Huh. That's a clever trick; I wonder if they'll get away with it. In a lot of states you can't waive implied warranties, tho'. I've no clue whether any of 'em apply to a club membership, anyway: I'm obviously not a lawyer. But I do think, regardless of merchantability, there may be a plain implied contract in the process which obligates 'em to exercise a certain amount of diligence in handling submissions.
These terms don't mean they have to issue a rejection notice. They can withhold approval indefinitely, with always having the right to approve later.
Huh. I guess the distinction between the signing and the listing was lost on me. However, I can't agree with that statement. Regardless of the terms they set, I'm reasonably sure that by selling you development software, they've entered an implied contract (Merchantability? I don't recall the various implied contracts offhand and don't have time to check.) which obligates them to provide services which render the sale meaningful.
traditional coin-op parking meters suck in their own ways.
Yeah they do. A broken kiosk means an extra couple blocks of walking - a broken parking meter means you lose the change* and have to find a new space. I prefer the kiosks to traditional meters while acknowledging there are problems with 'em.
*I darn near wrote "loose" instead of "lose" (which I never do). I almost wish I had just for the undoubtedly entertaining replies.
Re:Thwarted by properly designed online banking
on
Real-Time Keyloggers
·
· Score: 1
The one time pad means they can't open a second session.
No, it means you can't open a second session. You never posted your login, because they control the vertical and the horizontal. Although the transfer confirmation code should stop 'em, one hopes.
No, it absolutely does not. Net Neutrality only refers to filtering or throttling based on source or destination. Prioritizing VoIP traffic over BitTorrent traffic is not a Net Neutrality issue. Throttling Vonage's VoIP traffic to make your ISP's VoIP service more attractive is a Net Neutrality issue.
I agree. The redefinition of network neutrality to include traffic type is a marketing scheme, no more. It allows providers to say "Net neutrality is not bad. We use it to slow down abusive users." This makes the debate about a straw man - it's harder to object to this behavior than real neutrality violations. By making the debate about peer-to-peer and streaming traffic taking bandwidth away from other users, they sidestep the real issue of giving privilege to certain content providers over others.
Again: The people who want to define network neutrality to include this behavior are not on your side. They want you to use that definition so they can control the debate. If they win the debate, we the netizens lose, and we lose a lot.
This is an important issue that could well help direct the culture of the technologized* world for a long time - possibly centuries, but certainly decades. Do we want content approved and delivered mainly by large central providers, like with television, or the free-for-all we have today? I choose the latter.
* Don't you think it's time we stopped saying "industrialized"?
Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
Yeah they are. It took me a while to find the SDK terms, on Wikileaks, but they must approve an app or withhold approval; they can't keep it in limbo. Since there's no time frame, however, they have wiggle room, but in a dispute a court would decide what's reasonable or not. The TOS, incidentally, are ridiculously evil. For example, Apple gives themselves the explicit right to use your code to develop an app to compete with you.
Fortunately, the SDK terms are probably only binding to Apple, since they disallow showing them to a lawyer before agreeing to them! There's a lot of terms that are clearly unenforceable, too, such as the one that says the language of the contract will be construed against you, not them, in a dispute, or the one that says you aren't allowed to take disputes to court. We really need to prod the ABA into punishing lawyers who write terms in bad faith - it seems lately that every corporation's lawyers are writing not contracts, but blue-sky dreams of what they wish contract law was like.
Obama has already spent more money then Bush has in his entire 8 years in office. Don't forget Bush, but do not give Obama a pass because of him.
That's a flat lie. Obama is asking for money in his budget; his spending so far has been based on the budget submitted last year, by Bush. The 2009 federal spending budget, which Bush built, was $3.1 trillion. Obama's 2010 budget wants $3.6 trillion. That's way too much, but half a trillion dollars is only a fraction of a single years' spending, not eight years' worth plus change.
However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.
And you're absolutely correct, as well. The ruling makes it clear that the question is whether the application "provides a program specifically created for the user", not whether it's interactive in any technical sense. I mean, an AM radio is interactive.
