But not ready to bake into cookies. Put it this way. Imagine your ready-bake cookies have chocolate chips on them on the package, okay? And the cookies in the mix don't have chocolate chips- you have to add those seperately.
You can still blazon "Ready to bake" across the top, because they're still cookies. You didn't say "Ready to bake chocolate cookies!".
Microsoft is not saying "READY TO RUN AERO GLASS!" they are saying "Ready to Run Windows Vista". Will it run a version of windows vista? Yes. Then it fulfills the qualifications. Will it run aero glass? Maybe, maybe not, but that's irrelevant.
The problem is that you can do what the advertisement says- it's just not what you were expecting, exactly as you pointed out with your example of the 'ready to bake cookies'. Sure, you can bake them the way they are, but they'll only be what you expected if you add eggs.
That's your problem for not looking at the package while you were in the store. The package didn't lie to you- you just misunderstood what it was telling you.
At the law office I work at, I can tell you that at least in my opinion, it's fairly standard (the insulting the opposing party in a settlement offer... hell, in pretty much any letter.) It goes both ways.
On the other hand, legal writing quality has decreased significantly. It used to be that you could say to a secretary "type a letter about X" and you'd have one. Now you have to stand there and dictate "Dear sir comma I have recieved your letter of the twenty third comma and also acknowledge receipt of your letter of the twenty second period. New paragraph. Please be advised comma..."
Ah, for the good old days of honorable lawyers and competent legal secretaries...;)
I presume the shareholders will elect a new board of directors (if they were killed in the blast, which is frankly unlikely) and that board will appoint a new CEO and high-ranking operating officers.
It's all the mid-level bureaucrats who live at HQ who will be gone which will be problematic.
If you are big enough to have an Incident Response Team worth talking about (ie, more than the single IT guy), you should have seperate security analysis/reporting ability beyond what the box will report.
It doesn't have to be- but if anything as major in your life as your work (like, say, your marriage) is simply a means to an end rather than an end itself, in my view you seriously have to re-evaluate that part of your life.
It's physically secured- presumably access to the building, floor, room, is secured seperately. In either case, the two (key under doormat and post-it under keyboard) are not really comparable.
The reason being that the post-it grants access to the virtual system, while the physical system is seperately secured- the key grants access to the physical system and is a physical thing.
In either case, the secure 'communication' there would be someone from IT walking down and handing you the post-it- hence, a backchannel.
It's a basic security problem that always comes up in encryption. You need a backchannel to communicate- a secure channel that doesn't use the same lines (data, systems, whatever) as the information it's trying to protect.
What are the same solutions? Physical security, for one thing. Access verification. Identity anlysis.
IANAMP (Medical Professional) but presumably the chest-compressions function similarly to the iron lung, forcing air into and out of the lungs via pressure differentials?
Actually, you can- it's perfectly possible to legislate the way the backbone of the internet works, because the 'backbone' of the internet is well established, large corporations that will bow to significant legal pressure. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, et al, will all bow to a court of law if necessary.
That said, your argument is fallacious. Robots.txt is the way to block spiders from your site... because those spiders recognize it as such. There is no magically inherent limiation in the internet that requires spiders to only recognize robots.txt.
More importantly, just because you have something in your browser cache does not give you permission to save it to CD, make it a PDF, etc. Arguably, you have certain limited rights based on your right of memory- ie, if you see a painting and then the author goes and wrecks it, they can't get rid of your memory of the event. That does not, however, give you the authority, legal or moral, to copy it afterward just because you feel like it. You have the right to remember it, certainly, but that's it.
I like another poster's comment about switching robots.txt from opt-out to opt-in. Not only is it a very small change, in the grand scheme of things, (and therefore relatively easy to bring about), but it's also more in line with current copyright law.
While I don't support Shell's case (because she's an asshole), I do think the Internet Archive's case is not entirely strong either. Their case, in my mind, basically rests on "Well, our spider couldn't read her site... therefore it's not our fault."
That's not a good argument, frankly, legally or morally. The response to that that Ms. Shell and/or the court is likely to give is "If your robot doesn't know what its reading, maybe it should stop reading it, hmm?"
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. I'm going to make my kids WORK for their porn, damn it!
*waves hand airily*
There's juice enough for all!
You have to electrify the case, of course.
When the Chinese invade the US? With what sea/airlift capability, exactly?
But not ready to bake into cookies. Put it this way. Imagine your ready-bake cookies have chocolate chips on them on the package, okay? And the cookies in the mix don't have chocolate chips- you have to add those seperately.
You can still blazon "Ready to bake" across the top, because they're still cookies. You didn't say "Ready to bake chocolate cookies!".
