Same store, same transaction, different result. The law is, as Dickens wrote, an ass.
Although I won't dispute your comment about the law (I frequently agree), the fact that it's the same store does not mean that the transaction is the same: part of the transaction is a location. Obviously, any location related to the transaction could have been chosen as transaction location:
where the store is
where the sales clerk / server is
where the customer is at the time of transaction
For a physical transaction in a brick&mortar store, these are all (approximately) the same, so we don't notice if the law uses a different one than we / most people do. But when the transaction is handled online, the differences become apparent and thus what we interpret to be the same transaction (after all: same store, same item, same price, so same transaction, right?) suddenly is not.
This is where the law suddenly becomes illogical, cumbersome and/or subject to greedy politicians. It is also the point where laws start to create new conflicts. US law and EU law may both be internally coherent (I'm not claiming they are), but their combination most likely is not. Hence the current dispute over accessing emails on a server in the EU by people in the US. And as a bonus for this quagmire: whose judge gets to decide on the issue? This is most certainly not just an issue of law, but also an issue of government power.
You're claiming that a person located in the U.S. is governed by EU law, e.g., they can't access a server they own and control except in accordance with EU law, despite the fact that they are not in the EU. You are, in fact, trying to impose EU law on a person sitting at a computer in the U.S.
Actually, where the person is located does not matter much.
We see this in the US with sales tax on online sales. While you could argue that the sale takes place in the retailers server, according to the law it takes place in the customers home. This is why retailers (assuming sufficient presence, i.e. nexus) must pay sales tax where thew customer lives. The same applies in the EU by the way, for purposes of consumer protection, VAT, etc. Where the company (and its employees) are located does not matter.
Another issue here is the EU-US Privacy Shield: whatever the US supreme court decides must be in line with the agreement with the EU, or we'll face new problems as we did when the previous safe harbor provisions were struck down.
Given that the email belongs to people in the EU, both the provisions of the EU-US Privacy Shield and the EU privacy protection laws apply. AFAIK, this means that the decision to hand over the data must be decided by a EU judge.
if someone cures Cancer with a single pill, but only wants it given to people with a valid South Korean citizenship...
His right...
Not true: for example in Africa, patents have been cast aside in the early 2000's not because live saving drugs weren't available, but because they were too expensive. As a result, drugs are now a lot cheaper in Africa and other poor areas through several programs.
Let's not forget that intellectual property (patents and copyright both) is a fiction. A fiction that we allow to exist for one single purpose: our society.
As soon as we feel that intellectual property harms society, it will be cast aside. And of course, copyrights are abused a lot more than patents because the harm is less. It's mostly just entertainment.
Besides cutting off access to those radios to apps, what would be the purpose of turning them off now if it doesn't really turn them off?
How about theft?
For a smartphone there may not be a reason, seeing you always carry it with you. But for clunkier items like tablets, an always-on transmitter of a radio signal is a godsend for thieves everywhere. Now they can use a simple scanner to locate items to steal.
In fact, this is the reason you should turn your transmitting devices off (not standby) when you leave them out of sight in your locked car. It prevents them from being stolen.
These a**holes collect all manner of sensitive personal data, without our permission I might add, [...]
This is the part where I think the US (and the rest of the world too, for that matter) needs a law like the upcoming GDPR in Europe. That would require anyone to obtain explicit & informed consent, protect data properly, and inform the public timely when this protection fails (the 'timely' bit was clearly not done here).
Here in the UK, if a parcel is on your doorstep and gets stolen, it's still the retailers responsibility.
This is the law in The Netherlands as well. In fact, in The Netherlands the sender/retailer is responsible (and liable) for delivery to you. If you don't receive the parcel, it has not been delivered. This includes stops in between like a parcel service, but also your neighbours! If the parcel service looses your parcel, or if the neighbour decides to give it to a nephew, the parcel has not been delivered to you and the sender/retailer is liable for the loss.