To me, this is essentially Eve saying "its illegal to buy isk with real money - unless it's from us, then its ok". If buying isk distorts the economy as they claim, then buying it via plex is still buying it.
I'm not a player of EVE - or any other MMO - but I have no problem with that. There's not much moral difference when restaurants or movie theaters bar outside food, and it's less questionable than overpricing proprietary cell phone chargers or requiring that you purchase graduation uniforms from a university's contracted supplier.
I've lived all over the world, including the US, and only in America do people sue at every opportunity. I think it is a real sign of a sickness in American culture, and your comment reminded me of it.
That's true. Of course, I'm assuming you don't count England, France, Germany or most of the rest of the industrialized world. Even in nations where the culture is such that individuals roll over like dogs and don't complain - for example, Japan or Australia* - their corporations are just as lawyered up as any American biz. By "all over the world" I can only infer that you mean "Upper Yemen, the Central African Republic, and Micronesia", which is very cool but not indicative of societies developed under modern jurisprudence or common law.
* All right, Ozzies, I'll grant you don't roll over like dogs. You just suck it up. Much more manly that way.
Except in this case, it's an agreement to not poach.
The joy of post preview is only exceeded by the smug superiority that comes from reading the fucking article. In this case, it's an agreement to not hire.
"Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal," Colligan reportedly told Jobs.
I think we can agree that quote is not ambiguous. But you haven't seen it before, have you?
Lots of millionaires who just want some privacy in their lives. People like Jobs.
And some people torture kittens to death. People like Jobs.
Now I do, indeed, have documentary evidence that Jobs does not donate anonymously to charity. So spare me your wrath, please. The confusion undoubtedly stems from the fact that Jobs tells his family and closest friends* that he's going to, but then he secretly blows it gambling on bartop slug races.
Seriously: Who cares? I wouldn't sit down and drink a beer with the guy either way.
* By which I mean his airplane and his airplane's mechanic.
What's interesting is how the word 'poaching' has gone from the illegal murder of animals while trespassing to stealing away of top talent.
What's even more interesting is how it went from "poke" to "hunting or fishing where prohibited". I have trouble working out how swiping someone's quail is analogous to gouging out his eyes.
LIt is an important question, since (despite you claiming it would be a 'miracle') it happens often in our society.
Ah, that's where it gets ya. Upward-type class mobility is very rare - less in America than in many nations, but still it happens a lot less than many folks believe. It does happen, and in a country as large as this one, it seems to happen fairly often, but it really doesn't. For the vast majority of people in America, no matter how smart they are, no matter how hard they work, and no matter what they do, there's nowhere to go but straight on the course or down.
So, no, it's not an important question. Updward mobility of that sort is so rare it's a statistical error; more people in America die from exposure each year than move up an order of magnitude in income. It was an ignorant question, and stupid besides, because he took his opportunity to confront the President and piddled it away with a question better suited for a grade-school civics teacher.
What he and 24 other men do with some chick is really none of my business. It's also none of my business what the 15-20 men who can't possibly find something to do with her, or likely even touch her, are doing in that group.
Response A: Well, they're Polish. One guy to hold the lightbu^M^M^M girl, the other twenty-four to turn the bed.
B: You'd think making a naughty video would be simple, but you've clearly never tried it in a union shop.
C: Man, those bra hooks are something else to get open, aren't they?
Since there is specifically zero atmosphere, the only dust you're going to get on the rover is something directly applying it via ballistic trajectory. That's pretty easy to prevent with simply placement slightly away from drive paths. A wind driven environment will *always* have more dust flying around than the moon. there isn't any atmosphere to push it so it just sits until something imparts energy to it.
That's an impressive and very persuasive bit of reasoning with only the minor flaw that it's entirely wrong from beginning to end. The fact is lunar dust is very pervasive, fine, and troublesome. Here's an article about it.
if I get laid off, I do not receive the same benefit as everybody else, who paid social security tax.
