"Yahoo! China is an Internet Content Provider (ICP) in China working under Beijing ICP permit 000022. Under the terms of agreement for that permit, Yahoo! China agrees to comply with legal police warrants for information. Such conditions exist in every country."
"... the Beijing State Security Bureau's request to Yahoo!'s Beijing office for information about the e-mail account of the person who turned out to be Shi Tao."
"Beijing State Security Bureau
Notice of Evidence Collection
According to investigation, your office is in possession of the following items relating to a case of suspecting illegal provision of state secrets to foreign entities that is currently under investigation by our bureau. In accordance with Article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC, [these items] may be collected. The items for collection are: Email account registration information for huoyan1989@yahoo.com.cn, all login times, corresponding IP addresses, and relevant email content from February 22, 2004 to present."
"No, they were hanged because the orders were illegal."
The orders were legal in Germany.
The orders were illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions. People are often simultaneously subject to multiple jurisdictions, national and international law in this case.
Secondly, Soviets, Communist Chinese, and Serbian partisans did some pretty bad things and were never brought to justice.
That has nothing to do with local jurisdiction and everything to do with being on the winning side. For example Donitz was charged for unrestricted submarine warfare, Nimitz was not.
Illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions, but not German law as given in the commando order. Disobedience on the part of a German soldier would have lead to his summary execution.
I've read the translation of this order, http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/commando1.htm, there is only a vague threat of being "held responsible" and it applies only to "commanders and officers". A bluff, again, a court martial would require documenting the order being refused. Hitler went to great lengths to assure the secrecy of this order.
The Nazi's (politicians) did not have the iron grip on the military that the movies suggest. The military had to be co-opted and appeased to a degree. The Gestapo could not just shoot a soldier. Many German officers and soldiers had a traditional martial spirit rooted in duty and honor, illusions about the war had to be maintained in order to keep their loyalty. Various admiral and generals moderated Hitler at times by pointing out the disastrous effect an immoral order would have upon morale. Summary executions of German soldiers would have been even more disastrous, court martials were necessary. Which is why atrocities were generally committed by segments of the SS, troops that had a more cult like attitude in contrast to the traditional attitude. The SS evolved from the Nazi party not the German army. Although to be honest, some SS troops behaved as elite troops and acted honorably. I believe some of those who refused to commit murder in the concentration camps were SS.
I'm not saying it was easy for a German soldier of the time to defy an order, hell, it is hard for a soldier in the modern US army. Just that it was possible, and in fact the commando order was defied, famously by Rommel.
It was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany for SS officers to have Jews murdered. I mean, it was German law that people of Jewish descent weren't persons, and could be used, abused and murdered. And yet, despite all of that, those who took part in the murder of Jews were classified as criminals by an international tribunal and were brought to justice.
The Hague convention (Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land) outlaws the killing of civilians. As I mentioned in another response, some soldiers who defied these orders were quietly transfered rather than court martialed.
I'm not nearly as naive as you think. I'm well aware of the realities that drive the West to do business with China, and with China's need to do business with them. But I think we should call a spade a spade here. I don't think we need to listen to Yahoo excuse their actions as simply following local laws.
Given that you avoid the simple fact that when the government presents a search warrant the company has no idea whether the charge is political agitation or a real crime, I think "naive" stands as accurate.
I'll concede the concentration camp troops, but not that the orders for unrestricted submarine warfare or the summary execution of prisoners of war were illegal under German law then in effect.
Execution of POWs were illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions.
Unrestricted submarine warfare, yeah that's a tricky one since Nimitz testified for the defense at Donitz's trial that the US did so from day one against Japan.
There were a number of people hanged at Nuremburg for "following legal orders." Do we owe their descendants an apology?
No, they were hanged because the orders were illegal. Additionally, some German soldiers who found themselves at the camps and refused to follow orders were threatened with court martial but it was a bluff. They were quietly transfered. A court martial would have required that the order being violated be specified. The Nazis were very careful not to have such orders written down. Especially since they considered their hold on the military tenuous. The illusions of a honorable patriotic war had to be maintained, or else the military would rebel.
It is *only* illegal to follow illegal orders, legal orders must be followed whether you believe them just or not. If China had provided something along the lines of a search warrant then compliances was most likely legal according to Chinese, US and international law. Furthermore, how would Yahoo know the warrant involves political activity rather than a "real crime"? You are being naively simplistic.
