Unless you have it written into your contract, they don't have to pay for this. If they do - then you might consider that a valuable perk. The value to you may be less than the ticket/travel/accommodation price (or even negative if you hate conferences and are required to go).
Ultimately - it just weighs into your assessment of whether you are getting a good deal at work, and whether you want to stay.
-how much do they pay -how much holiday do you get -how much are you learning -what are the benefits like -etc, etc, etc
Asking who should pay for your conference is like asking who should pay for your coffee. Nice to get it for free - but just one factor in the mix.
hardly: If he sent mails about these issues, then he would be complaining in good faith, and would have sent them on the standard internal network.
If he had sent emails alleging impropriety from secure external system, then that would a) probably count as leaking confidential info (sending confidential info on an external service) b) raise every red flag in the organisation and probably result in him being fired (why are you trying to keep external records of this secret matter???)
sorry - typo on the upload speed. It should have been 12.4mbps
certainly not amazing, but most of the marketing focusses on download speeds, so I don't think upload is taken terribly seriously. For most users, that probably reflects their priorities.
Nonsense. There is no law that makes you responsible for what other people download. (at least, not in any sane first world country)
It is a disgrace that you are so terrified of your government that you think sharing your bandwidth with a stranger is dangerous.
I have been helped many times in the past by the kindness of strangers who left their wifi open - and I will continue to leave my wifi open for other strangers to benefit in return.
Many (most?) modern routers support this safely by allowing you to provide a guest network which is isolated from your own wifi network.
Whilst I agree that a lot of bad patents are certainly granted, I actually think the systemic problem here is actually the review process after the initial grant.
Even if USPO was a lot better, then it is safe to assume that some crappy patents would get through when an examiner was having a bad day.
It's ok to have errors like that if you have a decent fast review process to fix mistakes.
This might be something that a judge could request before a case went to trial. The patent would be re-reviewed by a senior patent examiner who would make an new judgement:
1) this probably should not have passed. (Inventor can appeal, but legal process assumes that patent is invalid until the appeal). 2) this is a solid patent that probably should have passed. (the infringer can appeal, but legal process assumes the patent is valid until the appeal).
given that only a tiny fraction of patents will ever get taken to court, this isn't adding a huge amount of re-work to the USPO, so they can handle this stream as a high priority.
This does somewhat reduce the certainty of the initial patent grant, but that is no bad thing.
agreed - entering negotiations doesn't show they needed the licence.
However - assuming the requirement for a licence is real (e.g. terms and conditions on the site are clear and forbid taking all the data for commercial use) - it makes it hard for McAffee to claim that they didn't realise they needed one.
Given that they seem to have been deliberately trying to avoid security restrictions (by rapidly changing user agents) - then it is even harder for them to claim an innocent error.
If the site is clear about it's terms up front, then this seems like a serious issue.
McAfee clearly knew they needed a licence; They asked about getting one. Presumably, they just didn't like the price.
Plenty of software licences are the same; Free for personal use, paid for commercial use. The fact that the company does the world a favour by offering free access for some people doesn't make the commercial theft of the whole database less serious.
Any company can join the union. The union appoints independent observers to assess whether ISPs are acting in accordance with principles of net neutrality. If the ISP is not net neutral, then the union has a series of escalating sanctions which are deployed in a pre-announced schedule
Sanctions might be -provide slow service to users of ISP -cut off service to users of ISP for one hour per week -cut off service to users of ISP for one day per week (etc)
Union members are required to implement the sanctions, or they are expelled from the union.
The message here is simple; The ISP claims that their customers (users) haven't paid to access the web, and that the ISP must charge internet companies(businesses) to send content to the users.
So - let's see how that plays out when the businesses stop providing service to the users. Are the users still happy to pay the ISP?
I wish Netflix had had the balls to say 'ok, we're not renewing any new comcast customers, and stopping any new signups with a big red 'comcast sucks' warning'. It's easier to be ballsy if google, facebook, yahoo, netflix, bing all act together.