Americans often pay premiums for unemployment insurance, on which we may collect if we are laid off. This is administered by the IRS and various states, and is paid for as a tax (which is generally withheld by employers). It's classified and administered as a public benefit, and collecting it carries the stigma of welfare, although it's a service only available to those who have paid the premiums and in practice is no different than collecting any other insurance after an unfortunate event. Self-employed, part-time, and certain exempt folks do not have to buy this, although it can be obtained privately. The Canadian system is nearly identical, except it pays beneficiaries in Canadian dollars instead of money. If you want insurance against being laid off, purchase it, just like everyone else has to, and you'll receive the same benefits if you qualify.
While Wikipedia is an amazing effort, it will not ever be Britannica, unless you pour a lot of money into it to hire writers and editors. They are both a luxury in the Internet media world, and the lack of them shows in the uneven writing and many factual errors Wikipedia suffers from.
The error rate of Wikipedia versus Britannica is about the same. While it has more errors per article, it has a lot more information per article. I would dare to guess that Wikipedia is much more accurate than newspapers. The experiment is over, and it worked.
The belief that Wikipedia must be less accurate is purely religious zeal; print is not automatically more accurate than electrons, a small group of editors doing it all isn't better than the Wiki model, and paying for encyclopedic information doesn't buy accuracy. The latter thinking - "it costs more, so it must be good" - is also the bane of FOSS.
In fairness, a Cornell study that escapes me at the moment once showed that Wikipedia's vandalism rate was getting marginally worse over time (by hundredths of a percent per month, based on actual page views of damaged pages, and with lots of disclaimers). The last serious, peer-reviewed study of the comparative error rate was in late '95; we're due for a new one.
What we need is to prevent companies from getting questionable patents in the first place. Make a law saying a company holding a later invalidated patent will be fined 1% of their profits that year, and I promise you, this shit will stop.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm pretty sure that whatever percentage you set, folks'll still do it if they think it's more profitable than the fine times the chance of getting caught. Even if it's a hundred percent chance to lose all their annual profits - some companies will still do it to pick up investors, to gain market share/destroy a competitor, and such.
If it's cheaper and has the same nutritional value, that's a good thing for everyone who can't afford (or isn't pretentious enough to want) organic foods. It is always good to drive costs down, if it means feeding those who are going hungry.
I'll agree with you if I can be a pedant about it and add that it's not good to drive the cost of food down when it means farmers go hungry. The world's starving and undernourished are often so due to poor distribution channels, greed, corruption, and other factors (not all of which are sinister).
I block cookies, javascript and all plugins (with the exception of my whitelist). The problem is that more and more sites annoyingly (and uselessly) require these to work.
The proposal specifically prohibits restricting access to information or discrimination of services based on opting out of cookies.
You are naive if you think Google is pure like the driven snow. I'm no lover of Microsoft, but I'm no lover of any large corporation. Google's not better than their competitors - they just haven't been big long enough to have done as much bad stuff.
What about patent trolling,
Overall, they're pretty good about this one, but remember - Google's a relatively young company. Their cry for patent reform is in their own interest, since they're much more likely to defend patent suits than prosecute them. They certainly aren't afraid to go after folks they feel have violated their patents. This air duct patent doesn't bode well.
There've been allegations of this in China and of media bribery in the US. They're one of the top DNC contributors, as well, which in my view boils down to bribery.
I'd argue that, in an academic environment, they do the opposite of work. Psychology, sociology, biology, anthropology, history, medicine, law, zoology, various arts, and I'm sure several other disciplines might need information that a filtration system would block. Free data access isn't just an idealistic vision, like the GP claims, it's important in a university setting.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't sell the SDK, it's free.
Huh. That's a clever trick; I wonder if they'll get away with it. In a lot of states you can't waive implied warranties, tho'. I've no clue whether any of 'em apply to a club membership, anyway: I'm obviously not a lawyer. But I do think, regardless of merchantability, there may be a plain implied contract in the process which obligates 'em to exercise a certain amount of diligence in handling submissions.
These terms don't mean they have to issue a rejection notice. They can withhold approval indefinitely, with always having the right to approve later.
