Umm, they obviously did know about Opera because they explicitly redirected it to a file called error.html.
That's the key part of the story. We don't know if Opera would have ruled out the vendor simply because the administration interface didn't function properly in the Opera browser. It was that the vendor explicitly blocked the use of Opera, even though it might have worked just fine.
Lack of using standards is as much the fault of the IT people who choose products and technologies as the vendors who sell them. The number of times that IT staff either don't consider whether the product uses standards - or worse they intentionally choose proprietary solutions because they like the vendor - exceeds the imagination.
It's as much a demand problem as a supply. In this instance, the potential customer was the vendor who was being locked out so it kind of bit the manufacturer on the ass.
No, that's not true. It's very possible that some terms are enforceable and valid while other terms are not. Apple takes a risk in trying to enforce the "on Apple hardware only" clause, and I am sure even their own lawyers have cautioned against risking a judgment which states that this clause is not enforceable.
I say this as a Mac user and a promoter of Apple products. That doesn't mean I think a company should get carte blanche authority to determine how its products can be used. If you want to fully control something, don't sell it as a product on the market.
How is it that when someone expresses an opinion that they consider Apple to be worth it, that's "fanatical" but when you express the opposite it's just a reasoned difference of opinion?
Whackos are everywhere, and I don't notice any difference in the volume of devout Windows lovers who troll Mac forums than the number of Mac zealots who troll Windows forums.
Grand larceny includes a requirement of intent. You didn't have the intent to commit grand larceny, therefore you didn't. Nice try, but ain't no criminal.
You were close but not quite there. What constitutes fair use is a legal question, not a factual one. The factual issue about whether specific behavior constitutes what is already determined to be fair use is one for the jury.
For example, making a copy of a video for educational purposes is within the fair use exception to most copyright laws. If you make a copy of a video and claim it is for educational purposes, it is a factual issue whether your claim is true. If a jury is deciding, then they make that determination based on your use of fair use as a defense.
I've noticed a few fallacies in some of the comments that definitely need correcting. In general, people tend to combine arguments about Netware as an OS versus the services that have been bundled with it. Over the years Novell has been rather inept at developing , communicating, and executing a strategy on the inevitable migration from the Netware OS to something else. First they went through a period of simply supporting their services like eDirectory on Windows. Second, they acquired Suse and talked about parallel platforms with common services. Ultimately, it seems they made a rather smart decision in how they were going to continue to support their existing customer base that is utilizing Netware while giving a rather clear path to Linux. The problem Novell still has is that a lot of their services haven't been completely migrated to Linux yet.
1) eDirectory - Done. Has been multiplatform for years. Continues to be the single best meta directory repository on the market. There is not a single environment of any decent size that can get away with one directory to service all the business requirements, but eDirectory continues to be the best option for consolidating the directory data using Novell's Identity Manager suite of drivers and tools.
2) zenWorks - Pretty much anyone who has used it considers it the premiere tool for managing Windows clients. Only in the next release will they not require Netware for some of the components. The middle tier design and agent-based client make it a pleasure to work with compared to the fat Novell Client days.
3) Management tools - someone else already said it, but Novell cannot seem to stay focused (and enforce discipline on their own development teams) to provide a consistent management tool. They have gone from NWAdmin to ConsoleOne to iManager - except you still pretty much need each of them depending on what you are going to manage.
4) File permissions - The NSS file system is pretty damn good, has been ported and made available on Linux for a few years now. It still provides the leading access controls / inherited rights / filtered rights that other file systems should be ashamed of for not offering.
For sure, Novell is just as if not more screwed up than any other company. They have squandered many opportunities to reestablish themselves as a significant technology player, but they are hardly on the verge of going out of business. They are profitable and still growing as a company. Product lines die out and Netware has been dying out for years, but they are considerably more than Netware.
I really hope Apple / AT&T would rely on the anti-circumvention restrict in Section 1201 of the DMCA. I doubt they would though based on the fact that the Librarian of Congress ruled in November of 2006 that circumvention for the purpose of unlocking a cell phone was a permitted exception under Section 1201.
Apple and AT&T's better argument would be if they were subsidizing the phones because they could argue the financial side of things. But they aren't subsidizing the phones, so that argument won't get made either.
