I think Clarke's Third Law is fairly well accepted, but you risk abusing it as a catch-all, deux ex machina, "it was just a dream" kind of argument for why fantasy elements are in fact science fiction. It's not a strong argument because what we are really talking about here is art criticism, not whether any event or object in a show is magic.
There is also arrogance where a writer says, "If they accuse me of writing about magic, I'll just point out that it is in fact just sufficiently advanced technology", and then proceeds to write something that is really fantasy in terms of genre.
While we cannot predict what will be possible in the far future, we do know a lot about the world now. The important thing here is that I'm not talking about technology, but rather the many and various forms of literature and movie genres, the history of many religions, tribes and cults, the marketing of corporations, the temptations that even the best writers can fall pray to, etc.
Taking all those factors into account, it seems fair to hold the point of view that Babylon 5 includes fantasy elements (wearing the makeup of Clarke's Third Law), that it is not really trying to be pure sci-fi or speculative fiction. I'm perfectly happy to admit it might all be possible, at the same time as saying that I don't really think that is the point the authors are making.
Yes, it is entirely possible they wanted to play around with the idea of technology-as-magic. But by the time they've thrown in all the rituals, the astral plane metaphors, etc, you have to ask:
Are they still asking, "What if this could be done?", or are they in fact asking, "Wouldn't it be cool if these guys were like wizards, yeah, we'll call them Techno-Mages, you know, play the advanced technology card, etc.. ?" It's an exaggeration, but I suspect that the GP is right, and they are in fact including fantasy in their show.
This is not a bad thing in and of itself; that's a matter of personal taste.
The excessively negative reviews of the iPhone are not because of a fear of something.
It is the promise of extra exposure (hopefully resulting in more money and/or career progression), which is the basis of sensationalist journalism. Quite possibly combined with a decision at some point to always attack Apple (or other high profile entity) as a cornerstone of their plan to get the public's attention.
The point is not to be right or to be factual, beyond having enough facts as necessary to be able to claim objectivity if challenged. The point is to cause a reaction. One of the techniques of course is to take facts and come to a conclusion that is not in fact well supported by those facts, but can be defended ad nauseum by an individual who has happily put aside dull reason for more exciting word play, false premises, logical fallacies, gross exaggeration, fear mongering etc.
In art, causing a reaction alone can be a good thing, although it can also be rather pathetically selfish. In blogs with pretensions of journalism, it's always pathetic, even with the "but it's an editorial column" excuse.
For example, you cannot make a GSM-compliant phone and then plug your GSM SIM into it and talk. You simply couldn't connect to the carrier, they'd just reject to connect to your unrecognized mobile phone, unless you as a "mobile manufacturer" striked a deal with them in advance.
I'm sorry to sound incredulous, but where on earth are you getting your information from? Or are consumers in the US market really that abused by the networks?
Over here in Europe - where everyone is on GSM - any SIM will work in any phone. An occassional minor exception that on occasion a network provider will provide a locked phone. For instance, Orange does this to their branded phones, and in fact has to provide some additional software to the phone to justify the lock to the regulatory bodies. And that lock is readily removed should you wish to do so.
Phones and cards get swapped around all the time. There's a healthy second hand market in mobiles (and crime rate, for that matter), while you can go into most any mobile retail store (or Virgin music store, and other examples), buy just a SIM, and insert it into the phone of your choice.
One way to get a new phone is to buy a pay-as-you-go phone on a network trying to break into the market, chuck out the SIM card (after using up the ~$20 credit on it, personally I used it to wind up some friends who had no idea who the number was), and then put your own back in. Popular amongst techies who might a company-provided phone (and hence SIM), but want a particular phone or feature that the freebie given them does not provide.
That plan worked so well in Vietnam and is doing wonders in Iraq.
Well yes, that plan works extremely well. Remember that in both Vietnam and Iraq, it is the US that cannot afford a long fight. Russia made the same mistake about Afghanistan. It is far, far cheaper for the native forces to keep fighting as long as the overseas forces are present in their home. Particularly when there is a guerilla warfare option, or a risk of civil war, or when the intent is not conquest, or when they cannot draft troops in compensate for the lack of support for the war. The US cannot afford to fight abroad in Iraq for as long as the Iraqis who do not want them there (and like-minded people from neighbouring countries) can afford to fight on their home turf.
contracts (you know, writing something down so everyone knows what's been agreed)
If that's the only kind of contract you are aware of, you're letting your ignorance get in the way again. Verbal contracts, contracts without witnesses, these have existed for centuries. I'm Scottish (we provide much of the background for US culture and law, incidentally), where written contracts and even witnesses are not strictly necessary. Clearly a lack of witnesses makes enforcement impossible, but even so that does not change the moral aspect of the discussion. A man's word can be his bond, and individuals can have personal accountability without requiring a signed contract. In this case, where there is a document, a man (as compared to a weasel) can rightly be expected to honour the words and intent of that document.
Besides, assuming that having a contract written down means that everyone knows what has been agreed is simply naive. Surely you've heard of legal disputes, arbitration, etc? Because the flip side of expecting Jamie to honour the EULA, is in turn supporting Jamie if it turned out the EULA contained quite unreasonable terms. I personally feel that the restrictions upon Jamie are not so unreasonable that he is justified in agreeing to but then subverting the EULA. An honourable man would walk away from Microsoft, and not seek to profit via Microsoft. For instance, go open source and work on Eclipse.
How unreasonable for me to expect such an outlandish notion to have any application in your fantasy world.
Absolutely. I work in commercial software, for a US software house. My job essentially is to be a technical advisor in commercial discussions. I'm fairly sure that's a relevant world to this discussion. What do you do for a living?
My line of work involves money changing hands, and so the rigour applied is by necessity much greater than free-as-in-beer licenses. But yes, I absolutely think you are being unreasonable. If you were to try to get out of a verbal contract with me because it was not signed and/or witnessed, I would you consider a man of little character, lacking in principles, and not to be trusted. If you were to defend yourself through nothing but legal arguments, you would only reinforce my contempt for legal weasels. They make the world a worse place to live in, and are at the heart of all failings of a capitalist society. They desecrate the noble goals of those who believe that a free society and a market economey is the best way for humans to live.
The GPL does no such thing. Copyright law places obligations
Bullshit. Copyright law does not create the obligations of the GPL. The GPL makes those obligations, and they are core to its very reason for having been written. The GPL uses copyright law as the enforcement mechanism; it is deliberately selective in those obligations it releases. Your statement that the GPL does not create obligations but releases them is utterly disingenous legal weasel thinking. In any case, this is not some code discussion where we are talking about which libraries implement which functions. The explicit intent and direct effect of the GPL is to place obligations upon users of code released under its terms. Your argument is substandard legal sophistry which I have little patience for, and indeed so do many judges.
As an opposing argument: Visual Studio is a copyrighted work, and any programs produced using it and its code libraries are derivate works. Therefore Jamie is in breach of copyright for producing a derivative, commercial work, where the fair use provision clearly does not apply. The only licensing arrangement available is the EULA, and so if your argument that the GPL does not require a signature, why should the EULA?
Maybe that argument would hold up in court, maybe not. I couldn't care less, quite frankly. Legal pendantry is often simply a wasteful application of intelligence that could be doing more productiv
"Open formats" is a well-defined term. It means what it has always meant: a format that is unencumbered by copyrights or patents, and is sufficiently well documented to permit interoperable, independent implementations.
Do you have evidence to support this? I am not aware of any generally accepted definition of "open format" that prevents copyright, and further would not be surprised if copyright were the mechanism by which any given standards body maintains control of the actual open formats. Also, there are multiple definitions of open formats and standards - take a look at Wikipedia. You appear to assume that the accepted use of "open" amongst a minority of the technology ecosystem applies in the larger world, particularly the legal one.
Microsoft has been trying to muddy the waters by calling their closed, proprietary format "open".
I'm not going to disagree that Microsoft muddies the water! However, conversely I don't think your definition is correct. The lack of clear thinking in much of the ODF side of the debate is one of Microsoft's most effective weapons, given to them by the kind of argument you are making. Basing your case upon false premises, such as changing the definition of what "open" and "closed" means, will not get you far in a court of law against a well-funded and aggressive opponent.
Wrong. You can create a.docx document with an open source text editor and a zip program. The first time I did this upon taking a look at the format took seconds after reviewing the documentation available. I am not a programmer; I have not reverse engineered anything.
This is completely impossible with the.doc format. They are not exactly the same; they are fundamentally very different.