Intel is even friendlier than you suggest. They offer the same MB in TPM and non-TPM versions, and the non-TPM seems to have more features as well. To avoid a redundant thread see:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=281229&cid=203 85475
No problem, Intel has motherboards for you too. I was specing out a quad core and noticed Intel has TPM and non-TPM versions of the same motherboard, for example the D975XBX2.
How difficult would it be to mod a mobo, removing the TPM? Is TET (because Execution begins with the letter E) done in Microcode or is it all in silicon?
Why mod when you can buy a motherboard without it? When I went shopping for Intel motherboards a few weeks ago I noticed TPM and non-TPM versions of the same motherboard.
Before someone out there decides to write "But what about buying from Dell, HP, etc?" note we are discussing modding. Someone who is going to mod a motherboard should be able to operate a screwdriver and install a motherboard.
It seems far better than what my laptop speakers can produce, it also seems "good enough" for ear buds plugged into the laptop. I understand your concern, I rip at 256K with the hope of eventually playing through a home stereo system, but for casual access 32K seems just fine.
"you may not publish any performance comparisons between our product and others" seems suspect on the surface.... However, it does seem likely to me that such a clause could be attacked because (meaning this is the red flag that I see) it seems to restrain a user's behavior beyond ways which are reasonable in a free market,...
Looking at the factors that the courts consider:
- Acts that have no legitimate business purpose.
In the context of pre-release, preventing comparisons serves a valid business purpose. Engineering samples, beta, etc may not properly represent the finished product. In general, preventing comparisons should be perfectly valid if there is "consideration", if the customer gets something in return. For example, special access to info and products. It is perfectly valid for a contract to restrict the flow of information.
- Greatly unequal bargaining power.
"Consideration" again, if there is a reasonable exchange the unequal power becomes moot.
- An unnaturally large gain for one party.
- Financial distress to one party.
These don't seem to be an issue.
... and that the user doesn't really have a choice in the matter.
Adhesion contracts can be perfectly valid, there is nothing inherently wrong with a take it or leave it position. Not being allowed to publish benchmarks seems pretty far from an unconscionable requirement (except when it intersects with public policy, whistleblowing for example), and pretty close to a valid business tactic (especially in the pre-release context).
For example, if I negotiate a contract with you and it has an arbitrarion clause which we both agree to, is that different than an adhesion contract relating to a service or product where there is no possibility of negotiation?
The textbook that I referred to seems to indicate that unconscionable terms are a bigger issue for adhesion contracts, a power and sophistication imbalance often exist. The issue of arbitration is used as an example, in the following case the contract stated that both parties must accept low awards but either party may appeal high awards. Worldwide Insurance v. Klopp. 603 A.2d 1992 Del. Lexis 13. Supreme Court Deleware 1992:
"The public policy of this State favors the resolution of disputes through arbitration. An insurance policy which provides for arbitration as its primary mechanism for dispute resolution is thus enforceable.... While high awards may be appealed by either party, common experience suggest that it is unlikely that an insured would appeal such an award. It is the insurer who, generally, would be dissatisfied with a high award. The policy provision thus presents an 'escape hatch' to the insurer for avaoidance of high arbitration awards, whether or not the award was fair and reasonable. However, the insured, who would tend to be dissatisfied with a a low award, is barred from appealing such an award.... The Chancery Court was correct in stricking this unconscionable clause."
If both parties negotiated a deal then there may still be an economic duress argument. 2007, Beatty and Samuelson, p. 325: "How do we distinguish economic duress from successful business tactics? Courts have created no single rule to answer the question, but they do focus on certain issues. In analyzing a claim of economic duress, courts look at these factors:
- Acts that have no legitimate business purpose.
- Greatly unequal bargaining power.
- An unnaturally large gain for one party.
- Financial distress to one party.
You're skating a fine line at the moment, I think. Metrics are about the business people having more control over something they don't really understand and which costs them money.
No, metrics are a research topic in software engineering. I've seen classes on metrics in computer science graduate programs. Geeks and scientists want to know as well.
He knows who does a good job and how well the group is doing.
Without metrics how does he know this? Without metrics social skills and office politics decide who are the better employees. I am not saying that going 100% metrics is good, just that going 100% subjective is not good either.
