Tax office can't hold you liable for someone else's losses, even if you caused them. It's up to the company to get the money from you, and if they succeed at some point in the future, they pay taxes.
If their security is so bad, you should be able to hack into their network.
Worst possible advice. There is the risk of jail time, There is severe risk of being taken to court for damages, which is expensive if you win, and really, really expensive if you lose. Which is likely if you hack into their network.
And anyway, what the OP described is blatant disrespect for the security of their customers. That doesn't mean their own stuff isn't protected.
There is a reasonable explanation, which you are failing to see. If LG employees were instructed to destroyed Samsung property by their employer,...
But that is just an accusation without any shred of evidence. You shouldn't be able to get a search warrant just for an accusation without any shred of evidence. And you are not answering my first point: What does Korean police to do with damage that was done in Germany? Only German police should be involved with this, since the crime happened in Germany.
Let's look at the facts: It is alleged that LG employees destroyed Samsung property in Germany. For starters, the only place where this should possibly go to court is Germany. None of the business of the Korean police at all. The crime happened in Germany. It's like one Korean CEO punching another Korean CEO in the face _in Germany_: We all enjoy it, and the first CEO would be questioned by police and go to court and possibly to jail _in Germany_.
Second, offices of LG in Korea have been raided. What evidence did they expect to find? For a raid (which I assume is just a search with a warrant, and lots of police arriving because it is a big office), the police would have a reasonable expectation to find proof of a crime. Well, in Korea, there is of course another explanation: If Samsung calls the right minister whom they own, any search warrant will come forward immediately.
But then a raid on an LG factory? What evidence in connection with a purported case of vandalism are the police expecting to find in an LG factory? Only possible explanation, same as above.
CEO not allowed to leave the country? That's getting bizarre. Do they think he won't come back? Never heard of bail?
I think it's getting time for LG to buy some politicians themselves. Worst case if someone gets convicted, they can then expect a pardon, like Samsung's ex-CEO (convicted for tax evasion).
If England is ever going to be accepted as a state they'll have to learn to respect the first amendment rights of citizens.
Do you even realise how f***ing bloody stupid that claim is?
You are making two mistakes here that only a bloody imbecile could make: You assume that England has any interest to be accepted as a state, when everybody in England is just fine with the United Kingdom being accepted by everyone. Second, that England would have the slightest interest in any amendment to the US constitution.
For that of comment said to someone's face in Scotland you wouldn't get arrested. You'd wake up in a hospital if you are lucky.
There's nothing wrong with defending free speech. However, as all the Americans (who know deep in their heart that "free speech" is not a right that they have in practice) will tell you, speech isn't free of consequences. If that kind of speech leads to some time in a cell, or to loss of teeth, or to a face being smashed in, nobody in Scotland will feel one bit bad about it.
I could imagine that Apple has a list of Sony movies that they would like to sell / rent out on the iTunes store but don't have a license, and "The Interview" isn't near the top of the list.
Everyone should watch this movie just as an act of patriotism.
Most idiotic thing you could have said.
What happened so far: Sony makes a (for all we know) second-rate movie which takes the piss out of a foreign head of state. Unknown hackers have a field day with Sony's security, as has happened on many occassions before. FBI makes claims that a foreign state is behind this and calls it "Cyberwar" while anyone knowing anything about security and especially Sony's security just says "WTF".
Hackers threaten violence against theatres showing the second rate movies. The motivation most likely somethng called "lolz". Every one panics, especially. Sony.
Now some places decide to show this second rate movie, which is in the end mostly about taking the piss out of a foreign head of state. And you are saying that watching a second rate movie is somehow patriotic?
Patents should be granted to an individual or their assigned company - and then NOT allowed to be transferred.
Nice try. So what justification are you giving for this? For example, if I made an invention that could greatly improve any smartphone, you are saying that it is essentially useless unless I start building smartphones and compete with Google and Apple? I'm not allowed to sell this invention to either of them? Please explain why that would be good.
You are basically making sure that only big companies will ever be able to get patents and make use of them.
Yes, it was included in a design patent, but it shouldn't have been -- at least not in a way that allowed Apple to beat up Samsung over rounded corners. Rounded corners on a device you slip in your pocket are purely functional.