Huh. I guess the distinction between the signing and the listing was lost on me. However, I can't agree with that statement. Regardless of the terms they set, I'm reasonably sure that by selling you development software, they've entered an implied contract (Merchantability? I don't recall the various implied contracts offhand and don't have time to check.) which obligates them to provide services which render the sale meaningful.
traditional coin-op parking meters suck in their own ways.
Yeah they do. A broken kiosk means an extra couple blocks of walking - a broken parking meter means you lose the change* and have to find a new space. I prefer the kiosks to traditional meters while acknowledging there are problems with 'em.
*I darn near wrote "loose" instead of "lose" (which I never do). I almost wish I had just for the undoubtedly entertaining replies.
The one time pad means they can't open a second session.
No, it means you can't open a second session. You never posted your login, because they control the vertical and the horizontal. Although the transfer confirmation code should stop 'em, one hopes.
No, it absolutely does not. Net Neutrality only refers to filtering or throttling based on source or destination. Prioritizing VoIP traffic over BitTorrent traffic is not a Net Neutrality issue. Throttling Vonage's VoIP traffic to make your ISP's VoIP service more attractive is a Net Neutrality issue.
I agree. The redefinition of network neutrality to include traffic type is a marketing scheme, no more. It allows providers to say "Net neutrality is not bad. We use it to slow down abusive users." This makes the debate about a straw man - it's harder to object to this behavior than real neutrality violations. By making the debate about peer-to-peer and streaming traffic taking bandwidth away from other users, they sidestep the real issue of giving privilege to certain content providers over others.
Again: The people who want to define network neutrality to include this behavior are not on your side. They want you to use that definition so they can control the debate. If they win the debate, we the netizens lose, and we lose a lot.
This is an important issue that could well help direct the culture of the technologized* world for a long time - possibly centuries, but certainly decades. Do we want content approved and delivered mainly by large central providers, like with television, or the free-for-all we have today? I choose the latter.
* Don't you think it's time we stopped saying "industrialized"?
Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
Yeah they are. It took me a while to find the SDK terms, on Wikileaks, but they must approve an app or withhold approval; they can't keep it in limbo. Since there's no time frame, however, they have wiggle room, but in a dispute a court would decide what's reasonable or not. The TOS, incidentally, are ridiculously evil. For example, Apple gives themselves the explicit right to use your code to develop an app to compete with you.
Fortunately, the SDK terms are probably only binding to Apple, since they disallow showing them to a lawyer before agreeing to them! There's a lot of terms that are clearly unenforceable, too, such as the one that says the language of the contract will be construed against you, not them, in a dispute, or the one that says you aren't allowed to take disputes to court. We really need to prod the ABA into punishing lawyers who write terms in bad faith - it seems lately that every corporation's lawyers are writing not contracts, but blue-sky dreams of what they wish contract law was like.
Obama has already spent more money then Bush has in his entire 8 years in office. Don't forget Bush, but do not give Obama a pass because of him.
That's a flat lie. Obama is asking for money in his budget; his spending so far has been based on the budget submitted last year, by Bush. The 2009 federal spending budget, which Bush built, was $3.1 trillion. Obama's 2010 budget wants $3.6 trillion. That's way too much, but half a trillion dollars is only a fraction of a single years' spending, not eight years' worth plus change.
However, it may also be clearly true that in the way interactivity is defined for the purpose of the relevant law, it is not. Legal definitions are generally more precise, usually different, and sometimes at odds with common usage. Sometimes legal definitions change depending on the exact law.
And you're absolutely correct, as well. The ruling makes it clear that the question is whether the application "provides a program specifically created for the user", not whether it's interactive in any technical sense. I mean, an AM radio is interactive.
To me, this is essentially Eve saying "its illegal to buy isk with real money - unless it's from us, then its ok". If buying isk distorts the economy as they claim, then buying it via plex is still buying it.
I'm not a player of EVE - or any other MMO - but I have no problem with that. There's not much moral difference when restaurants or movie theaters bar outside food, and it's less questionable than overpricing proprietary cell phone chargers or requiring that you purchase graduation uniforms from a university's contracted supplier.
You know, not everywhere is like the US.
I've lived all over the world, including the US, and only in America do people sue at every opportunity. I think it is a real sign of a sickness in American culture, and your comment reminded me of it.
