Sorry for the self-reply, I just want to clarify something. I mentioned ex-military because for the most part military admins are provided software which has the "Seal of Approval," and are forbidden from installing any products which have not been "security tested."
I know that for most federal government institutions, the NSA is involved testing a product for its security. I've never heard of a place doing it in-house.
Is your boss ex-military or something to that effect? If so, he may not understand the complexity of the task he is assigning.
It's really complicated. Whether by design or not, contract law is astoundingly complex and sometimes borderline irrational.
The basic point when it comes to 3rd party contract interference is intent. If you make a product or provide a service with the explicit intent of causing a breach of contract, the affected party can file a lawsuit claiming damages or requesting other court intervention.
IANAL, but I think the case is that it's not criminally illegal, but it does offer a basis to file a claim under contract law. If I recall correctly, it is something along the lines of a 3rd party willfully affecting a breach of contract.
It can easily be considered a threat. Try walking into an airport and saying "crowded places in countries called America should be bombed." I doubt you'll be able to say that it wasn't a threatening statement.
Whats the EEEEEVVVVIIIIILLLL you can inflict in an internet forum?
Terrorist threats? Exposing personal id-related information of an enemy, such as their SSN, bank account passwords, etc? What about posting where a controversial politician's children play after school?
Essentially, that's the problem today. Complete anonymity isn't perfect (obviously), and there is no functional way to ensure everyone's identity. A half-assed compromise would only allow people to become victimized by impostors.
That's what I see happening here. Ask for "only" $350 million, then when it isn't nearly enough, ask for more with the justification being that $350 million has already been dumped into it.
Even safer, access your company through some remote windows or desktop virtualization, like Citrix.
Then, you won't even have local records (history, cookies, etc.) of what you've accessed. Just "https://MyCompany.com/CitrixLogon"
While I think it's legit to remark upon Cuil's problems, I think others respondents to this story are being overly-critical of a new service.
I am not sure I agree. It may seem "unfair" or "mean" to beat down a new search service, but it's really not. Google has set the standard for search engines over nearly the past decade. This is a standard all new competitors will be measured against.
If "Cuil" wishes to enter the search engine market, it will be judged according to the current market. I don't believe that going easy on the new kid in town is warranted.
Why the hostility in your post? I get the feeling that you have some kind of personal tie to Google. Maybe you work there?
Actually, I was going to ask you that same question. Why are you being so hostile towards everything Google? Were you fired from a job there, or passed over and never hired in the first place? Did they screw you out of Adsense money? What caused you all of these negative and powerful emotions directed towards Google?
The price per earnings ratio may be a little out of whack, agreed. However, you also have to look at the other factors. Having a debt-to-equity ratio of 0 is nothing to cough at.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the self-reply, I just want to clarify something. I mentioned ex-military because for the most part military admins are provided software which has the "Seal of Approval," and are forbidden from installing any products which have not been "security tested."
I know that for most federal government institutions, the NSA is involved testing a product for its security. I've never heard of a place doing it in-house.
Is your boss ex-military or something to that effect? If so, he may not understand the complexity of the task he is assigning.
It's really complicated. Whether by design or not, contract law is astoundingly complex and sometimes borderline irrational.
The basic point when it comes to 3rd party contract interference is intent. If you make a product or provide a service with the explicit intent of causing a breach of contract, the affected party can file a lawsuit claiming damages or requesting other court intervention.
Actually, it's your right to speak freely, which the government cannot infringe. You're still responsible for the civil consequences of your speech.
IANAL, but I think the case is that it's not criminally illegal, but it does offer a basis to file a claim under contract law. If I recall correctly, it is something along the lines of a 3rd party willfully affecting a breach of contract.
While I can see your point, I don't think that bringing up a scenario of what you can or cannot do in an airport demonstrates a valid counter point.
I think it addresses both points brought up by the GP. See this quote:
1. There are a lot of women with those names. So this could not be considered a threat against any specific person.
My example statement is not a threat against any specific establishment.
2. It does not say they will be, or imply that they will be. The word "should" implies a statement of opinion, not intent.
My example statement does not state that any crowded place will be bombed, just that it should be.
The example is not specific to an airport, either. You could say such a thing within earshot of just about anyone and be considered threatening.
Then they can still be sued for the threatening comments.
A law firm with a heavy litigation caseload.
"Fuck you" is not nearly as threatening as naming a person, especially a female, and then discussing how they should be sodomized.
Is someone immediately less dangerous when they click the "Anonymous" button?
It can easily be considered a threat. Try walking into an airport and saying "crowded places in countries called America should be bombed." I doubt you'll be able to say that it wasn't a threatening statement.
Whats the EEEEEVVVVIIIIILLLL you can inflict in an internet forum?
Terrorist threats? Exposing personal id-related information of an enemy, such as their SSN, bank account passwords, etc? What about posting where a controversial politician's children play after school?
Essentially, that's the problem today. Complete anonymity isn't perfect (obviously), and there is no functional way to ensure everyone's identity. A half-assed compromise would only allow people to become victimized by impostors.
That depends on who you ask. All it took was one nutjob with a shoebomb to delay security checkpoints another 10 minutes for the barefoot populace.
It's your right to be offensive. There are no laws against that.
It's my right to sue you for offending me. There are no laws against that, either.
The Washington law professor mentioned in this article, should be familiar to /. users from a previous work of his: "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"
That's what I see happening here. Ask for "only" $350 million, then when it isn't nearly enough, ask for more with the justification being that $350 million has already been dumped into it.
Even if they had 12 billion dollars, it wouldn't scratch the surface of the cost of recreating the Internet.
Even safer, access your company through some remote windows or desktop virtualization, like Citrix. Then, you won't even have local records (history, cookies, etc.) of what you've accessed. Just "https://MyCompany.com/CitrixLogon"
Citation? I'd like to seem them "break" a 2048-bit cipher without resorting to rubber-hose cryptanalysis.
They're cool enough to do in front of other people, no matter how bad you are
I think the Star Wars kid would disagree...
While I think it's legit to remark upon Cuil's problems, I think others respondents to this story are being overly-critical of a new service.
I am not sure I agree. It may seem "unfair" or "mean" to beat down a new search service, but it's really not. Google has set the standard for search engines over nearly the past decade. This is a standard all new competitors will be measured against.
If "Cuil" wishes to enter the search engine market, it will be judged according to the current market. I don't believe that going easy on the new kid in town is warranted.
Why the hostility in your post? I get the feeling that you have some kind of personal tie to Google. Maybe you work there?
Actually, I was going to ask you that same question. Why are you being so hostile towards everything Google? Were you fired from a job there, or passed over and never hired in the first place? Did they screw you out of Adsense money? What caused you all of these negative and powerful emotions directed towards Google?
So you subscribe to Theory X? I'll make a note to never work for you.
The price per earnings ratio may be a little out of whack, agreed. However, you also have to look at the other factors. Having a debt-to-equity ratio of 0 is nothing to cough at.