I signed up for an account a number of years ago. There were different terms of service at that point. Can they arbitrarily change this? ( probably they can ). How will they promulgate this change to/for/with GAIM or other compatible-but-not-AIM IM apps.
*According to them, prior art is not their responsibility, its the responsibility of the person filing the patent to show any prior art*
Dont they understand that the person filing the patent at best doesnt think there is prior art, and at worst will deny there is prior art when there is prior art? There *has* to be a cross check of this.
I think those lawyers ought to be forcibly placed on the other side of the fence for a while, so they know what pain they are inflicting on others.
That would be fine, if only they actually delivered on that promise. By and large, they get a lot, but deliver hot air.
Not to mention, why is there an expectation of 15% growth anually? Is there some law at work I am not aware of? ( I expect that kind of growth in my wages, but somehow, it eludes me... )
Perhaps this is a treadmill we ( as a society ) should get off. Let the CEO prove performance, then get the rewards.
How about if the american corporations start to pay enough taxes to cover the benefits they receive. Or is that what you meant by "putting our own house in order"?
that you have a security issue in that your help desk people know the passwords of the people that they are setting them for.
All they have to do is write them down. Or remember them.
On the issue of management telling you to allow employees to pick bad passwords, have that manager sign a statement that you are doing so under protest, and that that manager understands that the resulting poor security is that manager's responsibility. Then, prepare to be let go!:-)
*If you are asserting that someone had stolen something (atleast in your mind), but not caught at it, then I'm assuming that you are also asserting that they were tried and convicted in a court of law of that crime*
How could they be tried and convicted in a court of law, if they had not been caught?
No, you misunderstand.
Fact: Person of unknown identity steals. Fact: Said person is not repeat not apprehended by law enforcement officials. Is not tried. Is not convicted.
Question: Are they a criminal?
Statement: I agree with the legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Didnt touch that. Dont know where you got the idea I did. Assuming that above individual was caught, I would want that person to have all the benefits of the ideas of the US legal system.
*Ahh, you mean Microsoft the corporation, right? Bill Gates was the CEO of Microsoft at one point, but I don't think he was Microsoft. Only way you could maybe say otherwise is a time at which he was the only employee*
Semantic tiddlewinks. Microsoft carried out, by and large, the will of its CEO, Bill Gates. Yes, Bill Gates != Microsoft, Microsoft != Bill Gates.
It was an analogy. We were talking about the definition of "criminal". Someone upstream made the assertion ( effectively ) that you were not a criminal unless you were convicted. I asserted that that was not so, and used the idea of a hypothetical person who had stolen, but had not been caught at it. Was that criminal or not?
He ( Bill Gates ) has succeeded in leveraging one monopoly to keep that monopoly ( the pressure brought to bear on OEMs to not ship non-MS operating systems ), and to extend that into other areas ( pressure brought to bear on OEMs to not ship things like Netscape on the equipment they sell, etc, etc ). My understanding is that these are illegal within the US of A. Seems some judges agree with that.
It should be local, so they can get it if they need it.
If they need physical separation for protection, then they should have duplicate data centers, each duplicating each others data, and ready to fail over to the other site. And backing up to tape for local storage.
Course, they probably did save a few pennies this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is something you have to eat.
Only 1% of it is poisonous.
It is 99% good! See, you should eat it!
What are you fussing about?
Oh, that that 1% may kill you? What kind
of a whiny left wing socialist are you?
Eat!
David
Yeah? Where is 1$?
Does pay-pal have it?
1. Establish a service,
1a. Put a clause like that in my TOS.
2. change the TOS to say that they owe me a nickle for each millisecond they live.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Why would I RTFToS?
So, not knowing all these things ( lets suppose ), I fire up GAIM.
I see no messages telling me about this. ( or do I? )
I innocently ( or so I think ) send messages.
I can see I should have been clearer.
I signed up for an account a number of years ago. There were different terms of service at that point. Can they arbitrarily change this? ( probably they can ). How will they promulgate this change to/for/with GAIM or other compatible-but-not-AIM IM apps.
And if you signed up before the terms changed?
:-)
(-: Perhaps I should have been clearer about that..