That's true. Of course, I'm assuming you don't count England, France, Germany or most of the rest of the industrialized world. Even in nations where the culture is such that individuals roll over like dogs and don't complain - for example, Japan or Australia* - their corporations are just as lawyered up as any American biz. By "all over the world" I can only infer that you mean "Upper Yemen, the Central African Republic, and Micronesia", which is very cool but not indicative of societies developed under modern jurisprudence or common law.
* All right, Ozzies, I'll grant you don't roll over like dogs. You just suck it up. Much more manly that way.
Except in this case, it's an agreement to not poach.
The joy of post preview is only exceeded by the smug superiority that comes from reading the fucking article. In this case, it's an agreement to not hire.
"Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal," Colligan reportedly told Jobs.
I think we can agree that quote is not ambiguous. But you haven't seen it before, have you?
Lots of millionaires who just want some privacy in their lives. People like Jobs.
And some people torture kittens to death. People like Jobs.
Now I do, indeed, have documentary evidence that Jobs does not donate anonymously to charity. So spare me your wrath, please. The confusion undoubtedly stems from the fact that Jobs tells his family and closest friends* that he's going to, but then he secretly blows it gambling on bartop slug races.
Seriously: Who cares? I wouldn't sit down and drink a beer with the guy either way.
* By which I mean his airplane and his airplane's mechanic.
What's interesting is how the word 'poaching' has gone from the illegal murder of animals while trespassing to stealing away of top talent.
What's even more interesting is how it went from "poke" to "hunting or fishing where prohibited". I have trouble working out how swiping someone's quail is analogous to gouging out his eyes.
LIt is an important question, since (despite you claiming it would be a 'miracle') it happens often in our society.
Ah, that's where it gets ya. Upward-type class mobility is very rare - less in America than in many nations, but still it happens a lot less than many folks believe. It does happen, and in a country as large as this one, it seems to happen fairly often, but it really doesn't. For the vast majority of people in America, no matter how smart they are, no matter how hard they work, and no matter what they do, there's nowhere to go but straight on the course or down.
So, no, it's not an important question. Updward mobility of that sort is so rare it's a statistical error; more people in America die from exposure each year than move up an order of magnitude in income. It was an ignorant question, and stupid besides, because he took his opportunity to confront the President and piddled it away with a question better suited for a grade-school civics teacher.
What he and 24 other men do with some chick is really none of my business. It's also none of my business what the 15-20 men who can't possibly find something to do with her, or likely even touch her, are doing in that group.
Response A: Well, they're Polish. One guy to hold the lightbu^M^M^M girl, the other twenty-four to turn the bed.
B: You'd think making a naughty video would be simple, but you've clearly never tried it in a union shop.
C: Man, those bra hooks are something else to get open, aren't they?
Since there is specifically zero atmosphere, the only dust you're going to get on the rover is something directly applying it via ballistic trajectory. That's pretty easy to prevent with simply placement slightly away from drive paths. A wind driven environment will *always* have more dust flying around than the moon. there isn't any atmosphere to push it so it just sits until something imparts energy to it.
That's an impressive and very persuasive bit of reasoning with only the minor flaw that it's entirely wrong from beginning to end. The fact is lunar dust is very pervasive, fine, and troublesome. Here's an article about it.
if I get laid off, I do not receive the same benefit as everybody else, who paid social security tax.
Americans often pay premiums for unemployment insurance, on which we may collect if we are laid off. This is administered by the IRS and various states, and is paid for as a tax (which is generally withheld by employers). It's classified and administered as a public benefit, and collecting it carries the stigma of welfare, although it's a service only available to those who have paid the premiums and in practice is no different than collecting any other insurance after an unfortunate event. Self-employed, part-time, and certain exempt folks do not have to buy this, although it can be obtained privately. The Canadian system is nearly identical, except it pays beneficiaries in Canadian dollars instead of money. If you want insurance against being laid off, purchase it, just like everyone else has to, and you'll receive the same benefits if you qualify.
