Yet, it all comes down to you choosing to use their products and "forfeit" your privacy. Don't use their stuff, don't worry about too much information getting out.
your should be the quoted word.
At what point did we decide it was a reasonable opinion to be selfish and okay with the idea that everything around us was crumbling?
Corporations are creations of law. If the government wins in the courts, Google WILL give up this data. Google is not fighting a good fight based purely on morality. If that were the case then they would currently be wiping all their stored data and risking jail time.
Isn't it great the few times corporate power disagrees with political power?!
It's the only time we can have a decent discussion on the merits of alternate points of view instead of having the opinion of the majority (meaning us, the actual people) be ignored.
"The funny thing is that Google's owners and employees are probably the least concerned with their profits. Sergey that is one of the original two founders of the company works for a $1/year, drives a lavish Toyota Prius, lives in a small apartment, usually wears blue jeans, and is _personally_ worth $7 to $11 billion dollars."
That means he's not concerned with profits? What is that trying to state?
I know many people who live in small apartments and wear blue jeans. Does it make Sergey somehow a good man by doing those things, while being enormously rich?
How long can the machine last at that sort of overclocking? How much experience have others had with lifetimes of chips once you overclock them by a lot.
And a fool, for not seeking legal advice when threatened with legal action.
So if I sent out from a fake address of a company to several websites that listed the company, you would suppose that each of those website hire a lawyer for legal advice.
Costing each person tons of money for no reason, or they are a fool.
On trademark infringement, companies don't sue other companies to try to cash in. They do it because if they don't attempt to protect their trademark, courts will rule that it isn't a trademark anymore and isn't protectible. Aspirin, Zipper.
and the request for an injunction was just for the fun of it.
I understood you the first time. I just don't agree with it. Who are you to tell the world at what point the change over occurs? Who decides this? And what method do you use to decide it?
Is one dollar enough? A million, a billion? hmm. And what If I am in a third world nation? A million dollars is an insane amount oversees yet is a modest amount today in the US. Cash limits are pointless what if inflation happens in the third year of your copyright? What is deflation happens?
It's a stupid idea.
That being said, a million is enough.
Until every single person on this planet can eat, you don't need a 80 inch big screen television.
Seriously. The anoynmous posters could be teachers union employees assigned to slander CSUSA for all we know, and if that's what CSUSA suspects their lawsuit threat suddenly make a lot more sense. (In Michigan, the MEA union is nicknamed the "Michigan Mafia". They have a curiosuly low regard [mackinac.org] for free speech too.)
I don't mean to dimish your point about the MEA union, but have you read the message board?
Most of the complaints are about a child being able to wear a jacket to school, and take it off before entering a classroom.
That doesn't sound like a mafia at all, it just sounds like parents who think the schools rules are silly.
With some causes of action, if a potential plaintiff continues the conduct after having been explicitly notified, and if that action is deemed illegal, the defendant can be held to have acted willfully. In most cases, willful conduct results in greatly increased damages. In just about all cases, willful conduct looks very bad to a jury.
Really? You're kidding me.
What if you do not beileve the action is illegal, and come to find out that the court doesn't see in your favor.
Now you've unknowingly became a willful party.
Since a cease and desist letter can be sent without an action being illegal, it should not be assumed that all cease and desist letters indicate an issue that is 100% illegal.
So how could you be willfully breaking the law?
Maybe I'm overreacting, but that just doesn't seem reasonable, but maybe the burden is then on the person who recieved the letter?
If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.
You're so worried about "freedom of speech" -- a concept which you seem not to understand -- but you seem to have forgotten all about "due process of law."
As do you. Grandparent was defending the case, you are supporting it.
Almost any discussion on it has preempted due process of the law.
If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.
If one comment proves to be libel, and rest do not, what happens? Is the parent in trouble, or the website?
And is recounting a rumor if it puts someone in a negative light libel?
I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.