You can continue to spew your lies
There are all sorts of things about a format that allows for proprietary binary inclusions that will create problems. However, given your own disinformation and paranoid hysteria, I can't see people like you having too much influence on whatever happens.
They are irrelevant as they happened after - long after - the fact of the so-called agreement.
Returning to my core argument that legal weasels makes the world a worse place to live in, I'm wondering if you make a positive contribution to discussions to compensate for such attempted pedantry?
Sorry this is all so complicated for you.
I'm not confused, although you appear to be. I said you had double standards - on what basis do you fear it is too complicated for me? I'm perfectly capable of assessing a complex situation and coming to simple conclusions, such as you're talking like a weasel. I'm often paid to do it professionally. I'm wondering if you actually have any experience of negotiations? It's just so much more efficient, effective and human to avoid legal wrangles. It's also more impressive when someone behaves in a principled manner. I simply have contempt for your attitude, and doubt very much you have either experience, expertise or facts to give your comments credibility. If you were more perceptive, you might realise that I am simply enjoying an opportunity to call your weasel words out for what they are, because professionally I have to be rather more polite.
That's an insane way of working because "the spirit" is subjective and the company's interpretation of it can change with each new senior manager.
Ah, sorry, I see it is in fact too complicated for you. Presumably you need someone to write down nice clear instructions for you, because otherwise you find it just too difficult to deal with the real world. If you can't handle doing business the way it's been done for centuries, perhaps you'd better not try to play with aggressive corporations like Microsoft. Remember, Jamie has that option if he is a Java programmer.
Both practically and as a matter of law a new senior manager cannot simply change the intent of a contract between two parties, at least not with 100% control. A while ago you said in a legal discussion with two points of view, neither has precedence, but now apparently a single change of manager can give that party such precedence as to override the other side. If you find change so difficult to deal with, perhaps you should keep to consistent arguments?
Yes, you don't need someone's agreement to give them more rights than the law entitles them to, which is what the GPL does.
The GPL also places obligations upon people using GPL software. Those apply whether or not you sign a piece of paper. This is a good thing. Do try and keep up.
The "license agreement" holds no more legal force
I'd be more impressed if you actually provided a citation to support this assertion. Are you saying the restrictions of the GPL do not apply if you don't sign a contract under witnesses? I go back once again to the core of my argument. Legal pedants like you make the world a worse place to live. I find your insistence on making inconsistent points of supposed law confirms my viewpoint.
it is important that we all prevent the situation arising where private companies and clubs are allowed to re-write the law on a whim.
True, but please take your irrelevant sanctimonious whining to a debate where it might serve some useful purpose. Nothing has changed on a whim here. There was a year of discussions. There is a clear technical argument for breach of the EULA. EULAs, whether you like it or not, have been around for many years. Microsoft has not changed the license, their interpretation of its purpose, or their intent to not allow the Express edition to be extended.
Again, this is not an endorsement of M$. It is a criticism of resorting to legal pedantics, often incorrect, in order to defend one's clearly self-interested position, encouraging a world where laws have to be written to cover every situation, and every interaction must be formally binding and witnessed for people to act in line with the sheer bloody obvious expectations of the transaction. It makes the world a worse place to be, and you should seriously try to avoid it.
Getting by on a diet of logic and facts. How's your blind prejudice treating you?
Microsoft - and all other large companies - make no recognition of the concept of "the spirit" of anything. The written word, and what you can get a judge to believe the words mean, is all that counts.
Nonsense. Perhaps you missed the regular conference calls in the email thread? Most people in business would agree that the spirit of a negotiation is very important, because avoiding legal pedantry is typically more cost effective and profitable. It also makes illegal behaviour a lot easier, incidentally. Sounds like you don't know what "spirit" means - look it up in a dictionary. I suspect you are attributing some nice connations like "positive", "open", "generous", but they don't necessarily apply. They certainly do not in M$'s case. Why do you think I chose that abbreviation rather than MS? The default business spirit is "as cold as charity". Did you notice that my recommendation was to "go open source, my friend", to tell M$ you don't like their business, to walk away? Do you disagree?
If you don't want to deal with a company like Microsoft, if you don't like not just the letter but the spirit of their licensing agreements, then don't do business with them. Simple.
If you are going to do business with M$, work in the spirit of their business model. I generally don't like their attitude, but I see how the Express edition is supposed to work compared to the chargeable editions. I would work with it if that's how I decided to make money. That's how you do principled business - work with the model, alternatively negotiate a new one that both sides agree to, and walk away if it neither can be done. Most importantly, don't become a legal weasel and contribute to the lawyer phenonenom that makes the world a worse place to live.
no real contract with signitures, consideration and all that tiresome legal stuff that Microsoft ignores when it suits them to
self-declared license
Oh, give me strength. What, M$ is supposed to get signatures to free web downloads? Their license doesn't really apply because it's "self-declared"? What are they supposed to do, get Apple to declare it for them? Look at the GPL - no signatures required, self-declaration not a problem. Take your double standards elsewhere.
as far as I can see, there is in fact no legal stance of any kind
Trying looking further; read the thread. And remember to differentiate between seeing their legal stance, and agreeing with it. Specifically for the Express edition, he wrote code to replace the Add-In Manager that M$ removed from the chargeable editions. The removal of the Add-In Manager is a technical limitation of the Express edition. Replacing it with your own code is arguably trying to "work around any technical limitations in the software", a breach of the license condition. The "I used public APIs from MSDN" is rather disingenous, seeing as MSDN is also the the pro versions of Visual Studio, and it is to M$'s credit that they provide that service to their developer community. Whether the APIs were public or not is I think a separate matter to the issue of working around the Add-In Manager replacement.
Looks to me like they have a legal stance. Seems to me that clearly M$ weren't happy with Jamie "hacking" the Express edition to make it extensible, and Jamie knew this. Sounds like his approach is legal pedantry and giving other developers extra workload, rather than working in a principled manner. Remember, my recommendation is don't work with M$ if you don't like their approach.
And I don't like the fact that he seemed to have presented himself to The Register as a Java, hobbyist programmer, when this is about a commercial.NET product. Sounds like self-serving misrepresentation of the fa
You can tell from my sig I work for a commercial enterprise; I'm painfully familiar with how the law can get in the way of things. But this guy has a simple choice if he wants to maintain some form of principle:
First, be open source if you want to be truly principled in all of this. Just walk away - clearly you don't like the way Microsoft operates. Have some sympathy for people in M$ who spent one helluva long time trying to avoid bringing lawyers into the mix, tell them you think their business stinks, and walk away (and get the story out there on the web).
Or, work in the spirit of Microsoft's business model. It's what a decent business person does. It seems that far from being a hobbyist you are in fact selling this tool on your website. If you want to make money out of the Microsoft ecosystem, and they're willing to invest something like a year in explaining their point of view, don't get the lawyers involved. Work with them, respect their intent.
Trying to paint M$ as the bad guys here is wrong - if things are bad, they're bad on both sides. So the license wasn't clear, but M$ spent a lot of time explaining their point of view. But no, this guy Jamie wants to get his lawyer involved. He wants to force a guy running a development team to talk about law, not about the spirit of what they're trying to achieve. That's bullshit. Jamie never discloses the content of the conference calls, he just sticks to his "let's talk legal specifics" - and then bitches when M$ does indeed come at him with lawyers.
He might be making the mistake of many programmers, of course, who think that the law operates like code. Well, just like all code has bugs, so do all legal arrangements. And when you force things to go legal instead of having principles, you might just find that the justice system allows a bug fix to be applied before it comes to a legal conclusion. For example, the courts may find that the intent of the Express edition is clear, and that in the course of a year's worth of dialogue between the two parties any confusion was clearly resolved. They might agree with Microsoft's lawyers that Jamie's own offering of different commercial editions of the TestDriven product indicates a good understanding of Microsoft's commercial model. They might express sympathy for M$'s efforts to get a free version out for hobbyists, and forgive them for not having a 100% airtight technical and legal solution to prevent it from being extended. After all, it seems reasonable to expect that people can act in accordance to the spirit of an arrangement, without needing otherwise pointless effort being spent on perfectly restrictive measures, doesn't it?
The courts may therefore conclude that although Jamie has not committed such a blatant breach of contract that M$ can claim damages, he has violated the clear intent of the Express edition and must therefore restrain from offering TestDriven for Visual Studio Express.
Work to open source principles, work to business principles - both of those I can understand. Work to a principle something like, "it's your fault if I can get *my* lawyer to prove that *your* lawyers didn't put a sufficiently airtight contract in place", and you're just another weasel making the world a worse place for everyone.