I'm just guessing, but I think they dont want customers. I'm not sending much thru AIM with those terms of Service.
Also, what about users of GAIM, et al, that havent agreed to those terms? Can they enforce this there?
*According to them, prior art is not their responsibility, its the responsibility of the person filing the patent to show any prior art*
Dont they understand that the person filing the patent at best doesnt think there is prior art, and at worst will deny there is prior art when there is prior art? There *has* to be a cross check of this.
I think those lawyers ought to be forcibly placed on the other side of the fence for a while, so they know what pain they are inflicting on others.
That would be fine, if only they actually delivered on that promise. By and large, they get a lot, but deliver hot air.
Not to mention, why is there an expectation of 15% growth anually? Is there some law at work I am not aware of? ( I expect that kind of growth in my wages, but somehow, it eludes me... )
Perhaps this is a treadmill we ( as a society ) should get off. Let the CEO prove performance, then get the rewards.
No, they will not.
How about if the american corporations start to pay enough taxes to cover the benefits they receive. Or is that what you meant by "putting our own house in order"?
The quality was rather good too.
that you have a security issue in that your help desk people know the passwords of the people that they are setting them for.
:-)
All they have to do is write them down. Or remember them.
On the issue of management telling you to allow employees to pick bad passwords, have that manager sign a statement that you are doing so under protest, and that that manager understands that the resulting poor security is that manager's responsibility. Then, prepare to be let go!
"Vyv, eat the tele!" //guess the reference
Young Ones.
I always invade my home, armed, because I *cant* prove that there are no such weapons under by bed. And boy, do I feel better having done so!
( So far, no weapons. I'll let you know what I find tonight ).
This is the measure of how innovative they are. They cannot be constrainted by the old!
*If you are asserting that someone had stolen something (atleast in your mind), but not caught at it, then I'm assuming that you are also asserting that they were tried and convicted in a court of law of that crime*
How could they be tried and convicted in a court of law, if they had not been caught?
No, you misunderstand.
Fact: Person of unknown identity steals.
Fact: Said person is not repeat not apprehended by law enforcement officials. Is not tried. Is not convicted.
Question: Are they a criminal?
Statement: I agree with the legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Didnt touch that. Dont know where you got the idea I did. Assuming that above individual was caught, I would want that person to have all the benefits of the ideas of the US legal system.
*Ahh, you mean Microsoft the corporation, right? Bill Gates was the CEO of Microsoft at one point, but I don't think he was Microsoft. Only way you could maybe say otherwise is a time at which he was the only employee*
Semantic tiddlewinks. Microsoft carried out, by and large, the will of its CEO, Bill Gates. Yes, Bill Gates != Microsoft, Microsoft != Bill Gates.
Never said he stole anything.
It was an analogy. We were talking about the definition of "criminal". Someone upstream made the assertion ( effectively ) that you were not a criminal unless you were convicted. I asserted that that was not so, and used the idea of a hypothetical person who had stolen, but had not been caught at it. Was that criminal or not?
He ( Bill Gates ) has succeeded in leveraging one monopoly to keep that monopoly ( the pressure brought to bear on OEMs to not ship non-MS operating systems ), and to extend that into other areas ( pressure brought to bear on OEMs to not ship things like Netscape on the equipment they sell, etc, etc ). My understanding is that these are illegal within the US of A. Seems some judges agree with that.
Nope. So far from it.
:-)
What gripes me is that he does things that are illegal, and gets away with it. Thats it. Just and only.
Yes, I know, I have been trolled. I lost. I'll have a nice day.
So, a person that steals, but doesnt get caught, or gets let off is not a criminal?
The long version of the first name should have tipped you off:
Carlton.
Most of the CEO's that I have observed have become so adept at the art of spin that they are no longer capable of realizing when they are being spun.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
It's not what he is suggesting, to be sure. But isnt the parent post where this kind of thinking leads, eventually? It certainly is efficient! :-)
Why are they shipping this *anywhere*?
It should be local, so they can get it if they need it.
If they need physical separation for protection, then they should have duplicate data centers, each duplicating each others data, and ready to fail over to the other site. And backing up to tape for local storage.
Course, they probably did save a few pennies this way.