There are plenty of perfectly legitimate times when what information is available about you could be utterly false. The EU's laws in this regard are addressing a very real problem that seriously impacts on citizens liberty and lives - the only thing wrong about these laws is that they do not have equivalents in EVERY free country like the seriously ought to.
Exactly: the problem being addressed here is very real.
Personally I think Google is going against its own motto (don't be Evil) by purposefully allowing wrong and damaging search results to exist. Knowingly and willingly displaying search results that are wrong (and damaging) *is being Evil*.
For children age 6 and up, and also for adults, the most important thing is to Keep It Simple.
Writing down passwords is actually a good thing for adults, as long as the passwords are written down in a secure place. A note in your wallet qualifies, as you know how to keep your wallet secure (right?). This is even more secure than a password safe on your smartphone: inputting a strong password is a pain (and easily observed), and witht it your sm artphone becomes a prime target for theft (if it isn't already).
For children of 6 years old and older (I'm assuming a US centric view here, triggered by the word 'elementary'), the situation is not that much different. The only problem is that children at this age usually do not have a wallet.
This is then the only problem to solve: creating a secure place to write down passwords.
[W]hen you ask your boss if online engineering coursework is good for getting a new job, they would tell you "you're fired".
Maybe in Corporate America, where you have to slave 60 hours a week just to keep your job, and where you're expected to feel guilty for wanting to have a social life. In Europe (at least developing software in the Netherlands), this is simply not true. The reason: employers realise that a high turnover costs a huge amount of money and worse, delays projects. The latter costs time to market, which can be even more expensive and in extreme cases can kill the company.
To be fair, some employers do cover furthering education, but again, usually it cannot come at a cost to your already full workload.
This is true. It is also the reason why your education, even if paid by your employer, is done in your personal time (usually partially for mandated courses). This way both you and your employer invest, which is only fair.
Being a software engineer instead of a hacker is all about predictability:
Predictable planning: have it done when you say it will be.
Software quality: use Test Driven Design to ensure your code behaves as it should.
Predictable deployments: practice and simplify deploying your code for systems.
Document the structure of your code, so the next guy knows what he's looking at.
There's more to each of these items, of course, but it's all about making it simple (KISS) and predictable. This sets a software engineer apart from a mere hacker.
Will there also be a website where you can get Daily WTF updates? This could be interesting. Add some crappy user commenting software are you are all set for a fun time.
If not, then why would you want it to be open source?
If I was going to be spending a reasonable amount of time inputting data that I want to access for an extended period of time I would want it to be an open source program. That way you can always get the data out of the program again (possibly with some effort) and you are not stuck with regular upgrade fees for the latest version with the bug fix need to make it work with the latest OS version.
Of these two items, the data portability is (luckily) moot: the more knowledgeable users (about genealogy, not software) of this kind of software are actually familiar with its problems, even in the paper world.
The second item, paying for upgrades, still exists though. And sometimes even more than average.
For basic usage, any program that supports GEDCOM (the de facto file format all good genealogy software support) will do, and your choice should be on your personal preference. So try them out first, of find your local genealogy association and ask around. Personally, I have good experience with Gramps (you already found that one) and ProGen (a dutch commercial program). The latter not being open source, it'll probably not be interesting to you.
For more advanced usage, you should know that some programs assigns a different meaning to some standard fields, and most programs have their own way of filling in custom fields. If you find yourself using such features, please consider who you'd be sharing your GEDCOM files with, and use the same. Note though, that it'll likely not be open source.
The solution is to require that any imports not authorized by the manufacturer must be clearly advertised as not supported by the manufacturer, with all service provided by the importer.
Which is the law here in the Netherlands.
Say I buy an object from a seller. Then anything that's wrong with the object (and under warranty, whether by choice or by law) is a matter between me and the seller. The manufacturer has nothing to do with it directly. If they're going to be involved (which is likely), that's a matter between the seller and the manufacturer -- I have nothing to do with that.
"Younger workers' lives are all integrated, not segregated," says Larry Rivard. "They have learned to work anywhere — at a kitchen table or wherever."