Apple beat Samsung up about their phone that looked identical to the iPhone 3GS. Later Samsung phones had different rounded corners and looked altogether different, and guess what, Samsung has a design patent for its phones.
Your assertion that rounded corners are purely functional is self serving and only caused by your prejudices.
So when did they use "surge pricing" for the first time in public? Before or after the patent was filed? Performing it in public would be equivalent to a publication and stops it from being patentable.
But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
That's not unusual at all. It draws a clear line between what is allowed and what is not. Would you prefer vague guidelines like "for private consumption" vs. "for sale", or "small amounts"? Having strict and easily to check guidelines also avoids wasting time on law enforcements and court costs. 100 grams, and the police lets you go. 101 grams, the hold you and take you to court. Whether you're guilty or innocent, it is _clear_ which one, and that is a good thing
Obviously you shouldn't try to go to the extreme limit of what's allowed. If your scales say you have 100 grams, but your scales are off and you really have 101, that's no excuse. Just stay below 90 and you're fine.
Well, I found it in a book by Eysenck about a study in war-time Britain, where he found that workers working 57 hours a week in arms production were less productive _per week_, not just _per hour_, than workers on a 48 hour week. And these were people who should have been highly motivated for obvious reasons.
Question. Why do they work people so hard instead of just hiring more people? Are these guys salaried instead of hourly? Is it about keeping down costs on training or employee benefits like dormitories they don't think they can operate without? It can't be a massive labor shortage or the employees would quit and find somewhere else to work...
The are paid for overtime. Many people _want_ overtime because it is cash in their pocket. I think most of the reason to pressure people into overtime is (a) stupidity (I'd want workers who are fresh and not tired), (b) disrespect for workers, and (c) genuinely not enough people to hire.
That's different from the USA where the causes are (a) stupidity (I'd want workers who are fresh and not tired), (b) disrespect for workers, and (c) greed, pressuring people to work overtime without pay.
What you're saying basically boils down to "in the end you have to trust the people who wrote the OS or built the device". Yes, yes you do. This article is an example of how one such group abused that trust. Of course Apple and Google could do the same, but absent of any evidence that they have done so saying they could is kind of redundant.
It's more than that. Google and Apple can harm, in principle, by either being evil or incompetent (I'm not claiming they are either). But they have lots of competent developers who try hard to keep you safe. This company here has most likely 10 times less security expertise than either Google or Apple. Which means your risk is much much higher.
the "haters" were often accused of "hating on Obama". That use of "on" was hardly proper English, and I for one was wondering, if Illiberals are genuinely Illiterate
Language is changing. "Hate" used to be a noun, and usually a verb. Like "his hate was aimed at the wrong person" or "he hated the wrong person"; in each case "hate" being the opposite of "love".
"To hate" has developed a new meaning. Someone who "hates on Obama" isn't the same as someone who "hates Obama". Instead, it means making wild accusations against Obama, which usually have no rational explanation but are just issued to hurt or annoy the person himself or his supporters.
A similar case, compare the totally different meanings of "He hit the girl" and "He hit on the girl". Or just check here: http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
How? Be specific. If I put a gun on a table in front of you, it will sit there for a thousand years without hurting either one of us. Are you concerned it will spontaneously explode, or grow some sort of nerve tentacles that will intrude into your brain and make you do something awful?
Now start cleaning that gun and the picture changes. Now take the gun to a shooting range, and remove all the bullets when you take it home and put it on the table. What are the chances that you left a bullet? Now show your friends that there are no bullets. What are the chances that you fire a shot from a gun that you absolutely positively definitely knew had no bullets in it, and kill one of your friends?
You don't leave a gun on the table for thousand years without touching it, so the safety of leaving it there is irrelevant. And leaving your gun with no human touching it isn't safe: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/20...
That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.
Since you're comparing USA and Denmark (or UK, which is quite the same), it should be obvious that there are two stable states: One, where everyone has guns, so criminals need to have guns to avoid being shot during a crime, and upright citizens need to have guns to avoid beig shot during a crime, too. Two, where nobody has guns, and criminals know that carrying a gun during a crime means that the whole police force will do anything possible to catch them, and they will go to jail for a long time. And upright citizens know that killing an unarmed criminal say during a burglary will get them into legal trouble.