Metrics are a current business buzzword, and of limited value in a good tech environment. I've been through three big metric pushes as a sysadmin, at 2.5 different companies, and either the metrics push died or the department did.
I think you are confusing bad metrics with metrics in general. That graduate level computer science class teaches that bad metrics are easy to aquire and are plentiful. That it is difficult to develop good metrics. This reinforces my point that managers should not develop metrics in isolation, they should do so in conjunction with those doing to actual work.
A contract requires the informed consent of both parties entering the agreement. It has yet to be proven in a court of law that clicking an 'OK' button equates to informed consent, especially if the terms of the "agreement" are not presented prior to the purchase.
Clickwrap and Shrinkwrap are enforcible contracts. From 2007, Beatty and Samuelson, Business Law and the Legal Environment: Standard Edition, 4th edition, Chapter 11 - Agreements, p. 265:
"Cyberlaw. Clickwraps and Shrinkwraps.... Many courts that have analyzed these issues have ruled that clickwrap and shrinkwrap agreements are indeed binding, even against consumers. The courts have emphasized that sellers are entitled to offer a product on any terms they wish, and that shrinkwrap and clickswrap are the most efficient methods of including complicated terms in a small space. Think before you click!(8)
(8) ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenbert, 86 F3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), is the leading case to enforce shrinkwrap agreements (and, by extension, clickwraps). Klocek v. Gateway, 104 F. Supp. 1332 (D. Kan, 2000) is one of the few cases to reject such contracts. Klocek, however, was dismissed for failure to reach the federal court $75,000 jurisdic tional level."
As you suggest submerged agreements are a problem, however making the terms visible before clicking is valid and clicking "I Agree" is valid. The following shows why the license is shown first on many download pages, or by installers, it corrects the "submerging" defect. And why "I Agree" rather than "OK" is used, it corrects the ambiguous defect. Not activating "I Agree" until after all of the agreement has scrolled by is a nice addition. P. 266:
"Specht v. Netscape Communications Corporation", 306 F.3d 17, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 2002. ... The plaintiffs clicked to download. If, instead of downloading they had scrolled further down, they would have seen an invitation to 'review and agree to the terms of the Netscape SmartDownload software license agreement.'... Receipt of a physical document containing contract terms or notice thereof is frequently deemed, in the world of paper transactions, a sufficient circumstance to place the offeree on inquiry notice of those terms. These principles apply equally to the emergent world of online product delivery, pop-up screens, hyperlinked pages, clickwrap licensing, scrollable documents... We are not persuaded that a reasonably prudent oferee in these circumstances would have known of the existence of license terms. Plaintiffs were responding to an offer that did not carry an immediately visible notice of the existence of license terms or require unambiguous manifestation of assent to those terms.... a reference to the existence of license terms on a submerged screen is not sufficient to place consumers in inquiry or consctrucive notice of those terms."
If you aren't a director or higher in title, and your duties don't include justifying expenses and planning resources for solutions, then it isn't really your realm to measure something like productivity. If this guy has an MBA or similar qualifications, it is he who should know how to measure productivity.
I am in an MBA program. Anyone in an organization can be involved in measurement. I was taught that it is arrogant and foolish for a manager to think they can sit in their office and make decisions related to productivity (improvements or measurements), that you have to make decision in consultation with those "in the trenches". The people doing the job are your best source of information. Furthermore, each level of management removed from the actual job has a poorer and poorer understanding.
I realize that measuring an admin's productivity is hard, been there, done that. However *some* attempt at quantification of what you do is not necessarily a bad idea. It can be a useful exercise, for the admin and management. The problem is that there is no simple answer, each site and the business needs they serve are unique. This makes it necessary for a site's admins being involved in developing the metrics.
Also ideally, a CTO wouldn't be asking those in the trenches how to measure productivity, but rather how to improve it.
Without some measurement how do you know productivity is improved?
My point is that Sun's workstation and server market was being decimated by Linux and FreeBSD. They had to try to find to find something new, they tried Java, it didn't go as well as they hoped.
This is the platform company that spent the 1990s evangelizing a language that makes it easy to write platform independent code.
Java may be nice, but it was a butt-stupid move for a company that made its money in OSes and hardware.