Maybe I'm an ergonomics nut (I always insist on a proper chair and desk, plus a good monitor height), but do these younger workers expect to make it until their retirement? Working just anywhere is very destructive to your body, unless you pay sufficient attention to ergonomics.
Personally, I believe we'd be better off it professional programming transformed from an art into an engineering discipline. IMHO, building robust and efficient applications should be a boring and repetitive exercise in design and implementation of prescribed design patterns... maybe then we'd turn our industry's abysmal success rates around.
A good point. Sadly, I've yet to come across an easy to understand development process that doesn't pin down way too much. We're doing Agile for a reason.
Programming mistake No. 1: Playing it fast and loose.
Fair enough. So debug while you code. Seems like good advice.
Programming mistake No. 2: Overcommitting to details.
Doesn't mistake number 2 contradict number 1?
Yes it does. The difficult part is knowing the balance, as indicated by the summary: "programming may in fact be transforming into an art, one that requires a skilled hand and a creative mind [...]"
Exactly. They're testing only part of the features. The IE9 team 'just happened' to have implemented these features before other features, and the other major browsers 'just happened' to have prioritized other features before these.
This is an unfair, rigged test result by any standard.
Just wondering... given the load on the USPTO, how likely would it be that both Apple and Motorola are violating each others patents on technology they themselves hold the patent to? Really: this lawyer frenzy just shows how big a mess it is.
Unlike many presenters at Black Hat, Michael responsibly disclosed the flaw to organizers, who quickly fixed the issue.
Bugs cost money to fix. In this case, fixing the bug could also cause more paying customers (the freeloaders also willing to pay, no matter how small their number). So it was in their best interest to fix the bug.
But let's be realistic here: Micheal Coates was lucky.
There are many instances (some of them documented extensively here), where reporting the bug causes the reporter financial and legal harm. Especially with security related bugs, companies see no potential gain in fixing the bug and cleaning up -- only costs, which piss off their investors. That is, unless the story gets out and people get angry. But by starting a fight with the honest, reponsible reporter, people are much more likely to think: 'must be a disgruntled customer/ex-employee/...'. Result: not enough bad publicity to raise a stink.
"Show me a car that can win the Indy 500 and is the most fuel efficient of all cars."
To be good at something does not mean you'll be rated among the best. And that is what is takes to even have a chance at winning the Indy 500. Or to be the most fuel efficient of all cars -- by definition of the word "most" an extreme case.
BUT: by practicing you can actually be good at both multi-tasking and focusing. Obviously you'll not be the best at either, because there's always someone with more talent and time spent on either multi-tasking or focussing (at the exclusion of the other).
"This is no different, really, than living in a small town."
This is the heart of the matter.
Anything you do with others isn't private. These others may agree not to "gossip" (thus enlarging your privacy), but that is entirely up to them. So just as in any small town, or in any group of friends, anything is as private as the biggest gossip will let it be. That is why you watch your step when near that notorious gossip.
Also note, that anything done in public is,... public. That includes your dealings with companies, your steps on the internet, and anything else that transmits data about you outside your house. Yes, even that noisy sex or spousal argument that the neighbors heard (ok, bad examples...).
As the parent said: This is no different, really, than living in a small town.
A EULA usually constitutes general terms of business.
General terms of business must be legibly available before purchase to be valid, but they are not negotiable.
Would that include if you walk into a store and see a box for "Joe's CAD" and it says "terms and conditions at www.example.com/terms" which contains the EULA. However, you have nothing to check that on you, and the store doesn't have an available Internet connection. You could always leave, go home, check it, then come back. Or, you could say "the terms were not presented at the place of sale and not visible at the point of sale until after the sale was completed." So where do shrinkwrap license agreements come in?
A very good point. This question is answered differently in the various jurisdictions around the world, in they define how the terms must be available. In some jurisdictions, it's enough that the general terms of business are only deposited (and thus available) via the chamber of commerce. In others, they must be available via the chamber of commerce, the company (website/mail/...), and sometimes also in the store itself.
Fortunately, this question also applies for non-digital purchases. So wherever you live, there is very likely to be a lot of case law and precedents addressing this issue.