It sounds like they have released some driver sourcecode - but it is hacky, and not useable by Open WRT
From the mailing list:
There are also still some pieces missing: Since this driver does not use standard Linux Wireless APIs, it can only properly function with custom hostapd/wpa_supplicant hacks. I don't see those in the release.
agreed - they got a digital version. People complained for various reasons, and Rob decided to do his best to 'Make it right'. All credit to them up to this point. They could have argued that they had met the legal definition of the offer, but they didn't.
At this point, they had two obvious choices
1) give people a link to a drm free file (which they could download anyway for free from TPB) 2) give them back some money
The interesting fact for me is that rather than give people what they want, they're so scared of DRM-free files, or so wedded to ultra-violet that they would rather give money back.
the story for me isn't 'kickstarter backers got screwed' - it's 'look at the irrational choices the studios make out of fear of piracy'
Yup - a promise about future behaviour would be good. Perhaps formal guidance to prosecutors that posting an http link should not generally be seen as 'republishing'
In the UK, there has been controversy around various twitter cases (particularly the bomb joke case). The end result is that the director of public prosecutions has issued new guidance on how and when to charge people with crimes based on what they say on Twitter.
--- "... [they are] like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out; those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."
Against that background, prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than: Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it. If so satisfied, prosecutors should go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
In the UK, BT has partnered with FON and automatically advertises BT-Fon hotspots on consumer routers.
I haven't seen any objections to this.
One upside (which I did occasionally find useful when I was on BT) is that they allow the homeowner free access to any wifi hotspot in the BT-Fon network.
There are plenty of cases where the cost/risk might be acceptable.
If I want to buy something for $100 and anonymity is important, then I may well be happy to risk losing my $100.
Similarly if I have a bunch of illicit cash and I can convert it into bitcoin - I might be willing to risk losing it rather than risk it coming to the attention of the authorities.
Is bitcoin suitable for your average person to store their pension savings? Almost certainly not. That doesn't mean the cost (risk) is unacceptably high for everyone though.
After the technological meltdowns consistently failed to appear, IPv4 was finally replaced when IPv7 was adopted globally in the year 2017 as a result of a world trade agreement.
The incongruous IPv7 clause was widely seen as the result of an unlikely alliance between the RIAA, MPAA and various repressive regimes such as China, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom.
Frustrated by the inability to trace internet usage to a single user via IPv4, these organisations lobbied for IPv7 to be adopted so that individual phones and computers could be mapped permanently to a single device and user. Unlike IPv6, IPv7 includes a direct mapping to the mac address of a device and the user's global internet ID, so that (in theory at least), all downloads can be linked to a specific person.
Although the EFF and various other organisations campaigned vigorously against IPv7, the arguments around catching terrorists and preventing pedophilia prevailed.
The cinema clearly doesn't forbid you from taking a camera in. I'd wager that 95% of patrons have a phone that with a video camera. What makes this one different is that it was pointing at the screen.
The interesting issue here is that the video camera is attached to his prescription glasses - so he can turn it off (which he did) but he can't turn it away.
Slashdot Mirror
you could socialize medicine in the USA with the taxes you currently collect.
The cost of medicare in the USA is about the same (as a proportion of GDP) as the cost of universal healthcare in the UK.
Should is meaningless in this context.
Unless you have it written into your contract, they don't have to pay for this.
If they do - then you might consider that a valuable perk.
The value to you may be less than the ticket/travel/accommodation price (or even negative if you hate conferences and are required to go).
Ultimately - it just weighs into your assessment of whether you are getting a good deal at work, and whether you want to stay.
-how much do they pay
-how much holiday do you get
-how much are you learning
-what are the benefits like
-etc, etc, etc
Asking who should pay for your conference is like asking who should pay for your coffee. Nice to get it for free - but just one factor in the mix.
They're also great for jumping out of. The outward opening rear ramp is a lot of fun.