By the late 90s Sun knew that the OS and hardware market was no longer available, Linux and FreeBSD were destined to take it. Sun realized that many buyers of its workstations did not really need anything Sun specific, they just needed a general purpose Unix box. PC hardware running Linux or FreeBSD had begun to fulfill this need. Sun had to find a new market.
... The best we have now is Blizzard. Blizzard, the same group of insensitive clods who claimed Mac Starcraft would be released the same time it would for PC. Then they said it would be shortly after. Then by summer. Then by Christmas. In the end a FULL YEAR passed before it finally got released. AND,...
You are about 9 years out of date. Diablo II for Mac came out about two weeks after the Windows version, quite a shock at MacWorld 2000. The D2 expansion, Warcraft III and its expansion, and World of Warcraft and its expansion have shipped simultaneously. IIRC the simultaneous ships coincided with Blizzard moving from outside contractors to internal Mac development.
... to add insult to injury, they made all copies PC/Mac hybrid discs, and had the audacity to charge $50 for a copy if it was in a "Mac" section of a store, but only $30 for the identical product if it were in the PC section.
Again, your are many years out of date. I believe from the D2 expansion forward, the simultaneous ships, there has been only one retail SKU - a Windows/Mac hybrid box. For the older titles only the Mac boxes/SKUs were hybrid, Windows boxes/SKUs may be Windows only (their master disc predating the Mac version). Finally, the disparate pricing was often done by the retailer, if you tried to buy from the publisher's website the prices were the same. I've noticed local stores discounting a popular title as a loss leader on numerous occasions. Works great for me since I can usually wait a month or three.
I suspect it would come down to the "expectation of privacy" standard, and most people don't expect their wastewater can be seen by anyone before it is processed.
Not true. A city worker performing inspection/maintenance on a street's main line may see your wastewater.
Back in the 90s there was some research to analyze the chemical content of air being vented from a home into the atmosphere. The goal was to more easily locate people cooking meth in remote locations. A laser was shined into a heat plume to obtain a chemical profile. The theory was that no warrant was necessary. The officer operated the equipment from public property and the heat plume entering the atmosphere was also in a public space. The precendent was supposedly dogs sniffing vehicles passing through a checkpoint, odors leaving a vehicle were entering a public space and fair game. If a dog alerted that was valid probably cause for a search.
... there are always exceptions. But other departments are not as good at bullshitting and so have to justify themselves with hard numbers, facts, and performance....
In my marketing classes it is all about quantitative analysis. They constantly stress that CEOs will smell BS and hit you with questions about your data and analysis. Some of our professors have decades of experience at major firms and readily offer stories of someone who got reamed trying to offer the BS you suggest. I used to share your perceptions. I had no idea what real professional marketing was all about. In much the same vein, examing most commercial or FOSS code will give you no idea what real professional software engineering is about. Poor practitioners exist in every field, in industry and academia, they distort perceptions and create opportunities for the rest of us to excel.
... Good point! As everyone in school knows, what they teach in class is exactly how it works in the "real" world. However, as everyone that is working in a given field knows, new graduates are nearly useless until they learn how to apply what they learned to the real world...
I have decades of experience in software development and BS and MS degrees in computer science. I worked in software development full time while earning both of these degrees. If you think I am some kind of ivory tower type you are seriously mistaken. I have always been quite good at combining the academic and the practical.
What these marketing classes are teaching is very much like basic principles of software engineering from my MS program. In short, the university is teaching the best practices that have been developed by some of the best practitioners in their respective fields, in the "real world" not academia. These basic principles/practices, from both software development and marketing, are a beginning not an end. Details need to be worked out for each subfield and/or product. As for how things work in the "real world", the quantitative techniques and tools we are using do seem to show up on quite a few job advertisements (professional marketing positions, not sales positions with inflated titles). They are not that different from experimentation and analysis in the medical field.
Slashdot Mirror
It's odd that none of Yahoo's defense involves "We just got a search warrant". Can you explain how your apologetic relates to the cases in question?
From http://zonaeuropa.com/20070731_1.htm:
"Yahoo! China is an Internet Content Provider (ICP) in China working under Beijing ICP permit 000022. Under the terms of agreement for that permit, Yahoo! China agrees to comply with legal police warrants for information. Such conditions exist in every country."