So the EULA, because it only removes rights, MUST be a contract.
Unfortunately, general terms of business may do the same. For example, they can restrict your options for arbitrage to a court in either their or your home state, as opposed to a court in any state.
You would have a valid point, were it not for one simple thing: the license is not just about copyright. It's about general terms of business.
Because a software license is usually used as general terms of business, you implicitly agree to them when buying/downloading the software. An "I agree" button is just icing on the cake; only in jurisdictions that allow shrink-wrap licenses are they useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Same store, same transaction, different result. The law is, as Dickens wrote, an ass.
Although I won't dispute your comment about the law (I frequently agree), the fact that it's the same store does not mean that the transaction is the same: part of the transaction is a location. Obviously, any location related to the transaction could have been chosen as transaction location:
For a physical transaction in a brick&mortar store, these are all (approximately) the same, so we don't notice if the law uses a different one than we / most people do. But when the transaction is handled online, the differences become apparent and thus what we interpret to be the same transaction (after all: same store, same item, same price, so same transaction, right?) suddenly is not.
This is where the law suddenly becomes illogical, cumbersome and/or subject to greedy politicians. It is also the point where laws start to create new conflicts. US law and EU law may both be internally coherent (I'm not claiming they are), but their combination most likely is not. Hence the current dispute over accessing emails on a server in the EU by people in the US. And as a bonus for this quagmire: whose judge gets to decide on the issue? This is most certainly not just an issue of law, but also an issue of government power.
You're claiming that a person located in the U.S. is governed by EU law, e.g., they can't access a server they own and control except in accordance with EU law, despite the fact that they are not in the EU. You are, in fact, trying to impose EU law on a person sitting at a computer in the U.S.
Actually, where the person is located does not matter much.
We see this in the US with sales tax on online sales. While you could argue that the sale takes place in the retailers server, according to the law it takes place in the customers home. This is why retailers (assuming sufficient presence, i.e. nexus) must pay sales tax where thew customer lives. The same applies in the EU by the way, for purposes of consumer protection, VAT, etc. Where the company (and its employees) are located does not matter.
Another issue here is the EU-US Privacy Shield: whatever the US supreme court decides must be in line with the agreement with the EU, or we'll face new problems as we did when the previous safe harbor provisions were struck down.
Given that the email belongs to people in the EU, both the provisions of the EU-US Privacy Shield and the EU privacy protection laws apply. AFAIK, this means that the decision to hand over the data must be decided by a EU judge.
His right...
Not true: for example in Africa, patents have been cast aside in the early 2000's not because live saving drugs weren't available, but because they were too expensive. As a result, drugs are now a lot cheaper in Africa and other poor areas through several programs.
Let's not forget that intellectual property (patents and copyright both) is a fiction. A fiction that we allow to exist for one single purpose: our society.
As soon as we feel that intellectual property harms society, it will be cast aside. And of course, copyrights are abused a lot more than patents because the harm is less. It's mostly just entertainment.
Besides cutting off access to those radios to apps, what would be the purpose of turning them off now if it doesn't really turn them off?
How about theft?
For a smartphone there may not be a reason, seeing you always carry it with you. But for clunkier items like tablets, an always-on transmitter of a radio signal is a godsend for thieves everywhere. Now they can use a simple scanner to locate items to steal.
In fact, this is the reason you should turn your transmitting devices off (not standby) when you leave them out of sight in your locked car. It prevents them from being stolen.
These a**holes collect all manner of sensitive personal data, without our permission I might add, [...]
This is the part where I think the US (and the rest of the world too, for that matter) needs a law like the upcoming GDPR in Europe. That would require anyone to obtain explicit & informed consent, protect data properly, and inform the public timely when this protection fails (the 'timely' bit was clearly not done here).
Here in the UK, if a parcel is on your doorstep and gets stolen, it's still the retailers responsibility.
