Exactly. Generally, the critical feature lacking in the old "shrink-wrap" EULAs was that you had no recourse if you decided you didn't want to agree to the EULA after you'd purchased the software. Many shrink-wrap EULAs these days include some provision for returning the software for a refund because of this. AFAIK, that hasn't been tested in court yet, but it at least seems reasonable that such EULAs would be considered "agreed-to" contracts.
Note that click-wrap EULAs - such as when you buy software online, and part of the purchase/download/installation/running procedure is to click to agree to the terms of the EULA - have successfully withstood court challenges on numerous occasions. A click-wrap EULA that fails in court usually does so because of something like the specific terms being unconscionable.
The downside: any blog you maintain with one of these computers is automatically shut down and replaced with Chavez's own blog, known as "Fluffy Bunnies".
Okay, I take that back partially. After going through the court records, he did get his appeal in Superior Court, and he lost. Why he feels the need to whine about it on Slashdot is beyond me.
California Codes 116.710.(b) The defendant with respect to the plaintiff's claim, and a plaintiff with respect to a claim of the defendant, may appeal the judgment to the superior court in the county in which the action was heard.
We call it "armed robbery", but not because the perpetrator stole someone's arms (or armeds?). We call it armed robbery because they used arms (i.e., one or more weapons) in the commission of the robbery. By the same token, "identity theft" means that you used someone else's identity to commit a theft. Misuse of the term has resulted in people saying that "he/she stole my identity".
Here's my question: I already have to deal with RMT spam on a constant basis inside the MMOGs that I play. Why are you making me look at the same thing on Slashdot?
But I'm not the one splitting hairs here. You are.
Thanks, Francis. Let me know if you find my missing bike, will ya?
Person A did not give consent for Person C to record a conversation between himself and Person B. That's it. No hairs split. The fact that Person A is also recording the conversation (legally, due to an exemption provided him by the law) is irrelevant.
Let's take a related example that shows what I'm talking about. Suppose there are two people having a conversation over the phone. It's a very important business deal, so they are both recording the conversation (with consent of the other party) to ensure that there will be no confusion later on when the written contract is drawn up. Well, some third person, a competitor of theirs, is listening in on the call and recording it, unbeknownst to them.
Does the fact that the first two people are recording that call excuse the third person from intercepting and recording that conversation? No, of course not. It's right there in the statute. The third person intercepted and recorded the conversation without consent from both parties (or, for that matter, from either party). And in this case, by the same token, the statute does not turn the cop's legal recording of the conversation into an excuse for the person with the videocamera to record that conversation without consent.
Depends on the statute. The way the one in Pennsylvania is worded (it came up in a/. article a day or two ago), no actual recording has to be made - "interception" is sufficient to run afoul of the law.
Most shareholders of large companies are institutional investors (e.g., mutual and hedge funds, banks, etc.) or executives/board members of the company. Any proposal that creates additional controversy or additional work for the company will generally be voted down by these shareholders, which explains why the anti-censorship proposal got only 15% voting in favor and the human rights committee proposal only got 4%.
Yes, I realize that censorship isn't a very controversial topic to you or me, but it is from the perspective of making money.
On a side note....
Hattie: I may only have one share of Planet Kajigger, but I get to vote same as anybody. And I'm voting against the cat hater!
18 Pennsylvania Statutes Sec. 5703. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:
1. intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
There are exceptions listed in the next section, only one of which applies to a private citizen who violates Section 5703:
Sec. 5704. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter and no prior court approval shall be required for:
4. A person, to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.
Did the officer give consent to his own interception? Sure. But the statute indicates "such interception", where the interception is that of a person of [...] oral communication, and the officer obviously didn't consent to the other fellow's videotaping.
Sadly, Pennsylvania is several years behind the times and doesn't have its full statutes available online, including criminal law. However, someone else has made most of it available, including the relevant section.
While your argument falls flat (it was a weak attempt to split hairs to start with), there may be some Constitutional issues regarding press freedom involved. Guess we'll see how it goes in court, assuming the prosecutor decides to continue with the case or the officer decides to file a civil claim ($1000 plus court/legal costs minimum if successful).
Given the choice, which would you give up? Freedom of speech or the right to bear arms?
Well, neither, but if I was forced to choose one or the other, I'd give up freedom of speech just long enough to shoot the person who was demanding that I give up my rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully, the LHC will be able to find the elusive Jet Dry particle, so we can finally get our superconducting magnets to dry without water spots.
Exactly. Generally, the critical feature lacking in the old "shrink-wrap" EULAs was that you had no recourse if you decided you didn't want to agree to the EULA after you'd purchased the software. Many shrink-wrap EULAs these days include some provision for returning the software for a refund because of this. AFAIK, that hasn't been tested in court yet, but it at least seems reasonable that such EULAs would be considered "agreed-to" contracts.
Note that click-wrap EULAs - such as when you buy software online, and part of the purchase/download/installation/running procedure is to click to agree to the terms of the EULA - have successfully withstood court challenges on numerous occasions. A click-wrap EULA that fails in court usually does so because of something like the specific terms being unconscionable.