"... the Beijing State Security Bureau's request to Yahoo!'s Beijing office for information about the e-mail account of the person who turned out to be Shi Tao."
"Beijing State Security Bureau
Notice of Evidence Collection
According to investigation, your office is in possession of the following items relating to a case of suspecting illegal provision of state secrets to foreign entities that is currently under investigation by our bureau. In accordance with Article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC, [these items] may be collected. The items for collection are: Email account registration information for huoyan1989@yahoo.com.cn, all login times, corresponding IP addresses, and relevant email content from February 22, 2004 to present."
"No, they were hanged because the orders were illegal."
The orders were legal in Germany.
The orders were illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions. People are often simultaneously subject to multiple jurisdictions, national and international law in this case.
Secondly, Soviets, Communist Chinese, and Serbian partisans did some pretty bad things and were never brought to justice.
That has nothing to do with local jurisdiction and everything to do with being on the winning side. For example Donitz was charged for unrestricted submarine warfare, Nimitz was not.
Well, I'm glad to know that Yahoo gets a greenlight on turning in dissidents.
Again, how does the company know the search warrant is referring to a dissident rather than a real criminal?
Illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions, but not German law as given in the commando order. Disobedience on the part of a German soldier would have lead to his summary execution.
I've read the translation of this order, http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/commando1.htm, there is only a vague threat of being "held responsible" and it applies only to "commanders and officers". A bluff, again, a court martial would require documenting the order being refused. Hitler went to great lengths to assure the secrecy of this order.
The Nazi's (politicians) did not have the iron grip on the military that the movies suggest. The military had to be co-opted and appeased to a degree. The Gestapo could not just shoot a soldier. Many German officers and soldiers had a traditional martial spirit rooted in duty and honor, illusions about the war had to be maintained in order to keep their loyalty. Various admiral and generals moderated Hitler at times by pointing out the disastrous effect an immoral order would have upon morale. Summary executions of German soldiers would have been even more disastrous, court martials were necessary. Which is why atrocities were generally committed by segments of the SS, troops that had a more cult like attitude in contrast to the traditional attitude. The SS evolved from the Nazi party not the German army. Although to be honest, some SS troops behaved as elite troops and acted honorably. I believe some of those who refused to commit murder in the concentration camps were SS.
I'm not saying it was easy for a German soldier of the time to defy an order, hell, it is hard for a soldier in the modern US army. Just that it was possible, and in fact the commando order was defied, famously by Rommel.
It was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany for SS officers to have Jews murdered. I mean, it was German law that people of Jewish descent weren't persons, and could be used, abused and murdered. And yet, despite all of that, those who took part in the murder of Jews were classified as criminals by an international tribunal and were brought to justice.
The Hague convention (Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land) outlaws the killing of civilians. As I mentioned in another response, some soldiers who defied these orders were quietly transfered rather than court martialed.
I'm not nearly as naive as you think. I'm well aware of the realities that drive the West to do business with China, and with China's need to do business with them. But I think we should call a spade a spade here. I don't think we need to listen to Yahoo excuse their actions as simply following local laws.
Given that you avoid the simple fact that when the government presents a search warrant the company has no idea whether the charge is political agitation or a real crime, I think "naive" stands as accurate.
I'll concede the concentration camp troops, but not that the orders for unrestricted submarine warfare or the summary execution of prisoners of war were illegal under German law then in effect.
Execution of POWs were illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions.
Unrestricted submarine warfare, yeah that's a tricky one since Nimitz testified for the defense at Donitz's trial that the US did so from day one against Japan.
There were a number of people hanged at Nuremburg for "following legal orders." Do we owe their descendants an apology?
No, they were hanged because the orders were illegal. Additionally, some German soldiers who found themselves at the camps and refused to follow orders were threatened with court martial but it was a bluff. They were quietly transfered. A court martial would have required that the order being violated be specified. The Nazis were very careful not to have such orders written down. Especially since they considered their hold on the military tenuous. The illusions of a honorable patriotic war had to be maintained, or else the military would rebel.
"We were just following orders..."
The universal defense of the repugnant.
And a popular quote of the ill informed.
It is *only* illegal to follow illegal orders, legal orders must be followed whether you believe them just or not. If China had provided something along the lines of a search warrant then compliances was most likely legal according to Chinese, US and international law. Furthermore, how would Yahoo know the warrant involves political activity rather than a "real crime"? You are being naively simplistic.
