At least as of a couple of years ago, INTERNAL security threats were really the major issue for most companies. Despite the fact that insider breaches probably tend to get less press, I bet this is still the case, although I don't know for sure. Anyone?
Personally, I like it better than regardless because it has more syllables. The fact that it is an actual word is a real plus. I'm an English major -- don't screw with me. On the other hand:
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
In fact, the decision of the timing and feasability of any law suit is generally in the hands of an attorney, whether that attorney serves and individual or a company.
Lawyers do not lose $29M when they lose a case. Companies do
You are correct. In general, the lawyers (unless working on contigency) get paid either way, and the IP industry continues to prosper irregardless of outcome. See the clear winner here?
Lawyers do not make or change laws.
Strictly speaking (although not really germane here but interesting nonetheless), this is not entirely true. The Senate is comprised of around 50% lawyers, the House around 30% -- given that they're supposed to be passing lehgislation, this really shouldn't be surprising, of course. Those same corporate lobbyists you decry tend to also be lawyers, as are many of the aides to those same congresspeople.
While I laud your optimism, a bad court decision is a bad court decision, even when it constitutes well-deserved comeuppance for Amazon -- this case is not likely to change ANYTHING. Would a procession of similar legal disasters presage change? Perhaps -- but at what would likely be a terrible cost.
You should accept the fact that the comapny owns your time when you are at work, and in most companies where working late hours you should accept that your boss has the right to monitor your behavior also when you are not at work.
While the first part of the statement makes sense, the second -- for most occupations -- makes none at all. What imperative -- moral, legal or otherwise -- does an employer have to monitor my behaviour, location, eating habits, bowel movements or anything else while I'm not on company time? Can a project manager come over and raid my refrigerator? Kick my dog? Can the CEO drop by and have sex with my wife?
Employment does not, and should not equate with ownership of the employed. An employer pays for a limited subset of time and skills of any worker, and is due nothing more.
Hmmm. Call me crazy, but I generally give my cell to my employers should they need to contact me outside of normal business hours -- this is common practice, at least in my industry. I'd just as soon not hand them the capability to trace my movements outside working hours as well.
Obviously with an employer-provided cell phone all bets are off.
That definition works for law enforcement, not for corporations. Try this one:
"Unauthorized Spying": Survelliance without prior explicit or implied consent of the surveilled.
Obviouslly the OP had your definition in mind; my point was merely that employee surveillance is generally obnoxious (with exceptions) even at the corporate level, as are drug tests (for most professions), email monitoring, etc.
They deserve this, and maybe it will teach them to play nice in the future.
While they may well "deserve this", given their own portfolio of ludicrously obvious patents, the lesson that eBay will most likely take away from all of this is that they should be even more aggressive with their IP portfolio, not less. Clearly, if an individual was able to prevail over them in court, surely this implies that their own patents are at least equally defensible.
The bottom line is that this is in no way a good thing for anybody -- except perhaps the patent holder and the IP legal industry.
Hmmm. You need to mass-market your idea to the internet public at large. EMail is ideal in this regard. Our database of 500 million guaranteed fresh email addresses is sure to net you internet gold at the speed of electrons!
65%? Seems low compared to something that scans content, like spamassassin. I get around 90% blocked, with a relatively low (maybe 1% false positive after a week of tweaking on and off).
The biggest problem spam assassin has as far as false positives appears to occur when people attach text from a commercial web page rather than a URL pointer. This invariably causes the email to get identified as spam, particularly if the page text contains any references to commerce.
is probably what is doing some of the most damage. It's pretty informative to watch how my 13 yo spends his entertainment money: he can buy a cd, buy a dvd, rent a dvd, rent a video game for one of his TWO console systems, buy software for his PC or one of his consoles... the list of possible sink-holes for his money is nearly infinite. The bottom line is that the music industry faces tremendous competition for the money of what used to be their biggest cash-cow demographics: teenagers and young adults.
Moreover, the real damage Napster did to the music industry wasn't lost sales. Instead, it created an "ala carte" mindset in that same once-loyal cd-buying demographic. Put another way, my kid won't buy an entire cd when he likes maybe only a couple of songs. CDs are a package deal, and the package deal is dead. Ultimately, the recording industry could do themselves a real favor by reviving singles.
... and I can assure you that this kind of goofing of is rarely a prob... oh -- wait a minute -- God I love the sound Squidward makes when he walks. Cracks me up every time. Hold on -- let me freshen up this martini and I'll be right back...
Re:Slightly far-fetched, perhaps?
on
Decipher
·
· Score: 1
Sure, this sounds really plausible... an Antartic based human society 12,000 years ago (wasn't this during the last ice age? When the south polar region would have been even more inhospitable then it is now?).
You really need to read the book -- the author provides pretty plausible explanations for this.
Caution: Spoilers Ahead
The Atlanteans were all penguin fetishists.
..and..
When not developing advanced nanotechnology, they liked to spend most of their time ice fishing. In this regard, ancient Atlantis was a lot like Michigan.
Over the next few hundred millenia, expect the fingers and left thumb to wither and disappear, while the right thumb advances in dexterity, utlimately develops it's own intelligence, detaches from the human "host", and finally becomes the dominant species on the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
And where did you work, exactly? Please be pr3cis3.