The only "legal" argument they really have is the financial burden of a lawsuit, regardless of its merit. The real tool that Apple has is to release over-the-air software updates (which they quietly did awhile back) which break a hack. Of course, international users of the existing workarounds (SuperSIM and TurboSIM) wouldn't be affected because the over-the-air update would never get to them.
If you're a lawyer, do yourself a favor and turn in your bar membership. If you aren't a lawyer, stopping giving legal opinions and advice. It's illegal in most places to pretend to be a lawyer... even if you did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
Telecom companies and ISPs are explicitly protected from these types of lawsuits.
The real point is that the site itself and the site admin are more analogous to a publication and its publisher - with sometimes greater protections on specific points and sometimes less protection on other points and all still depending on the jurisdiction.
Whatever you do, never get near Steve Jobs. If his reality distortion field comes into contact with your reality distortion field there could be a major disaster.
The weakness in software sales is likely a lot more connected to supply than demand. There have been plenty of published articles referring to game publishers who are now scrambling to get titles out on the Wii - the success of which was unanticipated until they saw the response at E3 last year.
The fact is that all three consoles are doing rather well, but the Wii stands out because since its release it has dominated sales consistently.
Hell, people don't want the FBI looking at library records and libraries are tax payer funded!!!
This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that allows governments to erode civil rights. There is not a single person in the US during the debate who ever denied the right of the police to access library records. The issue is whether the police can access such records without a warrant issued by an independent judge. The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution is pretty damn clearly written on that issue and it continues to irk a great many of us that the restriction to obtain a warrant first is constantly eroded.
Think the language is hard to understand?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
DRM is nothing about piracy and all about reselling the same content over and over again to the same consumer. The promise is that consumers will have more "choice" (that they don't want) and "flexibility" (that they used to have) at lower prices (that they won't get).
Does anyone really think that a consumer wants to buy the same song or movie more than once without there being some added value to the second purchase? If you buy a movie on DVD, should you have to pay again to play it on your computer? On your portable media player? According to this guy, this is what consumers WANT to do. Uh huh. So if I buy a CD, instead of having the fair use right (which I still have) to convert that music to a format I can use on my iPod, I would actually be better off buying the same content again in a format that already works on my iPod?
I know Macrovision is in the DRM business and so they are hardly neutral on the idea of whether DRM should become the industry standard, but they really need to work harder on their arguments about why DRM is good. I guess the marketing department rejected using terminology like "resell the same shit".
The only true answer about whether EULAs and their terms are enforceable is "it depends."
It depends on the legal jurisdiction, as some courts have said yes a EULA is enforceable and some have said no they are not.
Also, it depends on the terms in the EULA. Just like any other contract, there are limits to what is contractually allowed. You cannot have any terms you want, there are both conditions and limits. What those limits are depends on the jurisdiction that will apply.
Perhaps one other thing worth noting is that it is usually the case that dispensing legal advice without a license to practice law is illegal. I'm covered.
I happen to be a Gartner customer and find them to be very valuable in many areas. That being said, when you have thousands of analysts worldwide - many with opposing biases depending on their area of focus - it is inevitable that one of them will utter just about any prediction you can think of.
In addressing the premise of the recommendation from this particular Gartner analyst, one has to wonder why a company would get out of a highly profitable area of their business while it is still highly profitable. The day may come when selling computers is not a good financial thing for Apple to do, but until that time I am pretty confident Apple will continue doing it.
Of course, many of us also question the prediction for other reasons. First, Apple is not just in the computer hardware business. They sell an overall user experience. The unique design of the hardware and the software are components in that overall experience - each is not easily separable from the other. Second, Apple's current strategy has been extremely effective. They continue to increase market share in each segment they operate in. The line between the iPod and the Mac computer line is continuing to blur without risking the individual segments.
It continues to amaze me that any analyst would be unable to comprehend that Apple's business model is not Dell's. Having not read the analysts actual report (too lazy to download it), I hope that he is only referring to the supply chain and manufacturing efficiencies that Dell is supposed to enjoy over other companies. However, I suspect that Apple is getting as efficient as Dell in these areas. If you look at their component inventory on-hand (at about 4-6 days), they seem to be quite good in their supply chain management. The earlier point that their margins may decrease seems a more salient point than to suggest that Apple would be any less capable of being able to profit from the computer business.