Intel is even friendlier than you suggest. They offer the same MB in TPM and non-TPM versions, and the non-TPM seems to have more features as well. To avoid a redundant thread see: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=281229&cid=203 85475
Do not want!
l able.htm
No problem, Intel has motherboards for you too. I was specing out a quad core and noticed Intel has TPM and non-TPM versions of the same motherboard, for example the D975XBX2.
http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/bx2/bx2_avai
The non-TPM version seems to have more features too, digital audio out, 8 SATA instead of 4, IEE1394/Firewire, 3 year warranty rather than 1 year.
How difficult would it be to mod a mobo, removing the TPM? Is TET (because Execution begins with the letter E) done in Microcode or is it all in silicon?
Why mod when you can buy a motherboard without it? When I went shopping for Intel motherboards a few weeks ago I noticed TPM and non-TPM versions of the same motherboard.
Before someone out there decides to write "But what about buying from Dell, HP, etc?" note we are discussing modding. Someone who is going to mod a motherboard should be able to operate a screwdriver and install a motherboard.
You are behind the times. Euro-bashing is no longer necessary, friendly administrations have been elected in Germany and France. ;-)
It seems far better than what my laptop speakers can produce, it also seems "good enough" for ear buds plugged into the laptop. I understand your concern, I rip at 256K with the hope of eventually playing through a home stereo system, but for casual access 32K seems just fine.
"you may not publish any performance comparisons between our product and others" seems suspect on the surface. ... However, it does seem likely to me that such a clause could be attacked because (meaning this is the red flag that I see) it seems to restrain a user's behavior beyond ways which are reasonable in a free market, ...
... and that the user doesn't really have a choice in the matter.
Looking at the factors that the courts consider:
- Acts that have no legitimate business purpose.
In the context of pre-release, preventing comparisons serves a valid business purpose. Engineering samples, beta, etc may not properly represent the finished product. In general, preventing comparisons should be perfectly valid if there is "consideration", if the customer gets something in return. For example, special access to info and products. It is perfectly valid for a contract to restrict the flow of information.
- Greatly unequal bargaining power.
"Consideration" again, if there is a reasonable exchange the unequal power becomes moot.
- An unnaturally large gain for one party.
- Financial distress to one party.
These don't seem to be an issue.
Adhesion contracts can be perfectly valid, there is nothing inherently wrong with a take it or leave it position. Not being allowed to publish benchmarks seems pretty far from an unconscionable requirement (except when it intersects with public policy, whistleblowing for example), and pretty close to a valid business tactic (especially in the pre-release context).
For example, if I negotiate a contract with you and it has an arbitrarion clause which we both agree to, is that different than an adhesion contract relating to a service or product where there is no possibility of negotiation?
... While high awards may be appealed by either party, common experience suggest that it is unlikely that an insured would appeal such an award. It is the insurer who, generally, would be dissatisfied with a high award. The policy provision thus presents an 'escape hatch' to the insurer for avaoidance of high arbitration awards, whether or not the award was fair and reasonable. However, the insured, who would tend to be dissatisfied with a a low award, is barred from appealing such an award. ... The Chancery Court was correct in stricking this unconscionable clause."
The textbook that I referred to seems to indicate that unconscionable terms are a bigger issue for adhesion contracts, a power and sophistication imbalance often exist. The issue of arbitration is used as an example, in the following case the contract stated that both parties must accept low awards but either party may appeal high awards. Worldwide Insurance v. Klopp. 603 A.2d 1992 Del. Lexis 13. Supreme Court Deleware 1992:
"The public policy of this State favors the resolution of disputes through arbitration. An insurance policy which provides for arbitration as its primary mechanism for dispute resolution is thus enforceable.
If both parties negotiated a deal then there may still be an economic duress argument. 2007, Beatty and Samuelson, p. 325: "How do we distinguish economic duress from successful business tactics? Courts have created no single rule to answer the question, but they do focus on certain issues. In analyzing a claim of economic duress, courts look at these factors:
- Acts that have no legitimate business purpose.
- Greatly unequal bargaining power.
- An unnaturally large gain for one party.
- Financial distress to one party.
You're skating a fine line at the moment, I think. Metrics are about the business people having more control over something they don't really understand and which costs them money.