Sadly, the Perris Valley Skydiving DC10 is currently out of service...
hardly: If he sent mails about these issues, then he would be complaining in good faith, and would have sent them on the standard internal network.
If he had sent emails alleging impropriety from secure external system, then that would
a) probably count as leaking confidential info (sending confidential info on an external service)
b) raise every red flag in the organisation and probably result in him being fired (why are you trying to keep external records of this secret matter???)
sorry - typo on the upload speed. It should have been 12.4mbps
certainly not amazing, but most of the marketing focusses on download speeds, so I don't think upload is taken terribly seriously.
For most users, that probably reflects their priorities.
If it was just about population density, then the USA would be rocking decent internet in any large urban-ish area.
I live in the UK in a suburb of the 10th largest city.
speedtest.net shows me
ping 8ms
down 127mbpx
up 1.4mbpx
this (including my phone and cable tv) costs about $70/month
obviously that includes 20% sales tax so a USA equivalent should be about $60.
does that sound like what you'd expect to get in a USA suburban area?
A very expensive patent that was litigated aggressively...
They provide 80% of the Tor Project's funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
> in my country, the owner of a router can be held liable for the data transmitted throught it.
what country is that?
Nonsense. There is no law that makes you responsible for what other people download. (at least, not in any sane first world country)
It is a disgrace that you are so terrified of your government that you think sharing your bandwidth with a stranger is dangerous.
I have been helped many times in the past by the kindness of strangers who left their wifi open - and I will continue to leave my wifi open for other strangers to benefit in return.
Many (most?) modern routers support this safely by allowing you to provide a guest network which is isolated from your own wifi network.
Whilst I agree that a lot of bad patents are certainly granted, I actually think the systemic problem here is actually the review process after the initial grant.
Even if USPO was a lot better, then it is safe to assume that some crappy patents would get through when an examiner was having a bad day.
It's ok to have errors like that if you have a decent fast review process to fix mistakes.
This might be something that a judge could request before a case went to trial.
The patent would be re-reviewed by a senior patent examiner who would make an new judgement:
1) this probably should not have passed. (Inventor can appeal, but legal process assumes that patent is invalid until the appeal).
2) this is a solid patent that probably should have passed. (the infringer can appeal, but legal process assumes the patent is valid until the appeal).
given that only a tiny fraction of patents will ever get taken to court, this isn't adding a huge amount of re-work to the USPO, so they can handle this stream as a high priority.
This does somewhat reduce the certainty of the initial patent grant, but that is no bad thing.
Here's an idea.
Rip up all the local monopoly deals and enforce (via legislation) meaningful competition.
That'll bring prices and service more into line with the rest of the developed world.
That'll get people (even the poor) signing up.
agreed - entering negotiations doesn't show they needed the licence.
However - assuming the requirement for a licence is real (e.g. terms and conditions on the site are clear and forbid taking all the data for commercial use) - it makes it hard for McAffee to claim that they didn't realise they needed one.
Given that they seem to have been deliberately trying to avoid security restrictions (by rapidly changing user agents) - then it is even harder for them to claim an innocent error.
If the site is clear about it's terms up front, then this seems like a serious issue.
McAfee clearly knew they needed a licence; They asked about getting one. Presumably, they just didn't like the price.
Plenty of software licences are the same; Free for personal use, paid for commercial use. The fact that the company does the world a favour by offering free access for some people doesn't make the commercial theft of the whole database less serious.
Any company can join the union.
The union appoints independent observers to assess whether ISPs are acting in accordance with principles of net neutrality.
If the ISP is not net neutral, then the union has a series of escalating sanctions which are deployed in a pre-announced schedule
Sanctions might be
-provide slow service to users of ISP
-cut off service to users of ISP for one hour per week
-cut off service to users of ISP for one day per week
(etc)
Union members are required to implement the sanctions, or they are expelled from the union.