This is the law in The Netherlands as well. In fact, in The Netherlands the sender/retailer is responsible (and liable) for delivery to you. If you don't receive the parcel, it has not been delivered. This includes stops in between like a parcel service, but also your neighbours! If the parcel service looses your parcel, or if the neighbour decides to give it to a nephew, the parcel has not been delivered to you and the sender/retailer is liable for the loss.
There are plenty of perfectly legitimate times when what information is available about you could be utterly false. The EU's laws in this regard are addressing a very real problem that seriously impacts on citizens liberty and lives - the only thing wrong about these laws is that they do not have equivalents in EVERY free country like the seriously ought to.
Exactly: the problem being addressed here is very real.
Personally I think Google is going against its own motto (don't be Evil) by purposefully allowing wrong and damaging search results to exist. Knowingly and willingly displaying search results that are wrong (and damaging) *is being Evil*.
For children age 6 and up, and also for adults, the most important thing is to Keep It Simple.
Writing down passwords is actually a good thing for adults, as long as the passwords are written down in a secure place. A note in your wallet qualifies, as you know how to keep your wallet secure (right?). This is even more secure than a password safe on your smartphone: inputting a strong password is a pain (and easily observed), and witht it your sm artphone becomes a prime target for theft (if it isn't already).
For children of 6 years old and older (I'm assuming a US centric view here, triggered by the word 'elementary'), the situation is not that much different. The only problem is that children at this age usually do not have a wallet.
This is then the only problem to solve: creating a secure place to write down passwords.
[W]hen you ask your boss if online engineering coursework is good for getting a new job, they would tell you "you're fired".
Maybe in Corporate America, where you have to slave 60 hours a week just to keep your job, and where you're expected to feel guilty for wanting to have a social life. In Europe (at least developing software in the Netherlands), this is simply not true. The reason: employers realise that a high turnover costs a huge amount of money and worse, delays projects. The latter costs time to market, which can be even more expensive and in extreme cases can kill the company.
To be fair, some employers do cover furthering education, but again, usually it cannot come at a cost to your already full workload.
This is true. It is also the reason why your education, even if paid by your employer, is done in your personal time (usually partially for mandated courses). This way both you and your employer invest, which is only fair.
Being a software engineer instead of a hacker is all about predictability:
There's more to each of these items, of course, but it's all about making it simple (KISS) and predictable. This sets a software engineer apart from a mere hacker.
Will there also be a website where you can get Daily WTF updates? This could be interesting. Add some crappy user commenting software are you are all set for a fun time.
You mean http://thedailywtf.com/ ?
If not, then why would you want it to be open source?
If I was going to be spending a reasonable amount of time inputting data that I want to access for an extended period of time I would want it to be an open source program. That way you can always get the data out of the program again (possibly with some effort) and you are not stuck with regular upgrade fees for the latest version with the bug fix need to make it work with the latest OS version.
Of these two items, the data portability is (luckily) moot: the more knowledgeable users (about genealogy, not software) of this kind of software are actually familiar with its problems, even in the paper world.
The second item, paying for upgrades, still exists though. And sometimes even more than average.
For basic usage, any program that supports GEDCOM (the de facto file format all good genealogy software support) will do, and your choice should be on your personal preference. So try them out first, of find your local genealogy association and ask around. Personally, I have good experience with Gramps (you already found that one) and ProGen (a dutch commercial program). The latter not being open source, it'll probably not be interesting to you.
For more advanced usage, you should know that some programs assigns a different meaning to some standard fields, and most programs have their own way of filling in custom fields. If you find yourself using such features, please consider who you'd be sharing your GEDCOM files with, and use the same. Note though, that it'll likely not be open source.
The solution is to require that any imports not authorized by the manufacturer must be clearly advertised as not supported by the manufacturer, with all service provided by the importer.
Which is the law here in the Netherlands.
Say I buy an object from a seller. Then anything that's wrong with the object (and under warranty, whether by choice or by law) is a matter between me and the seller. The manufacturer has nothing to do with it directly. If they're going to be involved (which is likely), that's a matter between the seller and the manufacturer -- I have nothing to do with that.