While it is impossible to say that Apple won't file a lawsuit trying to stop this, history suggests they won't. At least not in the beginning. Apple complained loudly about Real's Harmony reverse engineering of the FairPlay DRM, but in the end they didn't do anything about it - perhaps because they determined there was not basis for a lawsuit or perhaps because Harmony never caught on.
What is not clear is how the reverse engineered FairPlay will be marketed. If it is marketed to the online music retailers so they can offer iPod compatibility, then Apple probably doesn't really care enough to take action. If it is marketed to the portable music player hardware manufacturers, then Apple will definitely care because the iPod sale is its bread and butter.
The first scenario makes a lot more overall financial sense because the iPod dominates the market as an end user device. The reason that other portable players have been crushed in the market is not because there is a lack of online music retailers who sell content that is compatible with those devices. It is actually the opposite - there are tons more online music retailers who sell content for non-iPod devices. The reason is that the device of choice is the iPod, and the only online music retailer who sells content from the major music publishers that can be licensed for the iPod is iTMS. If the other online music retailers could also license DRM'd music from the major music publishers for the iPod, then the only threat is to the revenue stream of iTMS - not the iPod.
Instead of jumping to a discussion about the merits of whether potential employers should be using financial credit reports as tools to make hiring determinations, isn't it appropriate to first consider the actual collection of such information by private corporations who then sell this information?
When the collection of such information was first allowed, it was intended solely for the purpose of determining the risk of loaning money to an individual. We have come a long way since then. Now, the corporations which collect this information have a financial incentive to maximize the profit of this information - and that profit comes by selling the information as frequently as possible. To the original intended recipients. To potential employers. And even to you! (just try getting a copy of "your" credit report without paying for it)
It is absolutely incredulous that most of the "pro usage of credit reports" arguments from people are that it can be a useful tool in helping a potential employer determine your reliability, financial stability, risk to company, blah blah blah. Well, so would lie detectors. Or private investigations into your personal life and history. Or even "aggressive interogation techniques".
Personally, I had this happen when I applied for my current job 6 1/2 years ago. I promptly crossed out the language authorizing such invasive measures but still got the job. I take a risk when I accept a new job at a company. They can damn well assume some risk too.
The concept of legal jurisdiction for a court is a bit more complex but not too hard to understand. There are primarily two types: subject matter and personal (or physical). Subject matter is when the court has been given legal authority based on the actual subject being covered in the legal case. Personal / physical jurisdiction is rather easy to understand. If you are in the terroritory where the court has authority, that court has control over you and any posessions you have.
So your example is easy to deal with. While a Brazilian court may or may not under Brazilian law have subject matter jurisdiction over the specific records on your hard drive, if you go to Brazil with that laptop then all bets are off and jurisdiction is established.
Want to hear the real rub? If you are in an airplane flying over a particular country (or even state in the USA) then they have personal jurisdiction over you.
Strange that you read the sentence to mean that religious people (or religion) cannot be rational as the sentence did not say that at all. The absence of rational thought to arrive at a belief does not by definition mean the person is irrational. The point is that the basis of religion is not logic or rationality - not that particular religious beliefs are by default devoid of either of those. The falacy that some people want to perpetuate about religious beliefs are that they are on equal footing with scientific theories. I would accept that premise if religious beliefs are somehow testable and verifiable, which they of course are neither - because they are based on faith. Scientific theory, on the other hand, has its entire history based on the premise of a theory being observable, testable, and verifiable. I will grant you that sometimes people forget that science is simply a bunch of theories, but they are not just random theories. They are observable, testable, and verifiable. If the theory has evidence (that is observable, testable, and verifiable) then the theory is challenged and often modified.
Citing St. Thomas of Aquinas is rather interesting because it is attempt to take a man who tried to apply logic and a rather scientific thought process to aspects of his religion in order to prove the beliefs of the religion itself. He best proves my point that the underlying beliefs must be adapted to reconcile the two. I would even go so far to state that anyone who does tries to suggest St. Thomas did not have to adapt the common religious beliefs of his time to accomodate some of his rationalization as being a bit intellectually suspect - if not downright dishonest.