The message here is simple; The ISP claims that their customers (users) haven't paid to access the web, and that the ISP must charge internet companies(businesses) to send content to the users.
So - let's see how that plays out when the businesses stop providing service to the users. Are the users still happy to pay the ISP?
I wish Netflix had had the balls to say 'ok, we're not renewing any new comcast customers, and stopping any new signups with a big red 'comcast sucks' warning'.
It's easier to be ballsy if google, facebook, yahoo, netflix, bing all act together.
You post as if their enlightened self interest is a bad thing.
Sure they benefit. But each of them could sit tight and wait/hope for someone else to pay for this.
I say good for them. This deserves praise, not contempt.
It sounds like they have released some driver sourcecode - but it is hacky, and not useable by Open WRT
From the mailing list:
There are also still some pieces missing: Since this driver does not use
standard Linux Wireless APIs, it can only properly function with custom
hostapd/wpa_supplicant hacks. I don't see those in the release.
agreed - they got a digital version. People complained for various reasons, and Rob decided to do his best to 'Make it right'. All credit to them up to this point. They could have argued that they had met the legal definition of the offer, but they didn't.
At this point, they had two obvious choices
1) give people a link to a drm free file
(which they could download anyway for free from TPB)
2) give them back some money
The interesting fact for me is that rather than give people what they want, they're so scared of DRM-free files, or so wedded to ultra-violet that they would rather give money back.
the story for me isn't 'kickstarter backers got screwed' - it's 'look at the irrational choices the studios make out of fear of piracy'
Does the UK have that stupid digital-lock law?
Nope.
Yup - a promise about future behaviour would be good.
Perhaps formal guidance to prosecutors that posting an http link should not generally be seen as 'republishing'
In the UK, there has been controversy around various twitter cases (particularly the bomb joke case).
The end result is that the director of public prosecutions has issued new guidance on how and when to charge people with crimes based on what they say on Twitter.
new guidelines:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a...
relevant section:
---
"... [they are] like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out; those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."
Against that background, prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:
Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.
If so satisfied, prosecutors should go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
In the UK, BT has partnered with FON and automatically advertises BT-Fon hotspots on consumer routers.
I haven't seen any objections to this.
One upside (which I did occasionally find useful when I was on BT) is that they allow the homeowner free access to any wifi hotspot in the BT-Fon network.
unacceptably high for whom?
There are plenty of cases where the cost/risk might be acceptable.
If I want to buy something for $100 and anonymity is important, then I may well be happy to risk losing my $100.
Similarly if I have a bunch of illicit cash and I can convert it into bitcoin - I might be willing to risk losing it rather than risk it coming to the attention of the authorities.
Is bitcoin suitable for your average person to store their pension savings? Almost certainly not. That doesn't mean the cost (risk) is unacceptably high for everyone though.
After the technological meltdowns consistently failed to appear, IPv4 was finally replaced when IPv7 was adopted globally in the year 2017 as a result of a world trade agreement.
The incongruous IPv7 clause was widely seen as the result of an unlikely alliance between the RIAA, MPAA and various repressive regimes such as China, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom.
Frustrated by the inability to trace internet usage to a single user via IPv4, these organisations lobbied for IPv7 to be adopted so that individual phones and computers could be mapped permanently to a single device and user. Unlike IPv6, IPv7 includes a direct mapping to the mac address of a device and the user's global internet ID, so that (in theory at least), all downloads can be linked to a specific person.
Although the EFF and various other organisations campaigned vigorously against IPv7, the arguments around catching terrorists and preventing pedophilia prevailed.
This seems like a clear case of extortion and theft.
At the very least, the police ought to be able to recover the stolen property via Twitter.
The cinema clearly doesn't forbid you from taking a camera in. I'd wager that 95% of patrons have a phone that with a video camera.
What makes this one different is that it was pointing at the screen.
The interesting issue here is that the video camera is attached to his prescription glasses - so he can turn it off (which he did) but he can't turn it away.