Two stable states. Both stable states are hard to leave. I prefer the stable state with no (few) guns and very few people shot.
Unless Apple disables the software that prevents iOS from installing software without the user. This function would only be used for security reasons of course.
It all depends on your definition of "can". Apple could theoretically do _anything_ with your iOS device. Some things would be detectable, some wouldn't, some would be illegal, most would be pointless to do for Apple and would be damaging to business if found out, which is a very good reason not to do it.
Apple _can_ install apps remotely without asking you, and it actually happens if you buy an app on one phone, and you have set up the other phone to automatically install purchased apps. Well, technically you asked for it, but nothing needs to appear on your iOS device at that moment to ask you. Quite obviously, Apple _can_ install software on your iPhone, because that's what they have to do when you purchase software. Being asked by you to do it is just a small detail. In reality, Apple doesn't install software without asking you.
Apple _can_ remove software without asking you, and would probably do that to remove malware, if it decides that removing the malware without your explicit permission is better for the customer than not removing it. I don't think they have ever removed anything for that reason, and they haven't removed anything with copyright problems.
"Starts selling" is the key. Yes, they had some DRM free content. Amazon had all DRM free music content. That's a massive difference. I was very much against Amazon at the time because of the one click patent, but I started buying music there because they were doing it the right way. iTunes went all DRM free later on, well after Amazon.
The reason was that the music labels were worried about Apple's strength in the market, so they forced Apple to sell an inferior product (music with DRM), and they only allowed Apple to sell DRM free music after Apple agreed to raising prices.
And anyway, I have the impression that Apple's music DRM is the only one that still works. If you bought music with Apple's DRM ten years ago, you can still play it. Try playing PlayForSure music. No chance. It doesn't work anymore. I think there are some other schemes that stopped working. (If anyone knows of any other music DRM that still works, I'd be interested to hear about it).
And Apple's DRM could always be removed legally by burning the music onto a CD using Apple's own iTunes software, and today Apple's DRM can be removed legally (unfortunately not for free) by subscribing to iTunes Match once.
Slashdot Mirror
Linked article says you have the right to cancel the order any time from ordering, until seven days after the item arrives.
Tell me where that happens.
Tax office can't hold you liable for someone else's losses, even if you caused them. It's up to the company to get the money from you, and if they succeed at some point in the future, they pay taxes.
If their security is so bad, you should be able to hack into their network.
Worst possible advice. There is the risk of jail time, There is severe risk of being taken to court for damages, which is expensive if you win, and really, really expensive if you lose. Which is likely if you hack into their network.
And anyway, what the OP described is blatant disrespect for the security of their customers. That doesn't mean their own stuff isn't protected.
There is a reasonable explanation, which you are failing to see. If LG employees were instructed to destroyed Samsung property by their employer, ...
But that is just an accusation without any shred of evidence. You shouldn't be able to get a search warrant just for an accusation without any shred of evidence. And you are not answering my first point: What does Korean police to do with damage that was done in Germany? Only German police should be involved with this, since the crime happened in Germany.
Let's look at the facts: It is alleged that LG employees destroyed Samsung property in Germany. For starters, the only place where this should possibly go to court is Germany. None of the business of the Korean police at all. The crime happened in Germany. It's like one Korean CEO punching another Korean CEO in the face _in Germany_: We all enjoy it, and the first CEO would be questioned by police and go to court and possibly to jail _in Germany_.
Second, offices of LG in Korea have been raided. What evidence did they expect to find? For a raid (which I assume is just a search with a warrant, and lots of police arriving because it is a big office), the police would have a reasonable expectation to find proof of a crime. Well, in Korea, there is of course another explanation: If Samsung calls the right minister whom they own, any search warrant will come forward immediately.
But then a raid on an LG factory? What evidence in connection with a purported case of vandalism are the police expecting to find in an LG factory? Only possible explanation, same as above.
CEO not allowed to leave the country? That's getting bizarre. Do they think he won't come back? Never heard of bail?
I think it's getting time for LG to buy some politicians themselves. Worst case if someone gets convicted, they can then expect a pardon, like Samsung's ex-CEO (convicted for tax evasion).
If England is ever going to be accepted as a state they'll have to learn to respect the first amendment rights of citizens.
Do you even realise how f***ing bloody stupid that claim is?