I would never suggest that faith is blind, at least not in that term's typical meaning. Many people find plenty of examples in the world which they feel provide a rational basis for believing in certain religious tenets - the beauty of nature, the willingness of most humans to help each other, the common ideals which most people live by - all can be used as a basis for any of the major religions. But none of those things or the subsequent conclusion that one reaches because of them use the scientific method.
Your counter-examples and explanations are without merit. You seem to confuse genetic changes across a species with individual changes within a single living organism that have environmental causes. While the theory of evolution postulates that changes within single organisms can actually determine whether that individual organism survives and manages to breed, thereby likely passing on any genetic disposition towards a certain trait and eventually into the species as a whole, I have never heard it used to explain every single anomaly in an organism.
In regards to your point about whether religion determines someone's disposition to believe in evolution versus some other scientific theory (of which so-called Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested and verified - it is, by its very nature, non-verifiable), the mainstream religions all provide a literal explanation that says a supreme being created humans. It is a fundamental premise that is at odds with a scientific explanation of how humans came into being. There are, to be sure, plenty of people who have resolved this conflict by taking a less than literal approach to their own religious teachings. So to believe in evolution, it was their religious beliefs that had to be altered - not the other way around. Religion is pretty much self-admittedly not based on logic and rationality - it is based on faith. The two are largely irreconcilable on a logical basis unless one of them is adapted.
Actually, he is referring to the fact that in Notes certain types of calendar related messages can be seen. Deleting that message inevitably deletes the function that message was serving. For example, if someone accepts an invitation to one of your meetings, that acceptance message is how Notes will determine the status of the invitation. If you keep the message that accepts the invitation, you can see that the person's status in the meeting is "accepted". If you delete the message with the acceptance, the status in the meeting invitation is "No response". The same situation can happen in a variety of scenarios where the user can see informationational messages and status messages are the same.
However, while the criticism is pretty valid about the brain dead nature of such functionality the actual target of the criticism is rather misplaced. The problem is not in the design of Notes itself, but in the design of the mail template which shows such messages and allows them to be actually deleted (as opposed to just hiding it from the view). In the Notes environment, mail is simply a database application built in the Notes environment. It has both good and bad aspects, but the nice thing is you can fix it to work however you want. That, however, takes more skill than running an install wizard.
I am not disputing whether anything is legal or illegal. However, it does a disservice to allow a private organization unilaterally classify behavior as illegal. Things are illegal when the government establishes a law making it so. In most democracies, this involves a legislature passing a law. In situation where there is gray area, which is the vast majority of day-to-day situations, there are courts to interpret and apply the specific law.
You should be rather suspicious when organizations like the BPI, MPAA, RIAA, or IAPI claim behavior is illegal. Usually, they are a bit biased and often claim things as illegal when, in fact, the behavior is not illegal. Some US examples are the claims:
1) Recording television shows for private use is a copyright violation. It was and is not.
2) Ripping CDs is a copyright violation. No court has ever been asked to establish that.
3) Recording songs off the radio, making a mixed tape, and sharing it with friends. Legal and even agreed to by the RIAA when creating the Home Audio Recording Act. Only now the RIAA wants to make a distinction whether it is digital or analog content.
You surely should never quote anything such organizations say as being an establishment of what is legal or illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, they obviously did know about Opera because they explicitly redirected it to a file called error.html. That's the key part of the story. We don't know if Opera would have ruled out the vendor simply because the administration interface didn't function properly in the Opera browser. It was that the vendor explicitly blocked the use of Opera, even though it might have worked just fine.
Lack of using standards is as much the fault of the IT people who choose products and technologies as the vendors who sell them. The number of times that IT staff either don't consider whether the product uses standards - or worse they intentionally choose proprietary solutions because they like the vendor - exceeds the imagination. It's as much a demand problem as a supply. In this instance, the potential customer was the vendor who was being locked out so it kind of bit the manufacturer on the ass.
No, that's not true. It's very possible that some terms are enforceable and valid while other terms are not. Apple takes a risk in trying to enforce the "on Apple hardware only" clause, and I am sure even their own lawyers have cautioned against risking a judgment which states that this clause is not enforceable. I say this as a Mac user and a promoter of Apple products. That doesn't mean I think a company should get carte blanche authority to determine how its products can be used. If you want to fully control something, don't sell it as a product on the market.