No, metrics are a research topic in software engineering. I've seen classes on metrics in computer science graduate programs. Geeks and scientists want to know as well.
He knows who does a good job and how well the group is doing.
Without metrics how does he know this? Without metrics social skills and office politics decide who are the better employees. I am not saying that going 100% metrics is good, just that going 100% subjective is not good either.
Metrics are a current business buzzword, and of limited value in a good tech environment. I've been through three big metric pushes as a sysadmin, at 2.5 different companies, and either the metrics push died or the department did.
I think you are confusing bad metrics with metrics in general. That graduate level computer science class teaches that bad metrics are easy to aquire and are plentiful. That it is difficult to develop good metrics. This reinforces my point that managers should not develop metrics in isolation, they should do so in conjunction with those doing to actual work.
A contract requires the informed consent of both parties entering the agreement. It has yet to be proven in a court of law that clicking an 'OK' button equates to informed consent, especially if the terms of the "agreement" are not presented prior to the purchase.
... Many courts that have analyzed these issues have ruled that clickwrap and shrinkwrap agreements are indeed binding, even against consumers. The courts have emphasized that sellers are entitled to offer a product on any terms they wish, and that shrinkwrap and clickswrap are the most efficient methods of including complicated terms in a small space. Think before you click!(8)
... The plaintiffs clicked to download. If, instead of downloading they had scrolled further down, they would have seen an invitation to 'review and agree to the terms of the Netscape SmartDownload software license agreement.' ... Receipt of a physical document containing contract terms or notice thereof is frequently deemed, in the world of paper transactions, a sufficient circumstance to place the offeree on inquiry notice of those terms. These principles apply equally to the emergent world of online product delivery, pop-up screens, hyperlinked pages, clickwrap licensing, scrollable documents ... We are not persuaded that a reasonably prudent oferee in these circumstances would have known of the existence of license terms. Plaintiffs were responding to an offer that did not carry an immediately visible notice of the existence of license terms or require unambiguous manifestation of assent to those terms. ... a reference to the existence of license terms on a submerged screen is not sufficient to place consumers in inquiry or consctrucive notice of those terms."
Clickwrap and Shrinkwrap are enforcible contracts. From 2007, Beatty and Samuelson, Business Law and the Legal Environment: Standard Edition, 4th edition, Chapter 11 - Agreements, p. 265:
"Cyberlaw. Clickwraps and Shrinkwraps.
(8) ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenbert, 86 F3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), is the leading case to enforce shrinkwrap agreements (and, by extension, clickwraps). Klocek v. Gateway, 104 F. Supp. 1332 (D. Kan, 2000) is one of the few cases to reject such contracts. Klocek, however, was dismissed for failure to reach the federal court $75,000 jurisdic tional level."
As you suggest submerged agreements are a problem, however making the terms visible before clicking is valid and clicking "I Agree" is valid. The following shows why the license is shown first on many download pages, or by installers, it corrects the "submerging" defect. And why "I Agree" rather than "OK" is used, it corrects the ambiguous defect. Not activating "I Agree" until after all of the agreement has scrolled by is a nice addition. P. 266:
"Specht v. Netscape Communications Corporation", 306 F.3d 17, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 2002.
Apologies for the typos.
If you aren't a director or higher in title, and your duties don't include justifying expenses and planning resources for solutions, then it isn't really your realm to measure something like productivity. If this guy has an MBA or similar qualifications, it is he who should know how to measure productivity.
I am in an MBA program. Anyone in an organization can be involved in measurement. I was taught that it is arrogant and foolish for a manager to think they can sit in their office and make decisions related to productivity (improvements or measurements), that you have to make decision in consultation with those "in the trenches". The people doing the job are your best source of information. Furthermore, each level of management removed from the actual job has a poorer and poorer understanding.
I realize that measuring an admin's productivity is hard, been there, done that. However *some* attempt at quantification of what you do is not necessarily a bad idea. It can be a useful exercise, for the admin and management. The problem is that there is no simple answer, each site and the business needs they serve are unique. This makes it necessary for a site's admins being involved in developing the metrics.
Also ideally, a CTO wouldn't be asking those in the trenches how to measure productivity, but rather how to improve it.
Without some measurement how do you know productivity is improved?