The downside: any blog you maintain with one of these computers is automatically shut down and replaced with Chavez's own blog, known as "Fluffy Bunnies".
Actually, that would be not showing up to court, which, coincidentally, is how Salahi lost the case the first time around.
Shrug, it was worth a shot ;)
Salahi's a college student. Is there a point to suing somebody for gazillions of dollars they don't have?
Okay, I take that back partially. After going through the court records, he did get his appeal in Superior Court, and he lost. Why he feels the need to whine about it on Slashdot is beyond me.
Seriously. It took me two minutes to find this:
California Codes 116.710.(b) The defendant with respect to the plaintiff's
claim, and a plaintiff with respect to a claim of the defendant, may appeal
the judgment to the superior court in the county in which the action was heard.
We call it "armed robbery", but not because the perpetrator stole someone's arms (or armeds?). We call it armed robbery because they used arms (i.e., one or more weapons) in the commission of the robbery. By the same token, "identity theft" means that you used someone else's identity to commit a theft. Misuse of the term has resulted in people saying that "he/she stole my identity".
Here's my question: I already have to deal with RMT spam on a constant basis inside the MMOGs that I play. Why are you making me look at the same thing on Slashdot?
But I'm not the one splitting hairs here. You are.
Thanks, Francis. Let me know if you find my missing bike, will ya?
Person A did not give consent for Person C to record a conversation between himself and Person B. That's it. No hairs split. The fact that Person A is also recording the conversation (legally, due to an exemption provided him by the law) is irrelevant.
Let's take a related example that shows what I'm talking about. Suppose there are two people having a conversation over the phone. It's a very important business deal, so they are both recording the conversation (with consent of the other party) to ensure that there will be no confusion later on when the written contract is drawn up. Well, some third person, a competitor of theirs, is listening in on the call and recording it, unbeknownst to them.
Does the fact that the first two people are recording that call excuse the third person from intercepting and recording that conversation? No, of course not. It's right there in the statute. The third person intercepted and recorded the conversation without consent from both parties (or, for that matter, from either party). And in this case, by the same token, the statute does not turn the cop's legal recording of the conversation into an excuse for the person with the videocamera to record that conversation without consent.
Depends on the statute. The way the one in Pennsylvania is worded (it came up in a /. article a day or two ago), no actual recording has to be made - "interception" is sufficient to run afoul of the law.
Tiananmen Square: The PRC's worst-kept secret.
Most shareholders of large companies are institutional investors (e.g., mutual and hedge funds, banks, etc.) or executives/board members of the company. Any proposal that creates additional controversy or additional work for the company will generally be voted down by these shareholders, which explains why the anti-censorship proposal got only 15% voting in favor and the human rights committee proposal only got 4%.
Yes, I realize that censorship isn't a very controversial topic to you or me, but it is from the perspective of making money.
On a side note....
Hattie: I may only have one share of Planet Kajigger, but I get to vote same as anybody. And I'm voting against the cat hater!
So, what are the chances that the Cavs are going to come back from their three-game deficit in the finals and put the Spurs in their place?
The statute reads, in part:
18 Pennsylvania Statutes Sec. 5703. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:
1. intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
There are exceptions listed in the next section, only one of which applies to a private citizen who violates Section 5703:
Sec. 5704. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter and no prior court approval shall be required for:
4. A person, to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.
Did the officer give consent to his own interception? Sure. But the statute indicates "such interception", where the interception is that of a person of [...] oral communication, and the officer obviously didn't consent to the other fellow's videotaping.
Sadly, Pennsylvania is several years behind the times and doesn't have its full statutes available online, including criminal law. However, someone else has made most of it available, including the relevant section.
While your argument falls flat (it was a weak attempt to split hairs to start with), there may be some Constitutional issues regarding press freedom involved. Guess we'll see how it goes in court, assuming the prosecutor decides to continue with the case or the officer decides to file a civil claim ($1000 plus court/legal costs minimum if successful).
I hear Rodians have a -20 racial modifier to their ranged attack rolls.
What happens is that packets get dropped and re-sent (as per TCP specs) and the result is additional LATENCY, not a drop in overall throughput.
Of course you're reducing your customers' overall throughput. That's the whole point of doing packet shaping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection
Anybody care to suggest which of those articles is applicable?
You act like John McCain made it up. It's actually an old parody cover that came out of the Iran hostage crisis of 1979.
By the way, I thought it was kinda funny.
After considering your request, we agree. Enclosed is a refund check for the full amount of $0.00.
Minus a 20% restocking fee.
No kidding. My toothbrush has a death wish, so I have to keep the lid down when I'm not using the toilet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frob
You should really add a mushroom-head pushbutton guard to this, so you don't frob it accidentally.
Given the choice, which would you give up? Freedom of speech or the right to bear arms?
Well, neither, but if I was forced to choose one or the other, I'd give up freedom of speech just long enough to shoot the person who was demanding that I give up my rights.