How is it that when someone expresses an opinion that they consider Apple to be worth it, that's "fanatical" but when you express the opposite it's just a reasoned difference of opinion? Whackos are everywhere, and I don't notice any difference in the volume of devout Windows lovers who troll Mac forums than the number of Mac zealots who troll Windows forums.
What is a Novel CEO?
Is the Novell CEO a Novel CEO?
Grand larceny includes a requirement of intent. You didn't have the intent to commit grand larceny, therefore you didn't. Nice try, but ain't no criminal.
You were close but not quite there. What constitutes fair use is a legal question, not a factual one. The factual issue about whether specific behavior constitutes what is already determined to be fair use is one for the jury.
For example, making a copy of a video for educational purposes is within the fair use exception to most copyright laws. If you make a copy of a video and claim it is for educational purposes, it is a factual issue whether your claim is true. If a jury is deciding, then they make that determination based on your use of fair use as a defense.
I've noticed a few fallacies in some of the comments that definitely need correcting. In general, people tend to combine arguments about Netware as an OS versus the services that have been bundled with it. Over the years Novell has been rather inept at developing , communicating, and executing a strategy on the inevitable migration from the Netware OS to something else. First they went through a period of simply supporting their services like eDirectory on Windows. Second, they acquired Suse and talked about parallel platforms with common services. Ultimately, it seems they made a rather smart decision in how they were going to continue to support their existing customer base that is utilizing Netware while giving a rather clear path to Linux. The problem Novell still has is that a lot of their services haven't been completely migrated to Linux yet.
1) eDirectory - Done. Has been multiplatform for years. Continues to be the single best meta directory repository on the market. There is not a single environment of any decent size that can get away with one directory to service all the business requirements, but eDirectory continues to be the best option for consolidating the directory data using Novell's Identity Manager suite of drivers and tools.
2) zenWorks - Pretty much anyone who has used it considers it the premiere tool for managing Windows clients. Only in the next release will they not require Netware for some of the components. The middle tier design and agent-based client make it a pleasure to work with compared to the fat Novell Client days.
3) Management tools - someone else already said it, but Novell cannot seem to stay focused (and enforce discipline on their own development teams) to provide a consistent management tool. They have gone from NWAdmin to ConsoleOne to iManager - except you still pretty much need each of them depending on what you are going to manage.
4) File permissions - The NSS file system is pretty damn good, has been ported and made available on Linux for a few years now. It still provides the leading access controls / inherited rights / filtered rights that other file systems should be ashamed of for not offering.
For sure, Novell is just as if not more screwed up than any other company. They have squandered many opportunities to reestablish themselves as a significant technology player, but they are hardly on the verge of going out of business. They are profitable and still growing as a company. Product lines die out and Netware has been dying out for years, but they are considerably more than Netware.
I really hope Apple / AT&T would rely on the anti-circumvention restrict in Section 1201 of the DMCA. I doubt they would though based on the fact that the Librarian of Congress ruled in November of 2006 that circumvention for the purpose of unlocking a cell phone was a permitted exception under Section 1201. Apple and AT&T's better argument would be if they were subsidizing the phones because they could argue the financial side of things. But they aren't subsidizing the phones, so that argument won't get made either. The only "legal" argument they really have is the financial burden of a lawsuit, regardless of its merit. The real tool that Apple has is to release over-the-air software updates (which they quietly did awhile back) which break a hack. Of course, international users of the existing workarounds (SuperSIM and TurboSIM) wouldn't be affected because the over-the-air update would never get to them.
Telecom companies and ISPs are explicitly protected from these types of lawsuits.
The real point is that the site itself and the site admin are more analogous to a publication and its publisher - with sometimes greater protections on specific points and sometimes less protection on other points and all still depending on the jurisdiction.
Whatever you do, never get near Steve Jobs. If his reality distortion field comes into contact with your reality distortion field there could be a major disaster.
The fact is that all three consoles are doing rather well, but the Wii stands out because since its release it has dominated sales consistently.
