Being childish is great - i like it - blatently making foolish statements as in the grandparent post is irresponsible. Mistakes are fine, being flat out (knowingly) rude is not.
You have 10000 people working for you, out of this group, 100 of them are directly working on a project (and say 3000 are indirectly working on it). All of them have signed legally binding NDA's.
One of them leaks some information anonymously...how are you supposed to figure out who it is?
Sorry I left my scrying ball at the D&D table, when I get it I will ship it to Steve.
Your blatent "fuck any corporation..." statement is pretty childish.
These corporations pay taxes and they are entitled to the same amount of gov't protection as you are.
The press should only be forced to name names when the person they are protecting is doing something illegal (including breaking legally binding contracts)....And if this prevents from people breaking their legally binding contracts in the future - so be it.
If the person feels that the information needs to released that much (i.e. whistleblowing on a company who knowingly is selling harmful products, but denying it) then the person will have to deal with the consequences....but for people who just want to sell a few trade secrets- they might think otherwise.
Violating an NDA (a legally binding document) is breaking a form of a law...a law that specifically applies to those who agree to the NDA. Because of that his arguments are valid.
While not being an expert, I do recall from my law classes (particularly business law) that if, by enforcing one law, you break another then the original law is not enforceable (not always). So if the source broke his contract (revealing trade secrets), then his right to privacy with the free press is not valid as they are protecting someone who broke the contract - which is a legal document.
I also think it would make sense. He signed NDA's (probably) and as such should have honored those instead of selling-out.
As opposed to being private and meeting the owner's profits? Its a business...going public doesn't mean they will produce a crappy product. That is a flawed argument. Increasing shareholder value means retaining customers (and getting new ones)...you won't do that if you make a bad product which people will stop utilizing. The Internet makes it much easier to switch products....if google search engine gets crappy then you go to yahoo/msn/whatever...
which is a good point. When I saw this article, I was thinking he went into his neighbors' trash bins and found stuff (like a discarded tv, etc.) Finding some of these components requires to a higher grade of trash.
it's not that small of a price....thats half my ISP cost - for something i will probably use a couple times a month (more if i am in research). As for evil - google is a company trying to increase their profit margin...that is why i always said - these guys are not angels they are in it for money.
Hm which research facility does this guy leave near? People generally do not have this kind of hardware....and what are the chances thta if someone does he happens to be there on the day they put it in a dumpster?
This is not blackmail. The poster of this threat should be shot. At best this is extortion - more likely it is using political influence - just like MANY lobbyists do. You know when the NHL goes on strike for contract disputs, SEPTA goes on strike for contract disputes. When environmental groups lobby and put the squeeze on politicians. When car and oil companies do the same thing.
Frankly - it is also business. Billy probably was thinkign "if these guys want to screw me over with their.... then I am going to just pull my office from there so I don't get screwed..."
exactly. Extortion just uses ones power/influence to get what they want. Blackmail uses some kind of non-physical threat.
So would this make lobbying groups extorting from politicians as they use their influence to get what they want?
Without reading the article - did Billy actually blackmail the Danish gov't or did he just put the political pressure on them (sort of like environmentalist groups do, car manufacturers do, oil companies, etc.
thats kind of cute "our law" "our internet". But in legal forums - if their terms of service does not break any laws then it is legally binding. While the Internet maybe "ours" - their specific website and their bandwidth is most certainly theirs. If you don't buy that argument - then you can never make the argument that spyware writers should have to pay you (assuming they get caught and prosecuted) for wasting your bandwidth - something that many/.'ers have claimed.
wow i never heard of that policy before. I have heard, plenty of times (and as selling tactics), the policy of a 30 day free deactivation period. Since you are buying a product (the phone) you generally have 30 days to return the product if unsatisfied. While this is a state law, most states have adopted it...there might be a few states that got p0wn3d with this. Here is the question - did the sales person tell you about the cancellation fee or was it in official writing from the service provider? Now did you check the local commerce law? They might totally disagree with the contract - and if it's a dummy law that portion of the contract holds zero water.
With the exception of not liking a particular feature, a phone feeling flimsy (StarTac) and a phone having a crippled feature (v710 bluetooth) I have never had a phone work only half the time, or 75%, or even only 90% of the time. All of my phones, and I have had a phone since 1995, have worked 95% or better...since 2000 I can say they have worked 99% of the time. Downtime only being if I 1)lose battary power (my fault), 2) have the phone lost/stolen 3) go into a dead zone(rare but it happens).
So you have had some pretty bad luck or you are just trying to make a point without being valid...can you back your case up with some studies?
