month was a reasonable amount. Now AT&T is telling me 150 GB is reasonable -- 5x more!
Furthermore, their overage rate $0.20/GB (in 50 GB chunks) is quite reasonable.
Some people will whine these are starting rates, and AT&T can change them. Certainly, but then they have to deal with their own precedents set internally. Somebody looks really bad if they have to raise alot, and they will fight.
2 of 6 also includes the courts very explicity, which is the whole question here.
For which actions are people _NOT_ responsible? What acts in public deserve privacy? Crimes? Misdemenors? The real problem is prejudice, and I'd rather work on that.
This could have happened (and probably did) in the days of 35mm cameras, it is just more likely with cellphone cameras and networks.
Just why would any court want less evidence? The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better. There are rules about what evidence can be excluded, but those are for only very good reasons. Not just because one party doesn't like it.
In this case, tagging is like making a comment on a post. Free speech, subject to the limitations of libel. If she can show the tag is clearly wrong, then perhaps she can get it excluded as irrelevant. If not, tough. The jury will decide.
The fundamental thing is that people are responsible for all their actions -- on record all the time -- except in clear situations where there is an expectation of privacy. Not in any bar.
First, you'd be surprised how often the TV news gets consent. When they cannot, it probably qualifies as "news", for which they don't need consent. Second, a camera & mike stuffed in your face without objection might be construed as consent. A hidden mike could not be.
What is difficult about this folks? Some states allow taping conversations if one party consents, others require two/all party consent. There is a nice summary here and on wiki for our nice international readers.
Just what do you think got Linda Tripp in trouble? She taped Monica Lewinski in Maryland. Had she taped in Virgina or DC, the muchly aggreived and egregiously vindictive authorities would have to look harder for charges to trump up. When you are piquing authorities, do not expose your flank!
Just how and why are we hearing about this at all?
I'm quite hostile to SCO, but they still deserve all legal rights and priviliges. Otherwise, a trial means nothing.
This sort of consultancy would be done by SCO's attornies, and protected under attorney-work-product privilige. Justified by the reasonable assumption that different experts might well have different methods, tools and opinions.
Furthermore, Manning is a veteran (not sure conditions of discharge are relevant), and there are laws against discriminating against veterans.
"Unrestricted access" to banking is not very clear -- PP does have a reasonable right (and even duty) to know their customer, so [repeated] confirmation of bank account is reasonable. However, viewing deposits/withdrawals, let alone being able to effect same is egregious.
Loved it too. Should qualify for the parody (maybe satire!) copyright fair-use exemption.
On some frequency, I like to bring a box down to minimum processes, clear /tmp, run fsck's, drop_caches, and restart procs. The proof is in `free` and SsyRq-M. Linux/*BSD/Unix are _much_ lower maintenence than MS-Windows, but not _zero_.
Manually cleaning up /tmp is fairly easy. Memory fragmentation is still an issue because old blocks can break up big blocks such that large blocks are no longer available. Try the Magic SysReqest - M .
Even if you don't have power accidents or hung hardware, it is probably a good idea to reboot Unix and other Linux-like boxen every so often. To clear out memory fragmentation and (horrors!) kernel memory leaks and stale kmallocs().
How often is a good question. Perhaps yearly on a lighly loaded box (I like doing it in Dec so `ps` shows me the year). Maybe monthly on a loaded box. I have noticed a speed-up.
Then what are you saying? I would argue that those who play these games without respect for their friends both need and will very likely receive a sorely needed lesson in respect and consideration for others. The game is actually good because it drives that.
Certainly that is one way to play. One likely to lead to consequences, even IRL. Very good, cheap life lesson.
Sorry, but no-one gets to be the arbiter of voluntary human interactions. No-one is forcing you to participate, and decrying others for what they clearly _mutually_ enjoy is interference.
To be sure, many errors are made. Feelings get hurt. The real test of person's worth is how they recover from errors. Not making any is camouflage.
The summary writer deliberately exaggerated to arouse an audience. Deceit. Equal opportunity, editurds can be trolling slashtards too! Live down to the lowest of the audience and you will lose many.
As your gut is telling you, something looks fishy around here: Why hire (& train) you? They should be have someone in their existing organization who knows much more about their customer service and therefore could do a better job.
It sounds like they're planning a hatchet job and are too embarrassed/worried about it to do it openly and honestly. They want you to help them swing the axe suddenly. Beware, you will be next.
As for ethics, I'm not sure what ethical duty you owe to existing employees while you are not. Once you become an employee, terms of hire govern. I see no problem with "scabbing". But even then, you might have some ethical obligations towards customers especially if you see the offshoring significantly reducing (more than an accent) the value they paid for.
Who is running the defense? I thought a boilerplate defense move was to counter-sue the moment a quarter-serious suit was served.
The countersuit would be for fraud, or legal expenses or somesuch. Very dependant on the jurisdiction, but always to prevent the aggressors from just dismissing their own claim and retreating to fight another day when the climate was better.