You forgot to answer my question. As you seem to be keen on letting other people do your thinking for you, let me answer it on your behalf:
You're arguing out of ignorance, and thrown stupidity into the mix as a bonus.
I did read the thread, which I found to be unhelpful in understanding the current situation. I've also taken a docx file, unzipped it, and read the XML contents using a simple text editor.
Try thinking for yourself, my friend. You could even try and deal with reality every once in a while. Could be useful at some point.
What it shows is that you can't get the text out, which is all the man wanted. How's that for Open?
You can easily get the text out of a docx file, just open the zipped file and look at the XML text. It's an open format.
Are you making your point out of ignorance, or deliberately spinning out-of-date and irrelevant facts about the beta like the worst kind of corporate lobbyist?
"because they have it easier"?! Kind of like the "they hate and fear us because of our freedom" line of thinking, I guess. Americans sometime seem determined to throw away all the respect they've built up over the years.
No, Europe is upset with the US because the US is the biggest obstacle to addressing the global warming problem.
China and India are not part of the G8, so in the context of this negotiation they are not being ignored at all. You however are using them as an excuse to ignore the issue. They are part of the Kyoto agreement, however. The different restrictions on developing countries might be debatable, but the continued refusal of the US to enter into honest negotations of any kind intended to actually solve the problem suggests that China and India can safely remain secondary priorities to the threat posed by the US.
As for "From a pure monetary standpoint" - what a pointless contribution to a discussion on the climate!
Be wary of considering China as "especially lose". Using the car industry example, were I an American it would be painfully embarrassing to languish behind the rest of the world in car emissions standards, including China. Particularly when the US car firms are struggling. No engineering pride, no financial success - Henry Ford would not be pleased!
Son, you seem to be an intelligent person. I'm guessing the consistent errors of spelling, grammar and logic come from a lack of experience, most likely from being young. My advice is that you try and understand some of the truly important things about your nation's history, and the examples it has helped set for the rest of the world. With respect to debating, a strong recommendation is that when someone uses a set of facts to argue against you, particularly an older and more experienced person, you need to have some facts to back up your opinions. Otherwise, you put your credibility at risk, and put obstacles in the path of your own learning and development.
I'm not against limiting corperations in any ways. I'm more against the assumption that they don't have any rights.
If you read back through the thread to the original article, you will find that I have not argued that corporations do not have any rights. They do not have an extension of the rights of every individual that works for or invests in them. Countless people have sacrificed themselves over the centuries for the concept of universal, inalienable, natural human rights. Good examples are those who died alongside your own founding fathers, for the truths they held to be self-evident. Corporations have many legal rights, property rights for example. They do not have inalienable rights, and they do not derive these from the people that work for them. If you think otherwise - find a reference to support your argument.
It is true. The only thing separating you from a corperation is a legal filing.
There's two problems here. One is that you are yet again stating an opinion without facts to support it. The second, which is rather sad, is that you clearly don't understand what makes your own Constitution such a wonderful, historically important document, much admired around the world.
LOL. This is funny, Prove to me they have been taken away.
One cannot prove that something that has never existed has been taken away. If this is the standard of proof you have set before you will admit that you're wrong, then you have either failed to understand my point, failed a simple exercise in logic, or simply decided that you are right and nothing can convince you otherwise.
If you hope to be taken seriously as you grow older and put in more responsible positions, you're going to have to wise up. Of course, if your goal is simply to make money then lacking logic and principles is not an issue.
that right doesn't disappear, unless some existing law make it so.
This is rather sad, on two levels. On a classic Slashdot failing, you didn't understand (or perhaps even read?) the article, did you? The entire point is that there is a law! The EU has privacy laws based on inalienable human rights, hence this investigation. Second, inalienable rights cannot be taken away by any law. You do not appear to understand what inalienable rights are, which is particularly sad because it means you do not truly appreciate your own country.
Do you see where the separation of data is? If not I'm not sure you could understand anything at this point. we should just discontinue this conversation.
Sorry kid, I've held in own in arguments with Nobel prize winners (e.g. Bruce Greenwald at Columbia). You're going to have to try harder than that if you want to be condescending instead of sounding like an idiot. How do you know I didn't understand the separation of data? You may recall I was simply pointing out that the EU also has a separation of data. It's broadly the same as you describe, although the example of choose of running down the street shouting (plus comments in other posts such as penis size, or considering someone hot) serves only to reinforce your immaturity. My point however was that you had stated the separation of data as some
Corporations are not extensions of the rights of their owners and employees. You repeatedly make this statement, but it is not true. France, for instance, is particuarly tough on this, whereby in many cases there is a presumption of guilt until a company can prove that it's actions were not malicious.
No, that was lack of security that caused that
Are you saying that an investigation endorsed by the board, the CEO, the security department and legal counsel would not be able to get access to an employee's Social Security number in a secure environment? I very much doubt it. Any security firm asked to implement a security system that would prevent access to employee records under such conditions would want a very carefully negotiated contract absolving it of liability if security were breached. And given this is a discussion about rights and principles, let us not forget about personal accountability and responsibility, which is indepedent of security measures. One root cause was clearly a lack of respect for privacy.
It is exactly an extention of an individuals right.
Well, I disagree and have given my basis for doing so, using your own constitution. I've never had reason to examine in any depth the law arounding incorporating as an S or C corporation. However, I'm fairly sure I would have noticed something as significant as statements regarding human rights. Mainly it was about tax rules and limitations of liability as I recall. Unless you can come up with evidence otherwise, I'm fairly sure you're wrong - no basis in fact, as I said.
Corporations have free speech rights too.
No they don't. Prove they do - I believe you're making that up.
As for the supermarket, You have a choice
The choice between going to retailers, and going and making my own food and clothes, is rather an extreme one. In the context of the world in which we live, it is not a reasonable choice to force upon people. There is no need for a retailer to track my information to conduct an economic transaction. I've provided a specific example demonstrating that this principle has been enshrined in law. What's your counter example?
As long as I can make money with the data, it is necessary
This entirely lacking in logic. Google can also make money without the data - by definition it is not necessary. Making money is also completely orthagonal to human rights. "As long as it benefits the corporation" is also directly against many of the principles of the US (the Sherman Act, for instance), and is presumably a misunderstanding of how consumers benefit from a healthy economy and the need for economic incentives to support business and entreprenuership.
It think the big difference is that In America, we separate data.
How so? The EU also separates data. I've already mentioned the difference between banking records and web searches. Medical records are also considered separately, there are numerous variations of the Official Secrets Act, a separate Freedom of Information Act regarding government data, etc. Again, you don't seem to be basing your arguments on facts, but unsupported and inaccurate opinion.
your essentially taking a right away form one person to protect another's
It's nice that you haven't yet encountered any situations whereby individual's rights are in conflict with each other. This will happen inevitably as you grow up. In this particular case, however, as corporations do not have these rights there is no conflict and I am doing no such thing.
I have a right to do anything with the information I gather
Not so. Information can be gathered improperly, can be used as an invasion of privacy, selective use of informat
Unfortunately what you say has no basis in fact. Many would argue it has no ethical basis either, certainly most of the EU. Again, it's strange to hear someone from the US comparatively weak on an individual's rights.
Defining a corporation as a group of people might be your idea, but it's simply not the case. I've got nothing against corporations, I'm paid a very nice sum of money by a major US multinational. But I'm not confused about the idea of us being a group of people with rights to my data. I don't want any of 150,000 people being able to call me at home, for instance, although of course the company has my details. Lack of respect for privacy enables people to do things like HP's identity theft scandal using Social Security numbers.
A corporation does not have an extension of all the individual rights of the people who comprise it. It is a legal construct. It does not have these rights because it is 0/5th human. Human rights are not *granted* by governments or legislation, they are *protected*. A restriction on the length of time Google can store data relating to individuals would have no impact on the rights of Google employees or shareholders; free reign to the corporation does however impact the rights of the individual. The individual has these rights, the corporation does not - fairly straightforward.
It does not follow that running web searches should be construed as giving the search company rights to your personal data. Why should this be the case? Clearly web searches from the home will contain personal information. Given a person's right to privacy and the corporations ready technical capability to respect those rights, why should there be a presumption of surrendering them?
One key reason you can pass on personal details of mine in the manner you describe is that you have a right to free speech. If I have chosen to share that fact with you, your rights also have to be respected. However, unless you've signed a loyalty card or similar, the supermarket does not have the share information about my individual purchases. If supermarkets had that right, the retail system would be forcing me to give up personal rights in order to buy essentials. To force me to use cash, or simply not use supermarkets, is an unreasonable imposition (particularly on a city dweller!). In the UK, many shops will ask for your details, partly for marketing etc but also because otherwise they have no right to track data about you, except as required for the financial transaction.