I have typically had the Nokia brand phones (about 5), Star Tac, Sony Ericcson T616, and the Moto V710.
The law agrees with you, (i.e. clickable contracts). If you did not know there was a contract because it was buried and to access the contract you need to find it then - no it is not enforceable. But if they make the contract the first thing you get before the site, or they put some disclaimer 'read the contract, because deep linking is not allowed per our TOA' then you need to obey the contract before proceeding. You have been warned...
Now it will be neat how this affects things like google web crawl.
I didn't have access to the article at the time of posting (/.'d).
Now the question is - would you rather have 8 intuitive gaurds or a bunch of these things running around. While i think this would be a great supplement (hidden eyes/ears) that could check up on anything - including the gaurds - I would also prefer gaurds to be around.
Poor what? The only reason I have a ps2 over an xbox is because I am an FF junkie (though FF x-2 blows chunks). XBOX is nothing to sneeze at - it is a great system.
On a side note, I just saw (briefly) a tv report that there is another strain of AIDS, and this one is immune to all the current drugs on the market. This is one persistant bastard.
Saying "it wasn't me, it was someone who was sitting at my computer" doesn't always work. Otherwise hackers could tell the fed's who come busting down their doors "It wasn't me, it was my dog who d/l'd and burned all those mp3s".
Second, Orbitz should not be allowed to legally enforce anything that doesn't have a signed contract behind it.
The law tries to be reasonable (doesn't always happen, but it tries). Requiring every man, woman and child on this planet to sign a contract on the happenstance that they will utilize Orbitz is kind of unreasonable....they have a terms of service on their site. You can (and maybe should, gasp) read it prior to perusing their site and using their services. If you fail to read, that is your fault, not theirs.
Now if this rule that they made is applied to competitors, as someone else posted, that is cool - but to prevent people to just link to your site without written permission is just lame. I sometimes send deeplinks to my mom when I find good prices...Well I have on one of my personal sites an area where someone can link to Orbitz (I like Orbitz prices) - so if Orbitz wants me to remove the link they can write me a letter, certified, notarized and pay a $10 maintenance fee:D
Slashdot Mirror
please explain watermark files.
Being childish is great - i like it - blatently making foolish statements as in the grandparent post is irresponsible. Mistakes are fine, being flat out (knowingly) rude is not.
You have 10000 people working for you, out of this group, 100 of them are directly working on a project (and say 3000 are indirectly working on it). All of them have signed legally binding NDA's.
One of them leaks some information anonymously...how are you supposed to figure out who it is?
Sorry I left my scrying ball at the D&D table, when I get it I will ship it to Steve.
Your blatent "fuck any corporation..." statement is pretty childish.
These corporations pay taxes and they are entitled to the same amount of gov't protection as you are.
The press should only be forced to name names when the person they are protecting is doing something illegal (including breaking legally binding contracts)....And if this prevents from people breaking their legally binding contracts in the future - so be it.
If the person feels that the information needs to released that much (i.e. whistleblowing on a company who knowingly is selling harmful products, but denying it) then the person will have to deal with the consequences....but for people who just want to sell a few trade secrets- they might think otherwise.
Violating an NDA (a legally binding document) is breaking a form of a law...a law that specifically applies to those who agree to the NDA. Because of that his arguments are valid.
While not being an expert, I do recall from my law classes (particularly business law) that if, by enforcing one law, you break another then the original law is not enforceable (not always). So if the source broke his contract (revealing trade secrets), then his right to privacy with the free press is not valid as they are protecting someone who broke the contract - which is a legal document.
I also think it would make sense. He signed NDA's (probably) and as such should have honored those instead of selling-out.
As opposed to being private and meeting the owner's profits? Its a business...going public doesn't mean they will produce a crappy product. That is a flawed argument. Increasing shareholder value means retaining customers (and getting new ones)...you won't do that if you make a bad product which people will stop utilizing. The Internet makes it much easier to switch products....if google search engine gets crappy then you go to yahoo/msn/whatever...
which is a good point. When I saw this article, I was thinking he went into his neighbors' trash bins and found stuff (like a discarded tv, etc.) Finding some of these components requires to a higher grade of trash.
it's not that small of a price....thats half my ISP cost - for something i will probably use a couple times a month (more if i am in research). As for evil - google is a company trying to increase their profit margin...that is why i always said - these guys are not angels they are in it for money.
Hm which research facility does this guy leave near? People generally do not have this kind of hardware....and what are the chances thta if someone does he happens to be there on the day they put it in a dumpster?