Unless they don't make very much money in which case they are left with Public schools or this.
It's not really the same question of voting with your money when you left with 2 very bad alternatives. One that you can at least attempt to reason with, or another where you are in even a worse position to make change.
This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.
Sad.
It's only sad if they are not difficult to deal with, which from the message board it would seem they are.
I would think the administration would want to deal with their concerns head on. If they are wrong on the message board, that would easily be addressed at a PTO meeting.
Which CSU has canceled until the end of the School year.
Could someone explain cease and desist letters to me? I've googled for them, but get a ton of how to make your own.
What legal right does anyone have to do this? If you are innocent until proven guilty, it would be a meaningless action that at most would be intimidation, which is illegal.
Why does it matter if someone actually believes what they are saying, or was just paid to say so?
Because the only real goal is the truth, and the rest is an attempt to obscure that for personal gains.
The goal for all of us should be a better life for all of us. You have your own personal desires, and those are not kept by someone knowingly lying to you.
Not that unknowingly setting us on a bad course is any better.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet, it all comes down to you choosing to use their products and "forfeit" your privacy. Don't use their stuff, don't worry about too much information getting out.
your should be the quoted word.
At what point did we decide it was a reasonable opinion to be selfish and okay with the idea that everything around us was crumbling?
Your lack of knowledge (or interest) in how the business world works is frightening.
It takes a lot of knowledge and interest to get to the point where you understand what children know.
The employees, customers, and community should always come first.
Corporations are creations of law. If the government wins in the courts, Google WILL give up this data. Google is not fighting a good fight based purely on morality. If that were the case then they would currently be wiping all their stored data and risking jail time.
Isn't it great the few times corporate power disagrees with political power?!
It's the only time we can have a decent discussion on the merits of alternate points of view instead of having the opinion of the majority (meaning us, the actual people) be ignored.
If the information the government wanted was a matter of national security ... ...
Then yeah, google should hand it over immediately, no questions asked
The Iraq war was wanted as a matter of national security, and look where that is...
"The funny thing is that Google's owners and employees are probably the least concerned with their profits. Sergey that is one of the original two founders of the company works for a $1/year, drives a lavish Toyota Prius, lives in a small apartment, usually wears blue jeans, and is _personally_ worth $7 to $11 billion dollars."
That means he's not concerned with profits? What is that trying to state?
I know many people who live in small apartments and wear blue jeans. Does it make Sergey somehow a good man by doing those things, while being enormously rich?
And in theory communism works, too. The real world works differently.
In theory socialism works. In practice it has been tried and qwelled by larger authoritative governments.
Your statement is inaccurate.
Are patents evil, or are they good?
It's hard to let Slashdot tell me what to think when they post stories on _both_ sides of an argument!
One-sided posts are all my feeble mind can handle!
Without one of these posts for every slashdot article, I don't know how I could live through the day.
Repetitive jokes that aren't funny are all my feeble mind can handle!
Liberals sit to the left. Conservatives sit to the right. Libertarians are the clowns swinging from the chandeliers. (Heard from a libertarian.)
Liberals sit to the right. Conservatives sit to the far right. Libertarians are the far right version of Anarchism.
How long can the machine last at that sort of overclocking? How much experience have others had with lifetimes of chips once you overclock them by a lot.
Even MST3k doesn't make that a good movie.
And the regular harddrive failures leave you secure in a job.
And a fool, for not seeking legal advice when threatened with legal action.
So if I sent out from a fake address of a company to several websites that listed the company, you would suppose that each of those website hire a lawyer for legal advice.
Costing each person tons of money for no reason, or they are a fool.
What if they are broke?
Is there free legal advice for this?
Someone up at MS is having a huge laugh over this.
I doubt it. A lot of out of touch marketing drones under the direction of several out of touch middle managers most likely made this decision.
No ones laughing, except us.
And that's temporary.