From the standpoint of protecting one's rights, the way privacy has been translated into law in the EU is that companies should store no more data than is necessary, shall share the information with the appropriate individual upon request, and shall store it for no longer than necessary. In this way, the rights of the individual to privacy and dignity are protected. Note that the definition of "necessary" (or whatever specific wording is used) can vary a lot e.g. banking records stay around for a long time. Chances are that with respect to the Google thing, they'll go for something like 6 months - a compromise between the individual's rights and the corporation deriving some value in exchange for the service provided.
Your automatic assumption of giving up those rights is, well, a shame. I've enjoyed working for this US firm for some years. The US is at its best when it is both hard headed about "business is business" but also "rights are rights".
That big collection of people does have the same rights, each and every one of them. My family has the same rights to privacy as me. It wasn't restricted or "deliminated" when I still lived with my family, nor will it be when I get married.
The many and various individuals in a corporation do not lose their rights to privacy for being part of that corporation, nor do the shareholders or customers of that corporation. In particular, your suggestion that you might lose your rights for investing in a company suggests that you misunderstand the principle. The EU has laws protecting individual's privacy, which corporations have to adhere to. Investing in a company would not only *not* take away any privacy rights, it would place restrictions on the data that company is allowed to hold about you in order to *protect* them. The principle also applies to the employees.
Corporations are allowed to hold some data private, but they also have obligations in all countries around the globe. They have varying disclosure requirements depending on whether they are publically or privately held, have varying degrees of public inspection e.g. for hygiene regulations. Again, yes they can keep a lot of their own information private - but they have no equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Corporations are constructs in law, and the formation of one should not be allowed to take away an individual's privacy.
From an American perspective, this is why the wording of the Constitution is so important. Phrases something like "Congress shall pass no law abriding the right of peaceful assembly" are all through it, guaranteeing the *inherent* rights of the people. Corporations cannot be granted exceptional powers of over the rights of individuals.
This story is about the EU ensuring that the privacy rights of individuals have not been breached. As a European, it is surprising to hear so many Americans argue in favour of giving up individual rights to an unaccountable group of people. Usually it's the other way around!
That said, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen the crowd on Slashdot make unconstitutional arguments when it's against the actions of a foreign power.
Try looking configuration up in a dictionary, and see if you can figure out any of the many and varied ways you are wrong.
If you can't understand reasonable simple words, I'm not sure whether you're capable of discussing the anti-social or self-interested aspect of the story. I grant you these are more matters of opinion and judgement. Can you even play devil's advocate with yourself and present an argument for why some people would consider the guy's actions to be anti-social or self-interested?
Who knows? Maybe this is the first indication that the cost and workload of software patents are of no real benefit to anybody, even Microsoft.
I keep dreaming the States will wake up and do away with software and busines method patents. Might prove handy in stopping the European Union doing something stupid (again) and listening to the patent lawyers on the whole subject, which has seemed imminent for a painfully long period now.
Oh please, let's see some real logic here. Since when has anyone provided a free wifi service that they charge for? There's a subtle contradiction there - see if you can find it.
The fundamental purpose of a tollbooth is to charge tolls (and by derivation, not implication, deny access to those who do not pay). The fundamental purpose of a wireless access point is to provide wireless access. There's a subtle hint in the names - see if you can find that, too.
A tollbooth is *always* about enforcing permissions. It does not provide access at all, a function that is performed by the road itself. It is only built to *deny* access, based on permissions clearly established. In contrast a wireless access point is *always* about wireless access. Permissions are a separate thing, and not necessarily enforced by technical means. An owner may not choose to "build a tollbooth" by configuring access controls for good reason.
The purpose of this particular wireless access point is to give access to the cafe's customers. It would be an entirely reasonable technical and security policy decision to simply leave it open, and only to resolve any issues that result from this on a case-by-case basis. It's the easiest way to deliver upon the purpose of the access point, with little associated risk.
The likelihood of e.g. slow network access due to excess network traffic is much smaller than the potential hassle of resolving a customers login issues. The owner has every right to use the out-of-box configuration, and has reasons for doing so. The technical solution is fit-for-purpose.
The man in the wrong was caught. He should have known, cause this wasn't a one-off automatic login but repeat behaviour. Why not buy a cup of coffee? Only polite, and pretty obvious to be the "right thing to do". Turns out it's also legal responsibility. Could have seen it coming, and gotta take responsibility for your own actions. Pretty straight forward to me.
I'd hate to live in a culture where you have to take responsibility for other people's actions, which means rules, legislations, lawyers, and wasted time and effort. Not straight forward, suddenly everybody's got to know what might only be obvious to people with specific domain knowledge, and establishes the principle that if you can physically do it, it's got to be alright. You sure that is the kind of logic you want to embody in the law?
Rather a pedant than a moron, my intellectually challenged friend. If you can't be pedantic on Slashdot, what's the point?
RE lacking social insight - I don't think so. I'm aware I've started a flame war. Forgive me, I've not indulged in years, and your poor logic is asking for it. At least I bring with me enough social, legal, technical and philosophical arguments to be confident you're wrong. You on the other hand seem to be coming from the classic "because it's possible, it's ok" line of self-indulgent thinking.
Have you ever seen a welcome mat with wording like "Push the button and I'll open the door if you meet my criteria"? Doesn't sound overly welcoming to me. I've seen "Welcome", "Home Sweet Home" and suchlike, but yours sounds like the workings of an unhinged mind.
You make the point about "someone who passes all of your qualifications for entry" - well, no shit Sherlock. But take your strawman arguments elsewhere and try to stay focused. The deliberate, physical and human act of handing over a key is fundamentally different from the default programmed-in-the-factory behaviour of a router. If you are still actually drawing such parallels - oh, dear.
If I leave the door unlocked, strictly speaking an act of configuration, I may have opened up access to everyone but I've not given permission. If you are still confusing the meaning of "permission" in its machanistic as compared to legal sense - oh, dear.
As part of my job, I advise for multinationals around IT management systems, including networks and identity management. Policy-based identity models, compliance requirements, allocation of responsibility and suchlike. Based on my experience, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. But please, go into "more detail about how routers and gateways work". It would be fascinating to hear of a technical design you've conceived that changes what everyone else in the field considers as the standard legal standpoint, or perhaps for philosophers might call the human meaning of the word "identity".
My entire mindset doesn't ignore the facts of this particular case - you're letting your lack of clarity interfere again! For instance, an important point about this is the regular habit of the gentleman involved - this isn't a one off automatic logon conducted in the background by the technology. I'm just having fun with some people who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. You're attempting to justify a basically self-interested and anti-social point of view, which is fair game for flaming in my book.
Personally, I would just have told the guy to go elsewhere, or buy a coffee. I'd prefer to see the cafe guy to be able to leave the router open. It's technically simpler, and keeps the world more friendly and trusting. It keeps human interactions out in the open, not hidden in the depths of a networking protocol. My living depends not just on understanding technology, but it's application and implications. The story shows there are other ways to prevent freeloaders. Yet to have that discussion, the starting point is realising that the freeloader is in the wrong.
Yes, this is all trivial, but on serious matters I don't start flamewars. Again, if you can't be pedantic on Slashdot, where can you be? It is out of simple examples like this that we learn to deal with bigger systems and situations. Exchanges like this can be learning ones, and I'm in the middle of some nasty work that I need a break from. I'm always hopeful that people can see sense even when the other party is annoying them.
Because not being able to think clearly? That would annoy me more than any attempt at an insult.
"The permission is implied in most cases" is a rather interesting example of throwing logic out the window, while trying to maintain an appearance of logic. You're not a professional spin doctor, are you? You would appear to work on the principle, "when logic doesn't work, make stuff up".
First off, we're talking about a specific case. It makes no sense to me to make an assumption that a cafe owner with an unsecure, wide open network has engaged in any programmatic or configuration exercises to consider permissions. The design of a lockable door embodies some logic. If somebody installs a front door but does not lock it, leaving it in an open configuration does not imply permission to enter the house. It simply grants easy access.
Further, the tollbooth example is hardly just an implication, the very nature of a toll booth is to charge a toll. Upon receiving it, you have permission to use the road. There are typically signs indicating that there is a charge that make it very clear permission is dependent on paying a fee. There is precendence going back centuries, understood around the globe. In the human and legal sense (you seem very keen on inapplicable machine logic to explain this), there is no need to have a much in the way of signage or T&C's for drivers to read before approaching the toll.