This is exactly the kind of ignorant garbage that allows governments to erode civil rights. There is not a single person in the US during the debate who ever denied the right of the police to access library records. The issue is whether the police can access such records without a warrant issued by an independent judge. The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution is pretty damn clearly written on that issue and it continues to irk a great many of us that the restriction to obtain a warrant first is constantly eroded.
Think the language is hard to understand?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Yeah, that's a tough one to comprehend.
DRM is nothing about piracy and all about reselling the same content over and over again to the same consumer. The promise is that consumers will have more "choice" (that they don't want) and "flexibility" (that they used to have) at lower prices (that they won't get).
Does anyone really think that a consumer wants to buy the same song or movie more than once without there being some added value to the second purchase? If you buy a movie on DVD, should you have to pay again to play it on your computer? On your portable media player? According to this guy, this is what consumers WANT to do. Uh huh. So if I buy a CD, instead of having the fair use right (which I still have) to convert that music to a format I can use on my iPod, I would actually be better off buying the same content again in a format that already works on my iPod?
I know Macrovision is in the DRM business and so they are hardly neutral on the idea of whether DRM should become the industry standard, but they really need to work harder on their arguments about why DRM is good. I guess the marketing department rejected using terminology like "resell the same shit".
It depends on the legal jurisdiction, as some courts have said yes a EULA is enforceable and some have said no they are not.
Also, it depends on the terms in the EULA. Just like any other contract, there are limits to what is contractually allowed. You cannot have any terms you want, there are both conditions and limits. What those limits are depends on the jurisdiction that will apply.
Perhaps one other thing worth noting is that it is usually the case that dispensing legal advice without a license to practice law is illegal. I'm covered.
Well, because the iPhone will not be available for another 6 months I guess it really is 4 1/2 years ahead of anything out there.
In addressing the premise of the recommendation from this particular Gartner analyst, one has to wonder why a company would get out of a highly profitable area of their business while it is still highly profitable. The day may come when selling computers is not a good financial thing for Apple to do, but until that time I am pretty confident Apple will continue doing it.
Of course, many of us also question the prediction for other reasons. First, Apple is not just in the computer hardware business. They sell an overall user experience. The unique design of the hardware and the software are components in that overall experience - each is not easily separable from the other. Second, Apple's current strategy has been extremely effective. They continue to increase market share in each segment they operate in. The line between the iPod and the Mac computer line is continuing to blur without risking the individual segments.
It continues to amaze me that any analyst would be unable to comprehend that Apple's business model is not Dell's. Having not read the analysts actual report (too lazy to download it), I hope that he is only referring to the supply chain and manufacturing efficiencies that Dell is supposed to enjoy over other companies. However, I suspect that Apple is getting as efficient as Dell in these areas. If you look at their component inventory on-hand (at about 4-6 days), they seem to be quite good in their supply chain management. The earlier point that their margins may decrease seems a more salient point than to suggest that Apple would be any less capable of being able to profit from the computer business.
What is not clear is how the reverse engineered FairPlay will be marketed. If it is marketed to the online music retailers so they can offer iPod compatibility, then Apple probably doesn't really care enough to take action. If it is marketed to the portable music player hardware manufacturers, then Apple will definitely care because the iPod sale is its bread and butter.
The first scenario makes a lot more overall financial sense because the iPod dominates the market as an end user device. The reason that other portable players have been crushed in the market is not because there is a lack of online music retailers who sell content that is compatible with those devices. It is actually the opposite - there are tons more online music retailers who sell content for non-iPod devices. The reason is that the device of choice is the iPod, and the only online music retailer who sells content from the major music publishers that can be licensed for the iPod is iTMS. If the other online music retailers could also license DRM'd music from the major music publishers for the iPod, then the only threat is to the revenue stream of iTMS - not the iPod.
When the collection of such information was first allowed, it was intended solely for the purpose of determining the risk of loaning money to an individual. We have come a long way since then. Now, the corporations which collect this information have a financial incentive to maximize the profit of this information - and that profit comes by selling the information as frequently as possible. To the original intended recipients. To potential employers. And even to you! (just try getting a copy of "your" credit report without paying for it)
It is absolutely incredulous that most of the "pro usage of credit reports" arguments from people are that it can be a useful tool in helping a potential employer determine your reliability, financial stability, risk to company, blah blah blah. Well, so would lie detectors. Or private investigations into your personal life and history. Or even "aggressive interogation techniques".