"Younger workers' lives are all integrated, not segregated," says Larry Rivard. "They have learned to work anywhere — at a kitchen table or wherever."
Maybe I'm an ergonomics nut (I always insist on a proper chair and desk, plus a good monitor height), but do these younger workers expect to make it until their retirement?
Working just anywhere is very destructive to your body, unless you pay sufficient attention to ergonomics.
Personally, I believe we'd be better off it professional programming transformed from an art into an engineering discipline. IMHO, building robust and efficient applications should be a boring and repetitive exercise in design and implementation of prescribed design patterns... maybe then we'd turn our industry's abysmal success rates around.
A good point. Sadly, I've yet to come across an easy to understand development process that doesn't pin down way too much. We're doing Agile for a reason.
Programming mistake No. 1: Playing it fast and loose.
Fair enough. So debug while you code. Seems like good advice.
Programming mistake No. 2: Overcommitting to details.
Doesn't mistake number 2 contradict number 1?
Yes it does. The difficult part is knowing the balance, as indicated by the summary: "programming may in fact be transforming into an art, one that requires a skilled hand and a creative mind [...]"
Exactly. They're testing only part of the features. The IE9 team 'just happened' to have implemented these features before other features, and the other major browsers 'just happened' to have prioritized other features before these.
This is an unfair, rigged test result by any standard.
Just wondering... given the load on the USPTO, how likely would it be that both Apple and Motorola are violating each others patents on technology they themselves hold the patent to? Really: this lawyer frenzy just shows how big a mess it is.
Bugs cost money to fix. In this case, fixing the bug could also cause more paying customers (the freeloaders also willing to pay, no matter how small their number). So it was in their best interest to fix the bug.
But let's be realistic here: Micheal Coates was lucky.
There are many instances (some of them documented extensively here), where reporting the bug causes the reporter financial and legal harm. Especially with security related bugs, companies see no potential gain in fixing the bug and cleaning up -- only costs, which piss off their investors. That is, unless the story gets out and people get angry. But by starting a fight with the honest, reponsible reporter, people are much more likely to think: 'must be a disgruntled customer/ex-employee/...'. Result: not enough bad publicity to raise a stink.
"Show me a car that can win the Indy 500 and is the most fuel efficient of all cars."
To be good at something does not mean you'll be rated among the best. And that is what is takes to even have a chance at winning the Indy 500. Or to be the most fuel efficient of all cars -- by definition of the word "most" an extreme case.
BUT: by practicing you can actually be good at both multi-tasking and focusing. Obviously you'll not be the best at either, because there's always someone with more talent and time spent on either multi-tasking or focussing (at the exclusion of the other).
"This is no different, really, than living in a small town."
This is the heart of the matter.
Anything you do with others isn't private. These others may agree not to "gossip" (thus enlarging your privacy), but that is entirely up to them. So just as in any small town, or in any group of friends, anything is as private as the biggest gossip will let it be. That is why you watch your step when near that notorious gossip.
Also note, that anything done in public is, ... public. That includes your dealings with companies, your steps on the internet, and anything else that transmits data about you outside your house. Yes, even that noisy sex or spousal argument that the neighbors heard (ok, bad examples...).
As the parent said: This is no different, really, than living in a small town.
A very good point. This question is answered differently in the various jurisdictions around the world, in they define how the terms must be available. In some jurisdictions, it's enough that the general terms of business are only deposited (and thus available) via the chamber of commerce. In others, they must be available via the chamber of commerce, the company (website/mail/...), and sometimes also in the store itself.
Fortunately, this question also applies for non-digital purchases. So wherever you live, there is very likely to be a lot of case law and precedents addressing this issue.
Unfortunately, general terms of business may do the same. For example, they can restrict your options for arbitrage to a court in either their or your home state, as opposed to a court in any state.
You would have a valid point, were it not for one simple thing: the license is not just about copyright. It's about general terms of business.
Because a software license is usually used as general terms of business, you implicitly agree to them when buying/downloading the software. An "I agree" button is just icing on the cake; only in jurisdictions that allow shrink-wrap licenses are they useful.