There would at least be some logic to your point about the shop advertising free wi-fi, but since there is no mention of such in TFA, or the article it links to, you really are just making stuff up there. And even then, you would need some context - it's entirely possible to advertise free wi-fi that is clearly intended for paying customers.
Your point would be more impressive if it demonstrated that you had read my point.
For one thing, permission and access are quite different things. Both in the human and the legal sense, this is fairly well understood by most people.
More pertinently, I can't think of an occassion where a machine didn't give or refuse me something where the permission or lack thereof didn't come from the decisions of a human. Doesn't matter whether the human gave bad instructions, used a random process, or whatever. In the human and / or legal sense, the machine does not choose whether or not you have permission, and will not do so until true AI comes along.
No they basically don't. They basically give me cash to which I have every rights courtesy of my contract with the bank.
If I hacked the machine, or stole someone's card and PIN, the machine would still give me the cash but I wouldn't have permission to it. Machine don't know, machine don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Clarke's Third Law is fairly well accepted, but you risk abusing it as a catch-all, deux ex machina, "it was just a dream" kind of argument for why fantasy elements are in fact science fiction. It's not a strong argument because what we are really talking about here is art criticism, not whether any event or object in a show is magic.
There is also arrogance where a writer says, "If they accuse me of writing about magic, I'll just point out that it is in fact just sufficiently advanced technology", and then proceeds to write something that is really fantasy in terms of genre.
While we cannot predict what will be possible in the far future, we do know a lot about the world now. The important thing here is that I'm not talking about technology, but rather the many and various forms of literature and movie genres, the history of many religions, tribes and cults, the marketing of corporations, the temptations that even the best writers can fall pray to, etc.
Taking all those factors into account, it seems fair to hold the point of view that Babylon 5 includes fantasy elements (wearing the makeup of Clarke's Third Law), that it is not really trying to be pure sci-fi or speculative fiction. I'm perfectly happy to admit it might all be possible, at the same time as saying that I don't really think that is the point the authors are making.
Yes, it is entirely possible they wanted to play around with the idea of technology-as-magic. But by the time they've thrown in all the rituals, the astral plane metaphors, etc, you have to ask:
Are they still asking, "What if this could be done?", or are they in fact asking, "Wouldn't it be cool if these guys were like wizards, yeah, we'll call them Techno-Mages, you know, play the advanced technology card, etc.. ?" It's an exaggeration, but I suspect that the GP is right, and they are in fact including fantasy in their show.
This is not a bad thing in and of itself; that's a matter of personal taste.
The excessively negative reviews of the iPhone are not because of a fear of something.
It is the promise of extra exposure (hopefully resulting in more money and/or career progression), which is the basis of sensationalist journalism. Quite possibly combined with a decision at some point to always attack Apple (or other high profile entity) as a cornerstone of their plan to get the public's attention.
The point is not to be right or to be factual, beyond having enough facts as necessary to be able to claim objectivity if challenged. The point is to cause a reaction. One of the techniques of course is to take facts and come to a conclusion that is not in fact well supported by those facts, but can be defended ad nauseum by an individual who has happily put aside dull reason for more exciting word play, false premises, logical fallacies, gross exaggeration, fear mongering etc.
In art, causing a reaction alone can be a good thing, although it can also be rather pathetically selfish. In blogs with pretensions of journalism, it's always pathetic, even with the "but it's an editorial column" excuse.
I'm sorry to sound incredulous, but where on earth are you getting your information from? Or are consumers in the US market really that abused by the networks?
Over here in Europe - where everyone is on GSM - any SIM will work in any phone. An occassional minor exception that on occasion a network provider will provide a locked phone. For instance, Orange does this to their branded phones, and in fact has to provide some additional software to the phone to justify the lock to the regulatory bodies. And that lock is readily removed should you wish to do so.
Phones and cards get swapped around all the time. There's a healthy second hand market in mobiles (and crime rate, for that matter), while you can go into most any mobile retail store (or Virgin music store, and other examples), buy just a SIM, and insert it into the phone of your choice.
One way to get a new phone is to buy a pay-as-you-go phone on a network trying to break into the market, chuck out the SIM card (after using up the ~$20 credit on it, personally I used it to wind up some friends who had no idea who the number was), and then put your own back in. Popular amongst techies who might a company-provided phone (and hence SIM), but want a particular phone or feature that the freebie given them does not provide.
Well yes, that plan works extremely well. Remember that in both Vietnam and Iraq, it is the US that cannot afford a long fight. Russia made the same mistake about Afghanistan. It is far, far cheaper for the native forces to keep fighting as long as the overseas forces are present in their home. Particularly when there is a guerilla warfare option, or a risk of civil war, or when the intent is not conquest, or when they cannot draft troops in compensate for the lack of support for the war. The US cannot afford to fight abroad in Iraq for as long as the Iraqis who do not want them there (and like-minded people from neighbouring countries) can afford to fight on their home turf.
If that's the only kind of contract you are aware of, you're letting your ignorance get in the way again. Verbal contracts, contracts without witnesses, these have existed for centuries. I'm Scottish (we provide much of the background for US culture and law, incidentally), where written contracts and even witnesses are not strictly necessary. Clearly a lack of witnesses makes enforcement impossible, but even so that does not change the moral aspect of the discussion. A man's word can be his bond, and individuals can have personal accountability without requiring a signed contract. In this case, where there is a document, a man (as compared to a weasel) can rightly be expected to honour the words and intent of that document.
Besides, assuming that having a contract written down means that everyone knows what has been agreed is simply naive. Surely you've heard of legal disputes, arbitration, etc? Because the flip side of expecting Jamie to honour the EULA, is in turn supporting Jamie if it turned out the EULA contained quite unreasonable terms. I personally feel that the restrictions upon Jamie are not so unreasonable that he is justified in agreeing to but then subverting the EULA. An honourable man would walk away from Microsoft, and not seek to profit via Microsoft. For instance, go open source and work on Eclipse.
Absolutely. I work in commercial software, for a US software house. My job essentially is to be a technical advisor in commercial discussions. I'm fairly sure that's a relevant world to this discussion. What do you do for a living?
My line of work involves money changing hands, and so the rigour applied is by necessity much greater than free-as-in-beer licenses. But yes, I absolutely think you are being unreasonable. If you were to try to get out of a verbal contract with me because it was not signed and/or witnessed, I would you consider a man of little character, lacking in principles, and not to be trusted. If you were to defend yourself through nothing but legal arguments, you would only reinforce my contempt for legal weasels. They make the world a worse place to live in, and are at the heart of all failings of a capitalist society. They desecrate the noble goals of those who believe that a free society and a market economey is the best way for humans to live.
Bullshit. Copyright law does not create the obligations of the GPL. The GPL makes those obligations, and they are core to its very reason for having been written. The GPL uses copyright law as the enforcement mechanism; it is deliberately selective in those obligations it releases. Your statement that the GPL does not create obligations but releases them is utterly disingenous legal weasel thinking. In any case, this is not some code discussion where we are talking about which libraries implement which functions. The explicit intent and direct effect of the GPL is to place obligations upon users of code released under its terms. Your argument is substandard legal sophistry which I have little patience for, and indeed so do many judges.
As an opposing argument: Visual Studio is a copyrighted work, and any programs produced using it and its code libraries are derivate works. Therefore Jamie is in breach of copyright for producing a derivative, commercial work, where the fair use provision clearly does not apply. The only licensing arrangement available is the EULA, and so if your argument that the GPL does not require a signature, why should the EULA?
Maybe that argument would hold up in court, maybe not. I couldn't care less, quite frankly. Legal pendantry is often simply a wasteful application of intelligence that could be doing more productiv
Do you have evidence to support this? I am not aware of any generally accepted definition of "open format" that prevents copyright, and further would not be surprised if copyright were the mechanism by which any given standards body maintains control of the actual open formats. Also, there are multiple definitions of open formats and standards - take a look at Wikipedia. You appear to assume that the accepted use of "open" amongst a minority of the technology ecosystem applies in the larger world, particularly the legal one.
I'm not going to disagree that Microsoft muddies the water! However, conversely I don't think your definition is correct. The lack of clear thinking in much of the ODF side of the debate is one of Microsoft's most effective weapons, given to them by the kind of argument you are making. Basing your case upon false premises, such as changing the definition of what "open" and "closed" means, will not get you far in a court of law against a well-funded and aggressive opponent.