My point is that Sun's workstation and server market was being decimated by Linux and FreeBSD. They had to try to find to find something new, they tried Java, it didn't go as well as they hoped.
The GPL *does* cover use. It says you have the unlimitted right to run the software, that there is no warranty, etc.
This is the platform company that spent the 1990s evangelizing a language that makes it easy to write platform independent code. Java may be nice, but it was a butt-stupid move for a company that made its money in OSes and hardware.
By the late 90s Sun knew that the OS and hardware market was no longer available, Linux and FreeBSD were destined to take it. Sun realized that many buyers of its workstations did not really need anything Sun specific, they just needed a general purpose Unix box. PC hardware running Linux or FreeBSD had begun to fulfill this need. Sun had to find a new market.
... The best we have now is Blizzard. Blizzard, the same group of insensitive clods who claimed Mac Starcraft would be released the same time it would for PC. Then they said it would be shortly after. Then by summer. Then by Christmas. In the end a FULL YEAR passed before it finally got released. AND, ...
... to add insult to injury, they made all copies PC/Mac hybrid discs, and had the audacity to charge $50 for a copy if it was in a "Mac" section of a store, but only $30 for the identical product if it were in the PC section.
You are about 9 years out of date. Diablo II for Mac came out about two weeks after the Windows version, quite a shock at MacWorld 2000. The D2 expansion, Warcraft III and its expansion, and World of Warcraft and its expansion have shipped simultaneously. IIRC the simultaneous ships coincided with Blizzard moving from outside contractors to internal Mac development.
Again, your are many years out of date. I believe from the D2 expansion forward, the simultaneous ships, there has been only one retail SKU - a Windows/Mac hybrid box. For the older titles only the Mac boxes/SKUs were hybrid, Windows boxes/SKUs may be Windows only (their master disc predating the Mac version). Finally, the disparate pricing was often done by the retailer, if you tried to buy from the publisher's website the prices were the same. I've noticed local stores discounting a popular title as a loss leader on numerous occasions. Works great for me since I can usually wait a month or three.
I suspect it would come down to the "expectation of privacy" standard, and most people don't expect their wastewater can be seen by anyone before it is processed.
Not true. A city worker performing inspection/maintenance on a street's main line may see your wastewater.
Back in the 90s there was some research to analyze the chemical content of air being vented from a home into the atmosphere. The goal was to more easily locate people cooking meth in remote locations. A laser was shined into a heat plume to obtain a chemical profile. The theory was that no warrant was necessary. The officer operated the equipment from public property and the heat plume entering the atmosphere was also in a public space. The precendent was supposedly dogs sniffing vehicles passing through a checkpoint, odors leaving a vehicle were entering a public space and fair game. If a dog alerted that was valid probably cause for a search.
... there are always exceptions. But other departments are not as good at bullshitting and so have to justify themselves with hard numbers, facts, and performance. ...
In my marketing classes it is all about quantitative analysis. They constantly stress that CEOs will smell BS and hit you with questions about your data and analysis. Some of our professors have decades of experience at major firms and readily offer stories of someone who got reamed trying to offer the BS you suggest. I used to share your perceptions. I had no idea what real professional marketing was all about. In much the same vein, examing most commercial or FOSS code will give you no idea what real professional software engineering is about. Poor practitioners exist in every field, in industry and academia, they distort perceptions and create opportunities for the rest of us to excel.
... Good point! As everyone in school knows, what they teach in class is exactly how it works in the "real" world. However, as everyone that is working in a given field knows, new graduates are nearly useless until they learn how to apply what they learned to the real world ...
I have decades of experience in software development and BS and MS degrees in computer science. I worked in software development full time while earning both of these degrees. If you think I am some kind of ivory tower type you are seriously mistaken. I have always been quite good at combining the academic and the practical.
What these marketing classes are teaching is very much like basic principles of software engineering from my MS program. In short, the university is teaching the best practices that have been developed by some of the best practitioners in their respective fields, in the "real world" not academia. These basic principles/practices, from both software development and marketing, are a beginning not an end. Details need to be worked out for each subfield and/or product. As for how things work in the "real world", the quantitative techniques and tools we are using do seem to show up on quite a few job advertisements (professional marketing positions, not sales positions with inflated titles). They are not that different from experimentation and analysis in the medical field.