Charming. Perhaps you weren't aware that Microsoft has a product that attempts to compete in Quark's market called Publisher that is indeed bundled with some versions of Office. But don't let facts get in the way of your profanity-laden mouth-frothing rant.
Not that it'll help out with the job stuff, but I'd send off to the investigating agency for a copy of the investigation (IIRC, both the Privacy Act and FOIA apply, but the PA entitles you to more of the investigation). It will be redacted, but unless things are more corrupt than I hope in government, you will see what was actually considered. Sounds like it was the agency's loss in this case.
That sounds like bullshit. Maybe that's why they told you you didn't get the clearance. A SECRET is a slam dunk unless you're a professing Al Quaeda member, Communist, bed wetter, or baby raper.
This is all, of course, assuming you disclosed your name change when going through the process--given that, I would bet there's some other reason they wanted you to not pass.
And if for some reason they do buy it, Mac software won't work with it. And if anyone does make Mac software work with it, Apple will use the DMCA against them like they did against the folks who patched iDVD so the people who bought it but didn't own an Apple branded drive could use it.
When are these people going to learn that Apple is just a metrosexual, down-scaled version of Microsoft?
Can you cite some case law to support your assertion that "setting off the 'inventory management' alert is probable cause"?
Re:What's the solution? How can we take their mone
on
Orwellian Tech Support
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that good tech support costs money, and when they see your shiny new product that costs 10-20% more on the shelf next to the one with tech support that sucks, the customer isn't thinking he'll need tech support, much less about the relative merits of yours versus theirs.
Type in an address--say, the Krispy Kreme on the corner or your neighbor's house--and up will pop a list of all reported incidents for that location. Access a known offender, and you'll get a list of his addresses and aliases, and high-res images of his mug shots and tattoos (tattoos are the criminal equivalent of bar codes and are put to the same use by the cops).
That's nice for cops to have--but every citizen should have online access to that information--it's all public record, after all. Why shouldn't I be able to check out the houses in the neighborhood I'm considering buying in for crime statistics? Or to check my prospective babysitter for priors (again, convictions are a matter of public record).
IANAL; the below is not legal advice; if you feel like you need legal advice, quit reading Slashdot and get a lawyer.
That said, responding to Microsoft in any way, even to say you have no idea what they are talking about, can be used as an admission of guilt. If you're really worried, get a lawyer, but DON'T reply to jkweston. In the U.S. (thanks to Verizon), MS would actually have to FILE a John Doe suit to unmask you (assuming your ISP doesn't suck balls). Even Microsoft isn't likely to spend the money and bad PR that would be involved in suing the thousands of people who are probably going after the source code.
If I wanted it, I'd wait for the Usenet post, myself (though newzbin and others making Usenet searchable are going to be its downfall, but I digress.)
New Orleans at Mardi Gras is a public place, too. People flash their naughty bits because the overwhelming odds are that they won't get caught--even though they know it's a possibility. Of course, Microsoft isn't filming for the "Girls Gone Wild" crew, either:).
Seems the better course of action to take would be to not respond to this at all. Unless his ISP identified him, they (now) would have to sue to get his contact information. In any case, one would be nuts to respond with anything that could be construed as an admission of guilt.
I doubt even Microsoft is going to file lawsuits against the thousands of people probably sharing this file. Those sued would have plausible deniability--ironically, they could say they were hit by a Microsoft worm and had to reformat their machine:).
MS is just trying to create a chilling effect--in a few months, this will be one of those things everyone has on a CDR, and nobody looks at. MS will quit paying to have the fakes shared on Kazaa, it'll have been posted on Usenet a few times, and all will be back to normal.
And if Microsoft ever tried the same thing, they'd be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, hung, and shot. But when Apple forces people to purchase an OS with hardware, that's OK.
Wrongful death would work if malpractice isn't available. I do have a friend who won a rather large settlement from a doctor and an HMO for complications related to having been denied a Cesearean that resulted in a special needs child. Not sure if it was specifically malpractice that the suit would have been for, though.
Less need for lawyers? The first time someone is maimed or dies under the knife when he was in India at the insistence of his/her HMO rather than in a stateside medical facility, there will be a lawsuit of SCO proportions against the HMO. Except the patient (or his/her heirs) have a good chance of winning.
(While I'm sure HMO's will require signing of a waiver, I doubt the waiver will hold up when push comes to shove. IANAL, IANAD, and all that.)
Good info--thanks. And the nice thing about the open source versions is that even if they are declared to be "illegal," there's no stopping their distribution.
The problem isn't that notificiation of a recall is misuse of information. It's the question about what is being done with all the other, non-recall related information, tucked away in those databases. Like that time I bought a jar of vaseline, a can of whipped cream, marshmallow Fluff, a box of condoms, and a whole chicken in one visit.