Wrong. You can create a .docx document with an open source text editor and a zip program. The first time I did this upon taking a look at the format took seconds after reviewing the documentation available. I am not a programmer; I have not reverse engineered anything.
This is completely impossible with the .doc format. They are not exactly the same; they are fundamentally very different.
There are all sorts of things about a format that allows for proprietary binary inclusions that will create problems. However, given your own disinformation and paranoid hysteria, I can't see people like you having too much influence on whatever happens.
Returning to my core argument that legal weasels makes the world a worse place to live in, I'm wondering if you make a positive contribution to discussions to compensate for such attempted pedantry?
I'm not confused, although you appear to be. I said you had double standards - on what basis do you fear it is too complicated for me? I'm perfectly capable of assessing a complex situation and coming to simple conclusions, such as you're talking like a weasel. I'm often paid to do it professionally. I'm wondering if you actually have any experience of negotiations? It's just so much more efficient, effective and human to avoid legal wrangles. It's also more impressive when someone behaves in a principled manner. I simply have contempt for your attitude, and doubt very much you have either experience, expertise or facts to give your comments credibility. If you were more perceptive, you might realise that I am simply enjoying an opportunity to call your weasel words out for what they are, because professionally I have to be rather more polite.
Ah, sorry, I see it is in fact too complicated for you. Presumably you need someone to write down nice clear instructions for you, because otherwise you find it just too difficult to deal with the real world. If you can't handle doing business the way it's been done for centuries, perhaps you'd better not try to play with aggressive corporations like Microsoft. Remember, Jamie has that option if he is a Java programmer.
Both practically and as a matter of law a new senior manager cannot simply change the intent of a contract between two parties, at least not with 100% control. A while ago you said in a legal discussion with two points of view, neither has precedence, but now apparently a single change of manager can give that party such precedence as to override the other side. If you find change so difficult to deal with, perhaps you should keep to consistent arguments?
The GPL also places obligations upon people using GPL software. Those apply whether or not you sign a piece of paper. This is a good thing. Do try and keep up.
I'd be more impressed if you actually provided a citation to support this assertion. Are you saying the restrictions of the GPL do not apply if you don't sign a contract under witnesses? I go back once again to the core of my argument. Legal pedants like you make the world a worse place to live. I find your insistence on making inconsistent points of supposed law confirms my viewpoint.
True, but please take your irrelevant sanctimonious whining to a debate where it might serve some useful purpose. Nothing has changed on a whim here. There was a year of discussions. There is a clear technical argument for breach of the EULA. EULAs, whether you like it or not, have been around for many years. Microsoft has not changed the license, their interpretation of its purpose, or their intent to not allow the Express edition to be extended.
Again, this is not an endorsement of M$. It is a criticism of resorting to legal pedantics, often incorrect, in order to defend one's clearly self-interested position, encouraging a world where laws have to be written to cover every situation, and every interaction must be formally binding and witnessed for people to act in line with the sheer bloody obvious expectations of the transaction. It makes the world a worse place to be, and you should seriously try to avoid it.
Getting by on a diet of logic and facts. How's your blind prejudice treating you?
Nonsense. Perhaps you missed the regular conference calls in the email thread? Most people in business would agree that the spirit of a negotiation is very important, because avoiding legal pedantry is typically more cost effective and profitable. It also makes illegal behaviour a lot easier, incidentally. Sounds like you don't know what "spirit" means - look it up in a dictionary. I suspect you are attributing some nice connations like "positive", "open", "generous", but they don't necessarily apply. They certainly do not in M$'s case. Why do you think I chose that abbreviation rather than MS? The default business spirit is "as cold as charity". Did you notice that my recommendation was to "go open source, my friend", to tell M$ you don't like their business, to walk away? Do you disagree?
If you don't want to deal with a company like Microsoft, if you don't like not just the letter but the spirit of their licensing agreements, then don't do business with them. Simple.
If you are going to do business with M$, work in the spirit of their business model. I generally don't like their attitude, but I see how the Express edition is supposed to work compared to the chargeable editions. I would work with it if that's how I decided to make money. That's how you do principled business - work with the model, alternatively negotiate a new one that both sides agree to, and walk away if it neither can be done. Most importantly, don't become a legal weasel and contribute to the lawyer phenonenom that makes the world a worse place to live.
Oh, give me strength. What, M$ is supposed to get signatures to free web downloads? Their license doesn't really apply because it's "self-declared"? What are they supposed to do, get Apple to declare it for them? Look at the GPL - no signatures required, self-declaration not a problem. Take your double standards elsewhere.
Trying looking further; read the thread. And remember to differentiate between seeing their legal stance, and agreeing with it. Specifically for the Express edition, he wrote code to replace the Add-In Manager that M$ removed from the chargeable editions. The removal of the Add-In Manager is a technical limitation of the Express edition. Replacing it with your own code is arguably trying to "work around any technical limitations in the software", a breach of the license condition. The "I used public APIs from MSDN" is rather disingenous, seeing as MSDN is also the the pro versions of Visual Studio, and it is to M$'s credit that they provide that service to their developer community. Whether the APIs were public or not is I think a separate matter to the issue of working around the Add-In Manager replacement.
Looks to me like they have a legal stance. Seems to me that clearly M$ weren't happy with Jamie "hacking" the Express edition to make it extensible, and Jamie knew this. Sounds like his approach is legal pedantry and giving other developers extra workload, rather than working in a principled manner. Remember, my recommendation is don't work with M$ if you don't like their approach.
And I don't like the fact that he seemed to have presented himself to The Register as a Java, hobbyist programmer, when this is about a commercial .NET product. Sounds like self-serving misrepresentation of the fa
You can tell from my sig I work for a commercial enterprise; I'm painfully familiar with how the law can get in the way of things. But this guy has a simple choice if he wants to maintain some form of principle:
First, be open source if you want to be truly principled in all of this. Just walk away - clearly you don't like the way Microsoft operates. Have some sympathy for people in M$ who spent one helluva long time trying to avoid bringing lawyers into the mix, tell them you think their business stinks, and walk away (and get the story out there on the web).
Or, work in the spirit of Microsoft's business model. It's what a decent business person does. It seems that far from being a hobbyist you are in fact selling this tool on your website. If you want to make money out of the Microsoft ecosystem, and they're willing to invest something like a year in explaining their point of view, don't get the lawyers involved. Work with them, respect their intent.
Trying to paint M$ as the bad guys here is wrong - if things are bad, they're bad on both sides. So the license wasn't clear, but M$ spent a lot of time explaining their point of view. But no, this guy Jamie wants to get his lawyer involved. He wants to force a guy running a development team to talk about law, not about the spirit of what they're trying to achieve. That's bullshit. Jamie never discloses the content of the conference calls, he just sticks to his "let's talk legal specifics" - and then bitches when M$ does indeed come at him with lawyers.
He might be making the mistake of many programmers, of course, who think that the law operates like code. Well, just like all code has bugs, so do all legal arrangements. And when you force things to go legal instead of having principles, you might just find that the justice system allows a bug fix to be applied before it comes to a legal conclusion. For example, the courts may find that the intent of the Express edition is clear, and that in the course of a year's worth of dialogue between the two parties any confusion was clearly resolved. They might agree with Microsoft's lawyers that Jamie's own offering of different commercial editions of the TestDriven product indicates a good understanding of Microsoft's commercial model. They might express sympathy for M$'s efforts to get a free version out for hobbyists, and forgive them for not having a 100% airtight technical and legal solution to prevent it from being extended. After all, it seems reasonable to expect that people can act in accordance to the spirit of an arrangement, without needing otherwise pointless effort being spent on perfectly restrictive measures, doesn't it?
The courts may therefore conclude that although Jamie has not committed such a blatant breach of contract that M$ can claim damages, he has violated the clear intent of the Express edition and must therefore restrain from offering TestDriven for Visual Studio Express.
Work to open source principles, work to business principles - both of those I can understand. Work to a principle something like, "it's your fault if I can get *my* lawyer to prove that *your* lawyers didn't put a sufficiently airtight contract in place", and you're just another weasel making the world a worse place for everyone.
You forgot to answer my question. As you seem to be keen on letting other people do your thinking for you, let me answer it on your behalf:
You're arguing out of ignorance, and thrown stupidity into the mix as a bonus.
I did read the thread, which I found to be unhelpful in understanding the current situation. I've also taken a docx file, unzipped it, and read the XML contents using a simple text editor.
Try thinking for yourself, my friend. You could even try and deal with reality every once in a while. Could be useful at some point.