I don't think we have chancellors...i think we have secretaries of *....or would they be called "Administrative Assistancts" of *
This is not blackmail. The poster of this threat should be shot. At best this is extortion - more likely it is using political influence - just like MANY lobbyists do. You know when the NHL goes on strike for contract disputs, SEPTA goes on strike for contract disputes. When environmental groups lobby and put the squeeze on politicians. When car and oil companies do the same thing.
.... then I am going to just pull my office from there so I don't get screwed..."
Frankly - it is also business. Billy probably was thinkign "if these guys want to screw me over with their
exactly. Extortion just uses ones power/influence to get what they want. Blackmail uses some kind of non-physical threat.
So would this make lobbying groups extorting from politicians as they use their influence to get what they want?
Without reading the article - did Billy actually blackmail the Danish gov't or did he just put the political pressure on them (sort of like environmentalist groups do, car manufacturers do, oil companies, etc.
thats kind of cute "our law" "our internet". But in legal forums - if their terms of service does not break any laws then it is legally binding. While the Internet maybe "ours" - their specific website and their bandwidth is most certainly theirs. If you don't buy that argument - then you can never make the argument that spyware writers should have to pay you (assuming they get caught and prosecuted) for wasting your bandwidth - something that many /.'ers have claimed.
wow i never heard of that policy before. I have heard, plenty of times (and as selling tactics), the policy of a 30 day free deactivation period. Since you are buying a product (the phone) you generally have 30 days to return the product if unsatisfied. While this is a state law, most states have adopted it...there might be a few states that got p0wn3d with this. Here is the question - did the sales person tell you about the cancellation fee or was it in official writing from the service provider? Now did you check the local commerce law? They might totally disagree with the contract - and if it's a dummy law that portion of the contract holds zero water.
because spyware doesn't necessarily have similar properties to a virus?
With the exception of not liking a particular feature, a phone feeling flimsy (StarTac) and a phone having a crippled feature (v710 bluetooth) I have never had a phone work only half the time, or 75%, or even only 90% of the time. All of my phones, and I have had a phone since 1995, have worked 95% or better...since 2000 I can say they have worked 99% of the time. Downtime only being if I 1)lose battary power (my fault), 2) have the phone lost/stolen 3) go into a dead zone(rare but it happens).
So you have had some pretty bad luck or you are just trying to make a point without being valid...can you back your case up with some studies?
I have typically had the Nokia brand phones (about 5), Star Tac, Sony Ericcson T616, and the Moto V710.
The law agrees with you, (i.e. clickable contracts). If you did not know there was a contract because it was buried and to access the contract you need to find it then - no it is not enforceable. But if they make the contract the first thing you get before the site, or they put some disclaimer 'read the contract, because deep linking is not allowed per our TOA' then you need to obey the contract before proceeding. You have been warned...
Now it will be neat how this affects things like google web crawl.
I didn't have access to the article at the time of posting (/.'d).
Now the question is - would you rather have 8 intuitive gaurds or a bunch of these things running around. While i think this would be a great supplement (hidden eyes/ears) that could check up on anything - including the gaurds - I would also prefer gaurds to be around.
Poor what? The only reason I have a ps2 over an xbox is because I am an FF junkie (though FF x-2 blows chunks). XBOX is nothing to sneeze at - it is a great system.
On a side note, I just saw (briefly) a tv report that there is another strain of AIDS, and this one is immune to all the current drugs on the market. This is one persistant bastard.
without the malware
Saying "it wasn't me, it was someone who was sitting at my computer" doesn't always work. Otherwise hackers could tell the fed's who come busting down their doors "It wasn't me, it was my dog who d/l'd and burned all those mp3s".
Here Ya Go
Here Ya go 2
Here Ya go 3
So where is the basis for your statement?
And it is their choice to use a tech manner or legal manner. While we would prefer a tech way of doing things - it is their site, their option.
Second, Orbitz should not be allowed to legally enforce anything that doesn't have a signed contract behind it.
:D
The law tries to be reasonable (doesn't always happen, but it tries). Requiring every man, woman and child on this planet to sign a contract on the happenstance that they will utilize Orbitz is kind of unreasonable....they have a terms of service on their site. You can (and maybe should, gasp) read it prior to perusing their site and using their services. If you fail to read, that is your fault, not theirs.
Now if this rule that they made is applied to competitors, as someone else posted, that is cool - but to prevent people to just link to your site without written permission is just lame. I sometimes send deeplinks to my mom when I find good prices...Well I have on one of my personal sites an area where someone can link to Orbitz (I like Orbitz prices) - so if Orbitz wants me to remove the link they can write me a letter, certified, notarized and pay a $10 maintenance fee