On trademark infringement, companies don't sue other companies to try to cash in. They do it because if they don't attempt to protect their trademark, courts will rule that it isn't a trademark anymore and isn't protectible. Aspirin, Zipper.
and the request for an injunction was just for the fun of it.
I understood you the first time. I just don't agree with it. Who are you to tell the world at what point the change over occurs? Who decides this? And what method do you use to decide it?
Is one dollar enough? A million, a billion? hmm. And what If I am in a third world nation? A million dollars is an insane amount oversees yet is a modest amount today in the US. Cash limits are pointless what if inflation happens in the third year of your copyright? What is deflation happens?
It's a stupid idea.
That being said, a million is enough.
Until every single person on this planet can eat, you don't need a 80 inch big screen television.
Thanks. I appreciate the clarifications.
Seriously. The anoynmous posters could be teachers union employees assigned to slander CSUSA for all we know, and if that's what CSUSA suspects their lawsuit threat suddenly make a lot more sense. (In Michigan, the MEA union is nicknamed the "Michigan Mafia". They have a curiosuly low regard [mackinac.org] for free speech too.)
I don't mean to dimish your point about the MEA union, but have you read the message board?
Most of the complaints are about a child being able to wear a jacket to school, and take it off before entering a classroom.
That doesn't sound like a mafia at all, it just sounds like parents who think the schools rules are silly.
The message board is there, read it.
With some causes of action, if a potential plaintiff continues the conduct after having been explicitly notified, and if that action is deemed illegal, the defendant can be held to have acted willfully. In most cases, willful conduct results in greatly increased damages. In just about all cases, willful conduct looks very bad to a jury.
Really? You're kidding me.
What if you do not beileve the action is illegal, and come to find out that the court doesn't see in your favor.
Now you've unknowingly became a willful party.
Since a cease and desist letter can be sent without an action being illegal, it should not be assumed that all cease and desist letters indicate an issue that is 100% illegal.
So how could you be willfully breaking the law?
Maybe I'm overreacting, but that just doesn't seem reasonable, but maybe the burden is then on the person who recieved the letter?
If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.
You're so worried about "freedom of speech" -- a concept which you seem not to understand -- but you seem to have forgotten all about "due process of law."
As do you. Grandparent was defending the case, you are supporting it.
Almost any discussion on it has preempted due process of the law.
If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.
If one comment proves to be libel, and rest do not, what happens? Is the parent in trouble, or the website?
And is recounting a rumor if it puts someone in a negative light libel?
I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.
Unless they don't make very much money in which case they are left with Public schools or this.
It's not really the same question of voting with your money when you left with 2 very bad alternatives. One that you can at least attempt to reason with, or another where you are in even a worse position to make change.
This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.
Sad.
It's only sad if they are not difficult to deal with, which from the message board it would seem they are.
I would think the administration would want to deal with their concerns head on. If they are wrong on the message board, that would easily be addressed at a PTO meeting.
Which CSU has canceled until the end of the School year.
Seems pretty difficult to deal with to me.
Could someone explain cease and desist letters to me? I've googled for them, but get a ton of how to make your own.
What legal right does anyone have to do this? If you are innocent until proven guilty, it would be a meaningless action that at most would be intimidation, which is illegal.
Right?
Also, if you decide not to disclose information at all, your charged a whopping $10 a day until you disclose. Woo Hoo! Lunch money!
I wish I had 10 dollars a day for lunch.
That's the problem with those of us that oppose Bush. We are poor.
Why does it matter if someone actually believes what they are saying, or was just paid to say so?
Because the only real goal is the truth, and the rest is an attempt to obscure that for personal gains.
The goal for all of us should be a better life for all of us. You have your own personal desires, and those are not kept by someone knowingly lying to you.
Not that unknowingly setting us on a bad course is any better.
It's a wonderful idea, but it simply won't happen without government intervention...and who wants that?
If it is a better alternative than no action, I do.