You can easily get the text out of a docx file, just open the zipped file and look at the XML text. It's an open format.
Are you making your point out of ignorance, or deliberately spinning out-of-date and irrelevant facts about the beta like the worst kind of corporate lobbyist?
"because they have it easier"?! Kind of like the "they hate and fear us because of our freedom" line of thinking, I guess. Americans sometime seem determined to throw away all the respect they've built up over the years.
No, Europe is upset with the US because the US is the biggest obstacle to addressing the global warming problem.
China and India are not part of the G8, so in the context of this negotiation they are not being ignored at all. You however are using them as an excuse to ignore the issue. They are part of the Kyoto agreement, however. The different restrictions on developing countries might be debatable, but the continued refusal of the US to enter into honest negotations of any kind intended to actually solve the problem suggests that China and India can safely remain secondary priorities to the threat posed by the US.
As for "From a pure monetary standpoint" - what a pointless contribution to a discussion on the climate!
Be wary of considering China as "especially lose". Using the car industry example, were I an American it would be painfully embarrassing to languish behind the rest of the world in car emissions standards, including China. Particularly when the US car firms are struggling. No engineering pride, no financial success - Henry Ford would not be pleased!
Son, you seem to be an intelligent person. I'm guessing the consistent errors of spelling, grammar and logic come from a lack of experience, most likely from being young. My advice is that you try and understand some of the truly important things about your nation's history, and the examples it has helped set for the rest of the world. With respect to debating, a strong recommendation is that when someone uses a set of facts to argue against you, particularly an older and more experienced person, you need to have some facts to back up your opinions. Otherwise, you put your credibility at risk, and put obstacles in the path of your own learning and development.
If you read back through the thread to the original article, you will find that I have not argued that corporations do not have any rights. They do not have an extension of the rights of every individual that works for or invests in them. Countless people have sacrificed themselves over the centuries for the concept of universal, inalienable, natural human rights. Good examples are those who died alongside your own founding fathers, for the truths they held to be self-evident. Corporations have many legal rights, property rights for example. They do not have inalienable rights, and they do not derive these from the people that work for them. If you think otherwise - find a reference to support your argument.
There's two problems here. One is that you are yet again stating an opinion without facts to support it. The second, which is rather sad, is that you clearly don't understand what makes your own Constitution such a wonderful, historically important document, much admired around the world.
One cannot prove that something that has never existed has been taken away. If this is the standard of proof you have set before you will admit that you're wrong, then you have either failed to understand my point, failed a simple exercise in logic, or simply decided that you are right and nothing can convince you otherwise.
If you hope to be taken seriously as you grow older and put in more responsible positions, you're going to have to wise up. Of course, if your goal is simply to make money then lacking logic and principles is not an issue.
This is rather sad, on two levels. On a classic Slashdot failing, you didn't understand (or perhaps even read?) the article, did you? The entire point is that there is a law! The EU has privacy laws based on inalienable human rights, hence this investigation. Second, inalienable rights cannot be taken away by any law. You do not appear to understand what inalienable rights are, which is particularly sad because it means you do not truly appreciate your own country.
Sorry kid, I've held in own in arguments with Nobel prize winners (e.g. Bruce Greenwald at Columbia). You're going to have to try harder than that if you want to be condescending instead of sounding like an idiot. How do you know I didn't understand the separation of data? You may recall I was simply pointing out that the EU also has a separation of data. It's broadly the same as you describe, although the example of choose of running down the street shouting (plus comments in other posts such as penis size, or considering someone hot) serves only to reinforce your immaturity. My point however was that you had stated the separation of data as some
Corporations are not extensions of the rights of their owners and employees. You repeatedly make this statement, but it is not true. France, for instance, is particuarly tough on this, whereby in many cases there is a presumption of guilt until a company can prove that it's actions were not malicious.
Are you saying that an investigation endorsed by the board, the CEO, the security department and legal counsel would not be able to get access to an employee's Social Security number in a secure environment? I very much doubt it. Any security firm asked to implement a security system that would prevent access to employee records under such conditions would want a very carefully negotiated contract absolving it of liability if security were breached. And given this is a discussion about rights and principles, let us not forget about personal accountability and responsibility, which is indepedent of security measures. One root cause was clearly a lack of respect for privacy.
Well, I disagree and have given my basis for doing so, using your own constitution. I've never had reason to examine in any depth the law arounding incorporating as an S or C corporation. However, I'm fairly sure I would have noticed something as significant as statements regarding human rights. Mainly it was about tax rules and limitations of liability as I recall. Unless you can come up with evidence otherwise, I'm fairly sure you're wrong - no basis in fact, as I said.
No they don't. Prove they do - I believe you're making that up.
The choice between going to retailers, and going and making my own food and clothes, is rather an extreme one. In the context of the world in which we live, it is not a reasonable choice to force upon people. There is no need for a retailer to track my information to conduct an economic transaction. I've provided a specific example demonstrating that this principle has been enshrined in law. What's your counter example?
This entirely lacking in logic. Google can also make money without the data - by definition it is not necessary. Making money is also completely orthagonal to human rights. "As long as it benefits the corporation" is also directly against many of the principles of the US (the Sherman Act, for instance), and is presumably a misunderstanding of how consumers benefit from a healthy economy and the need for economic incentives to support business and entreprenuership.
How so? The EU also separates data. I've already mentioned the difference between banking records and web searches. Medical records are also considered separately, there are numerous variations of the Official Secrets Act, a separate Freedom of Information Act regarding government data, etc. Again, you don't seem to be basing your arguments on facts, but unsupported and inaccurate opinion.
It's nice that you haven't yet encountered any situations whereby individual's rights are in conflict with each other. This will happen inevitably as you grow up. In this particular case, however, as corporations do not have these rights there is no conflict and I am doing no such thing.
Not so. Information can be gathered improperly, can be used as an invasion of privacy, selective use of informat
Unfortunately what you say has no basis in fact. Many would argue it has no ethical basis either, certainly most of the EU. Again, it's strange to hear someone from the US comparatively weak on an individual's rights.
Defining a corporation as a group of people might be your idea, but it's simply not the case. I've got nothing against corporations, I'm paid a very nice sum of money by a major US multinational. But I'm not confused about the idea of us being a group of people with rights to my data. I don't want any of 150,000 people being able to call me at home, for instance, although of course the company has my details. Lack of respect for privacy enables people to do things like HP's identity theft scandal using Social Security numbers.
A corporation does not have an extension of all the individual rights of the people who comprise it. It is a legal construct. It does not have these rights because it is 0/5th human. Human rights are not *granted* by governments or legislation, they are *protected*. A restriction on the length of time Google can store data relating to individuals would have no impact on the rights of Google employees or shareholders; free reign to the corporation does however impact the rights of the individual. The individual has these rights, the corporation does not - fairly straightforward.
It does not follow that running web searches should be construed as giving the search company rights to your personal data. Why should this be the case? Clearly web searches from the home will contain personal information. Given a person's right to privacy and the corporations ready technical capability to respect those rights, why should there be a presumption of surrendering them?
One key reason you can pass on personal details of mine in the manner you describe is that you have a right to free speech. If I have chosen to share that fact with you, your rights also have to be respected. However, unless you've signed a loyalty card or similar, the supermarket does not have the share information about my individual purchases. If supermarkets had that right, the retail system would be forcing me to give up personal rights in order to buy essentials. To force me to use cash, or simply not use supermarkets, is an unreasonable imposition (particularly on a city dweller!). In the UK, many shops will ask for your details, partly for marketing etc but also because otherwise they have no right to track data about you, except as required for the financial transaction.
From the standpoint of protecting one's rights, the way privacy has been translated into law in the EU is that companies should store no more data than is necessary, shall share the information with the appropriate individual upon request, and shall store it for no longer than necessary. In this way, the rights of the individual to privacy and dignity are protected. Note that the definition of "necessary" (or whatever specific wording is used) can vary a lot e.g. banking records stay around for a long time. Chances are that with respect to the Google thing, they'll go for something like 6 months - a compromise between the individual's rights and the corporation deriving some value in exchange for the service provided.
Your automatic assumption of giving up those rights is, well, a shame. I've enjoyed working for this US firm for some years. The US is at its best when it is both hard headed about "business is business" but also "rights are rights".
That big collection of people does have the same rights, each and every one of them. My family has the same rights to privacy as me. It wasn't restricted or "deliminated" when I still lived with my family, nor will it be when I get married.