And don't forget monetize, which is what this is all about. "Utility computing" is just code for "pay per use." Now that would be good--except that it will be a flat fee, like in the old days, when software was purchased. And the per use fees will be on top of that. Games have already gone down this road (e.g. Everquest).
Slashdot Mirror
Charming. Perhaps you weren't aware that Microsoft has a product that attempts to compete in Quark's market called Publisher that is indeed bundled with some versions of Office. But don't let facts get in the way of your profanity-laden mouth-frothing rant.
Not that it'll help out with the job stuff, but I'd send off to the investigating agency for a copy of the investigation (IIRC, both the Privacy Act and FOIA apply, but the PA entitles you to more of the investigation). It will be redacted, but unless things are more corrupt than I hope in government, you will see what was actually considered. Sounds like it was the agency's loss in this case.
This is all, of course, assuming you disclosed your name change when going through the process--given that, I would bet there's some other reason they wanted you to not pass.
When are these people going to learn that Apple is just a metrosexual, down-scaled version of Microsoft?
If this were about more than continuing the flow of bribes and graft, they'd be extraditing spammers from Brazil, China, and Korea.
or ATM machine, or PIN number.
Can you cite some case law to support your assertion that "setting off the 'inventory management' alert is probable cause"?
The problem is that good tech support costs money, and when they see your shiny new product that costs 10-20% more on the shelf next to the one with tech support that sucks, the customer isn't thinking he'll need tech support, much less about the relative merits of yours versus theirs.
That's nice for cops to have--but every citizen should have online access to that information--it's all public record, after all. Why shouldn't I be able to check out the houses in the neighborhood I'm considering buying in for crime statistics? Or to check my prospective babysitter for priors (again, convictions are a matter of public record).
I can code FORTRAN on punch cards.
I'll take "Freudian Slips" for $500, Alex :).
The (you)-CAN-SPAM act took away individual's right to sue and preempts state allows which allowed it.
Those increase their mindshare, and ultimately their marketshare. The source code doesn't do that.
That said, responding to Microsoft in any way, even to say you have no idea what they are talking about, can be used as an admission of guilt. If you're really worried, get a lawyer, but DON'T reply to jkweston. In the U.S. (thanks to Verizon), MS would actually have to FILE a John Doe suit to unmask you (assuming your ISP doesn't suck balls). Even Microsoft isn't likely to spend the money and bad PR that would be involved in suing the thousands of people who are probably going after the source code.
If I wanted it, I'd wait for the Usenet post, myself (though newzbin and others making Usenet searchable are going to be its downfall, but I digress.)
New Orleans at Mardi Gras is a public place, too. People flash their naughty bits because the overwhelming odds are that they won't get caught--even though they know it's a possibility. Of course, Microsoft isn't filming for the "Girls Gone Wild" crew, either :).
. . . has anyone published instructions on how to make a Windows 2000 live CD :)?
Except that use of census data for this purpose is against the law.
I doubt even Microsoft is going to file lawsuits against the thousands of people probably sharing this file. Those sued would have plausible deniability--ironically, they could say they were hit by a Microsoft worm and had to reformat their machine :).
MS is just trying to create a chilling effect--in a few months, this will be one of those things everyone has on a CDR, and nobody looks at. MS will quit paying to have the fakes shared on Kazaa, it'll have been posted on Usenet a few times, and all will be back to normal.
And if Microsoft ever tried the same thing, they'd be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, hung, and shot. But when Apple forces people to purchase an OS with hardware, that's OK.
Wrongful death would work if malpractice isn't available. I do have a friend who won a rather large settlement from a doctor and an HMO for complications related to having been denied a Cesearean that resulted in a special needs child. Not sure if it was specifically malpractice that the suit would have been for, though.
(While I'm sure HMO's will require signing of a waiver, I doubt the waiver will hold up when push comes to shove. IANAL, IANAD, and all that.)
Good info--thanks. And the nice thing about the open source versions is that even if they are declared to be "illegal," there's no stopping their distribution.
The problem isn't that notificiation of a recall is misuse of information. It's the question about what is being done with all the other, non-recall related information, tucked away in those databases. Like that time I bought a jar of vaseline, a can of whipped cream, marshmallow Fluff, a box of condoms, and a whole chicken in one visit.
And don't forget monetize, which is what this is all about. "Utility computing" is just code for "pay per use." Now that would be good--except that it will be a flat fee, like in the old days, when software was purchased. And the per use fees will be on top of that. Games have already gone down this road (e.g. Everquest).
Heh. I know how you did it :).