Sounds like an interesting study, but '95? Wikipedia was started in '01
Whoops. Well, the 0 and 9 keys are right next to one another. It's just a typographical-type error; don't get too excited.
Yeah, right. Without patents some poor people would have never gotten rich, since the rich have more experience, money and manpower.
I dunno. I daresay I have more experience than, say, Paris Hilton.* I mean, I am a (ha ha) level 5 dwarf, after all.
While Wikipedia is an amazing effort, it will not ever be Britannica, unless you pour a lot of money into it to hire writers and editors. They are both a luxury in the Internet media world, and the lack of them shows in the uneven writing and many factual errors Wikipedia suffers from.
The error rate of Wikipedia versus Britannica is about the same. While it has more errors per article, it has a lot more information per article. I would dare to guess that Wikipedia is much more accurate than newspapers. The experiment is over, and it worked.
The belief that Wikipedia must be less accurate is purely religious zeal; print is not automatically more accurate than electrons, a small group of editors doing it all isn't better than the Wiki model, and paying for encyclopedic information doesn't buy accuracy. The latter thinking - "it costs more, so it must be good" - is also the bane of FOSS.
In fairness, a Cornell study that escapes me at the moment once showed that Wikipedia's vandalism rate was getting marginally worse over time (by hundredths of a percent per month, based on actual page views of damaged pages, and with lots of disclaimers). The last serious, peer-reviewed study of the comparative error rate was in late '95; we're due for a new one.
What we need is to prevent companies from getting questionable patents in the first place. Make a law saying a company holding a later invalidated patent will be fined 1% of their profits that year, and I promise you, this shit will stop.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm pretty sure that whatever percentage you set, folks'll still do it if they think it's more profitable than the fine times the chance of getting caught. Even if it's a hundred percent chance to lose all their annual profits - some companies will still do it to pick up investors, to gain market share/destroy a competitor, and such.
If it's cheaper and has the same nutritional value, that's a good thing for everyone who can't afford (or isn't pretentious enough to want) organic foods. It is always good to drive costs down, if it means feeding those who are going hungry.
I'll agree with you if I can be a pedant about it and add that it's not good to drive the cost of food down when it means farmers go hungry. The world's starving and undernourished are often so due to poor distribution channels, greed, corruption, and other factors (not all of which are sinister).
I block cookies, javascript and all plugins (with the exception of my whitelist). The problem is that more and more sites annoyingly (and uselessly) require these to work.
The proposal specifically prohibits restricting access to information or discrimination of services based on opting out of cookies.
Not even close.
You are naive if you think Google is pure like the driven snow. I'm no lover of Microsoft, but I'm no lover of any large corporation. Google's not better than their competitors - they just haven't been big long enough to have done as much bad stuff.
What about patent trolling,
Overall, they're pretty good about this one, but remember - Google's a relatively young company. Their cry for patent reform is in their own interest, since they're much more likely to defend patent suits than prosecute them. They certainly aren't afraid to go after folks they feel have violated their patents. This air duct patent doesn't bode well.
bogus lawsuits,
How about suing Grupa Mlodych Artystow i Literatow for using gmail.pl? Or suing GMail, a pre-existing physical mail service in Europe? Then there's Android Data Services.
astroturfing using the names of dead people,
Oh yes they do. Google hired the very same company that sent letters from dead people.
bogus TCO studies,
They aren't afraid of misleading TCO studies, by counting unpatched, pirated IIS servers as affecting the TCO of Windows Server.
bogus benchmark studies,
They do that, too.
bribing public officials,
There've been allegations of this in China and of media bribery in the US. They're one of the top DNC contributors, as well, which in my view boils down to bribery.
outright lying to the US-DoJ,
Of course they do that.
and so much more.
Sharing board members with nominal competitors, swiping copyrighted work, the whole AdWord thing going on, and so much more.
Filtering systems DO NOT WORK.
I'd argue that, in an academic environment, they do the opposite of work. Psychology, sociology, biology, anthropology, history, medicine, law, zoology, various arts, and I'm sure several other disciplines might need information that a filtration system would block. Free data access isn't just an idealistic vision, like the GP claims, it's important in a university setting.