The many and various individuals in a corporation do not lose their rights to privacy for being part of that corporation, nor do the shareholders or customers of that corporation. In particular, your suggestion that you might lose your rights for investing in a company suggests that you misunderstand the principle. The EU has laws protecting individual's privacy, which corporations have to adhere to. Investing in a company would not only *not* take away any privacy rights, it would place restrictions on the data that company is allowed to hold about you in order to *protect* them. The principle also applies to the employees.
Corporations are allowed to hold some data private, but they also have obligations in all countries around the globe. They have varying disclosure requirements depending on whether they are publically or privately held, have varying degrees of public inspection e.g. for hygiene regulations. Again, yes they can keep a lot of their own information private - but they have no equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Corporations are constructs in law, and the formation of one should not be allowed to take away an individual's privacy.
From an American perspective, this is why the wording of the Constitution is so important. Phrases something like "Congress shall pass no law abriding the right of peaceful assembly" are all through it, guaranteeing the *inherent* rights of the people. Corporations cannot be granted exceptional powers of over the rights of individuals.
This story is about the EU ensuring that the privacy rights of individuals have not been breached. As a European, it is surprising to hear so many Americans argue in favour of giving up individual rights to an unaccountable group of people. Usually it's the other way around!
That said, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen the crowd on Slashdot make unconstitutional arguments when it's against the actions of a foreign power.
Every person in that big collection has the same rights. What's your point?
Oh dear.
Try looking configuration up in a dictionary, and see if you can figure out any of the many and varied ways you are wrong.
If you can't understand reasonable simple words, I'm not sure whether you're capable of discussing the anti-social or self-interested aspect of the story. I grant you these are more matters of opinion and judgement. Can you even play devil's advocate with yourself and present an argument for why some people would consider the guy's actions to be anti-social or self-interested?
Who knows? Maybe this is the first indication that the cost and workload of software patents are of no real benefit to anybody, even Microsoft.
I keep dreaming the States will wake up and do away with software and busines method patents. Might prove handy in stopping the European Union doing something stupid (again) and listening to the patent lawyers on the whole subject, which has seemed imminent for a painfully long period now.
Oh please, let's see some real logic here. Since when has anyone provided a free wifi service that they charge for? There's a subtle contradiction there - see if you can find it.
The fundamental purpose of a tollbooth is to charge tolls (and by derivation, not implication, deny access to those who do not pay). The fundamental purpose of a wireless access point is to provide wireless access. There's a subtle hint in the names - see if you can find that, too.
A tollbooth is *always* about enforcing permissions. It does not provide access at all, a function that is performed by the road itself. It is only built to *deny* access, based on permissions clearly established. In contrast a wireless access point is *always* about wireless access. Permissions are a separate thing, and not necessarily enforced by technical means. An owner may not choose to "build a tollbooth" by configuring access controls for good reason.
The purpose of this particular wireless access point is to give access to the cafe's customers. It would be an entirely reasonable technical and security policy decision to simply leave it open, and only to resolve any issues that result from this on a case-by-case basis. It's the easiest way to deliver upon the purpose of the access point, with little associated risk.
The likelihood of e.g. slow network access due to excess network traffic is much smaller than the potential hassle of resolving a customers login issues. The owner has every right to use the out-of-box configuration, and has reasons for doing so. The technical solution is fit-for-purpose.
The man in the wrong was caught. He should have known, cause this wasn't a one-off automatic login but repeat behaviour. Why not buy a cup of coffee? Only polite, and pretty obvious to be the "right thing to do". Turns out it's also legal responsibility. Could have seen it coming, and gotta take responsibility for your own actions. Pretty straight forward to me.
I'd hate to live in a culture where you have to take responsibility for other people's actions, which means rules, legislations, lawyers, and wasted time and effort. Not straight forward, suddenly everybody's got to know what might only be obvious to people with specific domain knowledge, and establishes the principle that if you can physically do it, it's got to be alright. You sure that is the kind of logic you want to embody in the law?
Rather a pedant than a moron, my intellectually challenged friend. If you can't be pedantic on Slashdot, what's the point?
RE lacking social insight - I don't think so. I'm aware I've started a flame war. Forgive me, I've not indulged in years, and your poor logic is asking for it. At least I bring with me enough social, legal, technical and philosophical arguments to be confident you're wrong. You on the other hand seem to be coming from the classic "because it's possible, it's ok" line of self-indulgent thinking.
Have you ever seen a welcome mat with wording like "Push the button and I'll open the door if you meet my criteria"? Doesn't sound overly welcoming to me. I've seen "Welcome", "Home Sweet Home" and suchlike, but yours sounds like the workings of an unhinged mind.
You make the point about "someone who passes all of your qualifications for entry" - well, no shit Sherlock. But take your strawman arguments elsewhere and try to stay focused. The deliberate, physical and human act of handing over a key is fundamentally different from the default programmed-in-the-factory behaviour of a router. If you are still actually drawing such parallels - oh, dear.
If I leave the door unlocked, strictly speaking an act of configuration, I may have opened up access to everyone but I've not given permission. If you are still confusing the meaning of "permission" in its machanistic as compared to legal sense - oh, dear.
As part of my job, I advise for multinationals around IT management systems, including networks and identity management. Policy-based identity models, compliance requirements, allocation of responsibility and suchlike. Based on my experience, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. But please, go into "more detail about how routers and gateways work". It would be fascinating to hear of a technical design you've conceived that changes what everyone else in the field considers as the standard legal standpoint, or perhaps for philosophers might call the human meaning of the word "identity".
My entire mindset doesn't ignore the facts of this particular case - you're letting your lack of clarity interfere again! For instance, an important point about this is the regular habit of the gentleman involved - this isn't a one off automatic logon conducted in the background by the technology. I'm just having fun with some people who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. You're attempting to justify a basically self-interested and anti-social point of view, which is fair game for flaming in my book.
Personally, I would just have told the guy to go elsewhere, or buy a coffee. I'd prefer to see the cafe guy to be able to leave the router open. It's technically simpler, and keeps the world more friendly and trusting. It keeps human interactions out in the open, not hidden in the depths of a networking protocol. My living depends not just on understanding technology, but it's application and implications. The story shows there are other ways to prevent freeloaders. Yet to have that discussion, the starting point is realising that the freeloader is in the wrong.
Yes, this is all trivial, but on serious matters I don't start flamewars. Again, if you can't be pedantic on Slashdot, where can you be? It is out of simple examples like this that we learn to deal with bigger systems and situations. Exchanges like this can be learning ones, and I'm in the middle of some nasty work that I need a break from. I'm always hopeful that people can see sense even when the other party is annoying them.
Because not being able to think clearly? That would annoy me more than any attempt at an insult.
"The permission is implied in most cases" is a rather interesting example of throwing logic out the window, while trying to maintain an appearance of logic. You're not a professional spin doctor, are you? You would appear to work on the principle, "when logic doesn't work, make stuff up".
First off, we're talking about a specific case. It makes no sense to me to make an assumption that a cafe owner with an unsecure, wide open network has engaged in any programmatic or configuration exercises to consider permissions. The design of a lockable door embodies some logic. If somebody installs a front door but does not lock it, leaving it in an open configuration does not imply permission to enter the house. It simply grants easy access.
Further, the tollbooth example is hardly just an implication, the very nature of a toll booth is to charge a toll. Upon receiving it, you have permission to use the road. There are typically signs indicating that there is a charge that make it very clear permission is dependent on paying a fee. There is precendence going back centuries, understood around the globe. In the human and legal sense (you seem very keen on inapplicable machine logic to explain this), there is no need to have a much in the way of signage or T&C's for drivers to read before approaching the toll.
There would at least be some logic to your point about the shop advertising free wi-fi, but since there is no mention of such in TFA, or the article it links to, you really are just making stuff up there. And even then, you would need some context - it's entirely possible to advertise free wi-fi that is clearly intended for paying customers.
Your point would be more impressive if it demonstrated that you had read my point.
For one thing, permission and access are quite different things. Both in the human and the legal sense, this is fairly well understood by most people.
More pertinently, I can't think of an occassion where a machine didn't give or refuse me something where the permission or lack thereof didn't come from the decisions of a human. Doesn't matter whether the human gave bad instructions, used a random process, or whatever. In the human and / or legal sense, the machine does not choose whether or not you have permission, and will not do so until true AI comes along.
No they basically don't. They basically give me cash to which I have every rights courtesy of my contract with the bank.
If I hacked the machine, or stole someone's card and PIN, the machine would still give me the cash but I wouldn't have permission to it. Machine don't know, machine don't care.