Personally, I had this happen when I applied for my current job 6 1/2 years ago. I promptly crossed out the language authorizing such invasive measures but still got the job. I take a risk when I accept a new job at a company. They can damn well assume some risk too.
So your example is easy to deal with. While a Brazilian court may or may not under Brazilian law have subject matter jurisdiction over the specific records on your hard drive, if you go to Brazil with that laptop then all bets are off and jurisdiction is established.
Want to hear the real rub? If you are in an airplane flying over a particular country (or even state in the USA) then they have personal jurisdiction over you.
Citing St. Thomas of Aquinas is rather interesting because it is attempt to take a man who tried to apply logic and a rather scientific thought process to aspects of his religion in order to prove the beliefs of the religion itself. He best proves my point that the underlying beliefs must be adapted to reconcile the two. I would even go so far to state that anyone who does tries to suggest St. Thomas did not have to adapt the common religious beliefs of his time to accomodate some of his rationalization as being a bit intellectually suspect - if not downright dishonest.
I would never suggest that faith is blind, at least not in that term's typical meaning. Many people find plenty of examples in the world which they feel provide a rational basis for believing in certain religious tenets - the beauty of nature, the willingness of most humans to help each other, the common ideals which most people live by - all can be used as a basis for any of the major religions. But none of those things or the subsequent conclusion that one reaches because of them use the scientific method.
In regards to your point about whether religion determines someone's disposition to believe in evolution versus some other scientific theory (of which so-called Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested and verified - it is, by its very nature, non-verifiable), the mainstream religions all provide a literal explanation that says a supreme being created humans. It is a fundamental premise that is at odds with a scientific explanation of how humans came into being. There are, to be sure, plenty of people who have resolved this conflict by taking a less than literal approach to their own religious teachings. So to believe in evolution, it was their religious beliefs that had to be altered - not the other way around. Religion is pretty much self-admittedly not based on logic and rationality - it is based on faith. The two are largely irreconcilable on a logical basis unless one of them is adapted.
Actually, he is referring to the fact that in Notes certain types of calendar related messages can be seen. Deleting that message inevitably deletes the function that message was serving. For example, if someone accepts an invitation to one of your meetings, that acceptance message is how Notes will determine the status of the invitation. If you keep the message that accepts the invitation, you can see that the person's status in the meeting is "accepted". If you delete the message with the acceptance, the status in the meeting invitation is "No response". The same situation can happen in a variety of scenarios where the user can see informationational messages and status messages are the same. However, while the criticism is pretty valid about the brain dead nature of such functionality the actual target of the criticism is rather misplaced. The problem is not in the design of Notes itself, but in the design of the mail template which shows such messages and allows them to be actually deleted (as opposed to just hiding it from the view). In the Notes environment, mail is simply a database application built in the Notes environment. It has both good and bad aspects, but the nice thing is you can fix it to work however you want. That, however, takes more skill than running an install wizard.
Don't forget irregardless. Also, when did "ironical" become a word? Same time as "strategery", I guess.
I am not disputing whether anything is legal or illegal. However, it does a disservice to allow a private organization unilaterally classify behavior as illegal. Things are illegal when the government establishes a law making it so. In most democracies, this involves a legislature passing a law. In situation where there is gray area, which is the vast majority of day-to-day situations, there are courts to interpret and apply the specific law. You should be rather suspicious when organizations like the BPI, MPAA, RIAA, or IAPI claim behavior is illegal. Usually, they are a bit biased and often claim things as illegal when, in fact, the behavior is not illegal. Some US examples are the claims: 1) Recording television shows for private use is a copyright violation. It was and is not. 2) Ripping CDs is a copyright violation. No court has ever been asked to establish that. 3) Recording songs off the radio, making a mixed tape, and sharing it with friends. Legal and even agreed to by the RIAA when creating the Home Audio Recording Act. Only now the RIAA wants to make a distinction whether it is digital or analog content. You surely should never quote anything such organizations say as being an establishment of what is legal or illegal.