Microsoft is not saying "READY TO RUN AERO GLASS!" they are saying "Ready to Run Windows Vista". Will it run a version of windows vista? Yes. Then it fulfills the qualifications. Will it run aero glass? Maybe, maybe not, but that's irrelevant.
The problem is that you can do what the advertisement says- it's just not what you were expecting, exactly as you pointed out with your example of the 'ready to bake cookies'. Sure, you can bake them the way they are, but they'll only be what you expected if you add eggs.
That's your problem for not looking at the package while you were in the store. The package didn't lie to you- you just misunderstood what it was telling you.
Wouldn't you be able to check their blood for antibodies?
'Course, come to think of it, that'd probably take longer than getting your hands on the right blood...
But the enclosure does.
There's a reason they're called pirate radio stations- it's less stealing and more hijacking.
I've read microserfs. I still think you have no idea what you're talking about.
It doesn't work that way. If it did, that loophole would already have been exploited dozens, hundreds of times.
I have much more faith in human laziness than I have in somebody who calls Microsoft "slave masters".
Conspiracy theorist much?
I laughed, until I looked up Dragon NaturallySpeaking Legal. I had no idea such a program existed.
Thanks, Slashdot!
*Runs off to fire his secretary*
I'm just lucky I'm not suing any English teachers then, aren't I? ;)
At the law office I work at, I can tell you that at least in my opinion, it's fairly standard (the insulting the opposing party in a settlement offer... hell, in pretty much any letter.) It goes both ways.
;)
On the other hand, legal writing quality has decreased significantly. It used to be that you could say to a secretary "type a letter about X" and you'd have one. Now you have to stand there and dictate "Dear sir comma I have recieved your letter of the twenty third comma and also acknowledge receipt of your letter of the twenty second period. New paragraph. Please be advised comma..."
Ah, for the good old days of honorable lawyers and competent legal secretaries...
I presume the shareholders will elect a new board of directors (if they were killed in the blast, which is frankly unlikely) and that board will appoint a new CEO and high-ranking operating officers.
It's all the mid-level bureaucrats who live at HQ who will be gone which will be problematic.
Aye. Second part of that:
If you are big enough to have an Incident Response Team worth talking about (ie, more than the single IT guy), you should have seperate security analysis/reporting ability beyond what the box will report.
It doesn't have to be- but if anything as major in your life as your work (like, say, your marriage) is simply a means to an end rather than an end itself, in my view you seriously have to re-evaluate that part of your life.
Then maybe you're in the wrong job?
Just a thought...
It's physically secured- presumably access to the building, floor, room, is secured seperately. In either case, the two (key under doormat and post-it under keyboard) are not really comparable.
The reason being that the post-it grants access to the virtual system, while the physical system is seperately secured- the key grants access to the physical system and is a physical thing.
In either case, the secure 'communication' there would be someone from IT walking down and handing you the post-it- hence, a backchannel.
It's a basic security problem that always comes up in encryption. You need a backchannel to communicate- a secure channel that doesn't use the same lines (data, systems, whatever) as the information it's trying to protect.
What are the same solutions? Physical security, for one thing. Access verification. Identity anlysis.
It's certainly not that new a problem.
It's probably 58,000 processor hours, which on 700 processors is closer to 83 hours in real time.
IANAMP (Medical Professional) but presumably the chest-compressions function similarly to the iron lung, forcing air into and out of the lungs via pressure differentials?
Actually, you can- it's perfectly possible to legislate the way the backbone of the internet works, because the 'backbone' of the internet is well established, large corporations that will bow to significant legal pressure. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, et al, will all bow to a court of law if necessary.
That said, your argument is fallacious. Robots.txt is the way to block spiders from your site... because those spiders recognize it as such. There is no magically inherent limiation in the internet that requires spiders to only recognize robots.txt.
More importantly, just because you have something in your browser cache does not give you permission to save it to CD, make it a PDF, etc. Arguably, you have certain limited rights based on your right of memory- ie, if you see a painting and then the author goes and wrecks it, they can't get rid of your memory of the event. That does not, however, give you the authority, legal or moral, to copy it afterward just because you feel like it. You have the right to remember it, certainly, but that's it.
I like another poster's comment about switching robots.txt from opt-out to opt-in. Not only is it a very small change, in the grand scheme of things, (and therefore relatively easy to bring about), but it's also more in line with current copyright law.
While I don't support Shell's case (because she's an asshole), I do think the Internet Archive's case is not entirely strong either. Their case, in my mind, basically rests on "Well, our spider couldn't read her site... therefore it's not our fault."
That's not a good argument, frankly, legally or morally. The response to that that Ms. Shell and/or the court is likely to give is "If your robot doesn't know what its reading, maybe it should stop reading it, hmm?"