At least as of a couple of years ago, INTERNAL security threats were really the major issue for most companies. Despite the fact that insider breaches probably tend to get less press, I bet this is still the case, although I don't know for sure. Anyone?
But that was more than one equation! And how did they end up "making" a "right" equation? And... ok, nevermind, I'm just lame.
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
(5)+(4+4) = 13
This proving that two wrongs never equal a right, only undifferentiated moral ambiguity shaded with ennui.
In fact, the decision of the timing and feasability of any law suit is generally in the hands of an attorney, whether that attorney serves and individual or a company.
Lawyers do not lose $29M when they lose a case. Companies do
You are correct. In general, the lawyers (unless working on contigency) get paid either way, and the IP industry continues to prosper irregardless of outcome. See the clear winner here?
Lawyers do not make or change laws.
Strictly speaking (although not really germane here but interesting nonetheless), this is not entirely true. The Senate is comprised of around 50% lawyers, the House around 30% -- given that they're supposed to be passing lehgislation, this really shouldn't be surprising, of course. Those same corporate lobbyists you decry tend to also be lawyers, as are many of the aides to those same congresspeople.
While I laud your optimism, a bad court decision is a bad court decision, even when it constitutes well-deserved comeuppance for Amazon -- this case is not likely to change ANYTHING. Would a procession of similar legal disasters presage change? Perhaps -- but at what would likely be a terrible cost.
While the first part of the statement makes sense, the second -- for most occupations -- makes none at all. What imperative -- moral, legal or otherwise -- does an employer have to monitor my behaviour, location, eating habits, bowel movements or anything else while I'm not on company time? Can a project manager come over and raid my refrigerator? Kick my dog? Can the CEO drop by and have sex with my wife?
Employment does not, and should not equate with ownership of the employed. An employer pays for a limited subset of time and skills of any worker, and is due nothing more.
Obviously with an employer-provided cell phone all bets are off.
"Unauthorized Spying": Survelliance without prior explicit or implied consent of the surveilled.
Obviouslly the OP had your definition in mind; my point was merely that employee surveillance is generally obnoxious (with exceptions) even at the corporate level, as are drug tests (for most professions), email monitoring, etc.
Sorry, but "easing the mind of a suspicious boss" is still "unauthorized spying" by any reasonable definition of the term.
Get serious -- this biblical maxim is understood by lawyers only in the following modified form:
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, unless he has a bigger sword than everybody else. And in any case, we still get paid.
There is no sense of "karma" in the intersecting corporate, political and legal worlds than dominate the tech industry.
While they may well "deserve this", given their own portfolio of ludicrously obvious patents, the lesson that eBay will most likely take away from all of this is that they should be even more aggressive with their IP portfolio, not less. Clearly, if an individual was able to prevail over them in court, surely this implies that their own patents are at least equally defensible.
The bottom line is that this is in no way a good thing for anybody -- except perhaps the patent holder and the IP legal industry.
I already have a trackball embedded in my trackball embedded in my trackball embedded in my...
Alowing me to navigate the web in an infinity of dimensions.
I alone am responsible for all 6000 orders. Soon, very soon, my penis will be the size of North America, and the world will quake in fear.
A UCLA professor does it, and they call it science. My Uncle Murray does it, and all of a sudden it's a felony. The Man offers nought but injustice.
Naturally. We have another Bush in the Whitehouse, and I even hear the Wang Chung is making a comeback -- so why not Cray?
Hmmm. You need to mass-market your idea to the internet public at large. EMail is ideal in this regard. Our database of 500 million guaranteed fresh email addresses is sure to net you internet gold at the speed of electrons!
The biggest problem spam assassin has as far as false positives appears to occur when people attach text from a commercial web page rather than a URL pointer. This invariably causes the email to get identified as spam, particularly if the page text contains any references to commerce.
Moreover, the real damage Napster did to the music industry wasn't lost sales. Instead, it created an "ala carte" mindset in that same once-loyal cd-buying demographic. Put another way, my kid won't buy an entire cd when he likes maybe only a couple of songs. CDs are a package deal, and the package deal is dead. Ultimately, the recording industry could do themselves a real favor by reviving singles.
... and I can assure you that this kind of goofing of is rarely a prob... oh -- wait a minute -- God I love the sound Squidward makes when he walks. Cracks me up every time. Hold on -- let me freshen up this martini and I'll be right back...
You really need to read the book -- the author provides pretty plausible explanations for this.
Caution: Spoilers Ahead
The Atlanteans were all penguin fetishists.
When not developing advanced nanotechnology, they liked to spend most of their time ice fishing. In this regard, ancient Atlantis was a lot like Michigan.
till I ascend to the Governorship of Louisiana. Start reaching into your pockets, now folks -- Big Daddy's open for Bidness!
Hmmmm. Microsoft? The legal, leeches attempting to enforce software patents? A true /.er's Dilemma (tm)!
You guys all disappear in what appears to be a massive die-off by 5000AD, a mystery which will puzzle future thumb anthropologists for years.
Over the next few hundred millenia, expect the fingers and left thumb to wither and disappear, while the right thumb advances in dexterity, utlimately develops it's own intelligence, detaches from the human "host", and finally becomes the dominant species on the planet.