You are making two mistakes here that only a bloody imbecile could make: You assume that England has any interest to be accepted as a state, when everybody in England is just fine with the United Kingdom being accepted by everyone. Second, that England would have the slightest interest in any amendment to the US constitution.
For that of comment said to someone's face in Scotland you wouldn't get arrested. You'd wake up in a hospital if you are lucky.
There's nothing wrong with defending free speech. However, as all the Americans (who know deep in their heart that "free speech" is not a right that they have in practice) will tell you, speech isn't free of consequences. If that kind of speech leads to some time in a cell, or to loss of teeth, or to a face being smashed in, nobody in Scotland will feel one bit bad about it.
I could imagine that Apple has a list of Sony movies that they would like to sell / rent out on the iTunes store but don't have a license, and "The Interview" isn't near the top of the list.
Everyone should watch this movie just as an act of patriotism.
Most idiotic thing you could have said.
What happened so far: Sony makes a (for all we know) second-rate movie which takes the piss out of a foreign head of state. Unknown hackers have a field day with Sony's security, as has happened on many occassions before. FBI makes claims that a foreign state is behind this and calls it "Cyberwar" while anyone knowing anything about security and especially Sony's security just says "WTF".
Hackers threaten violence against theatres showing the second rate movies. The motivation most likely somethng called "lolz". Every one panics, especially. Sony.
Now some places decide to show this second rate movie, which is in the end mostly about taking the piss out of a foreign head of state. And you are saying that watching a second rate movie is somehow patriotic?
Patents should be granted to an individual or their assigned company - and then NOT allowed to be transferred.
Nice try. So what justification are you giving for this? For example, if I made an invention that could greatly improve any smartphone, you are saying that it is essentially useless unless I start building smartphones and compete with Google and Apple? I'm not allowed to sell this invention to either of them? Please explain why that would be good.
You are basically making sure that only big companies will ever be able to get patents and make use of them.
There is no Man-In-The-Middle attack. The man at the end is cut off. Nobody tricking you into anything; just annoying you.
And if you read the article, this only works for unencrypted connections where you should have known that anything can happen.
Obviously I see a lot wrong with this. It pisses me off. It absolutely pisses me off. That's how you destroy a service. Just make people hate you.
Yes, it was included in a design patent, but it shouldn't have been -- at least not in a way that allowed Apple to beat up Samsung over rounded corners. Rounded corners on a device you slip in your pocket are purely functional.
Apple beat Samsung up about their phone that looked identical to the iPhone 3GS. Later Samsung phones had different rounded corners and looked altogether different, and guess what, Samsung has a design patent for its phones.
Your assertion that rounded corners are purely functional is self serving and only caused by your prejudices.
So when did they use "surge pricing" for the first time in public? Before or after the patent was filed? Performing it in public would be equivalent to a publication and stops it from being patentable.
What the fuck does emailing a vague and rambling threat of violence have to do with coding and superpowers?
Vague and rambling threats is the closest these idiots will ever come to coding and superpowers :-)
But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
That's not unusual at all. It draws a clear line between what is allowed and what is not. Would you prefer vague guidelines like "for private consumption" vs. "for sale", or "small amounts"? Having strict and easily to check guidelines also avoids wasting time on law enforcements and court costs. 100 grams, and the police lets you go. 101 grams, the hold you and take you to court. Whether you're guilty or innocent, it is _clear_ which one, and that is a good thing
Obviously you shouldn't try to go to the extreme limit of what's allowed. If your scales say you have 100 grams, but your scales are off and you really have 101, that's no excuse. Just stay below 90 and you're fine.
Well, I found it in a book by Eysenck about a study in war-time Britain, where he found that workers working 57 hours a week in arms production were less productive _per week_, not just _per hour_, than workers on a 48 hour week. And these were people who should have been highly motivated for obvious reasons.
Question. Why do they work people so hard instead of just hiring more people? Are these guys salaried instead of hourly? Is it about keeping down costs on training or employee benefits like dormitories they don't think they can operate without? It can't be a massive labor shortage or the employees would quit and find somewhere else to work...
The are paid for overtime. Many people _want_ overtime because it is cash in their pocket. I think most of the reason to pressure people into overtime is (a) stupidity (I'd want workers who are fresh and not tired), (b) disrespect for workers, and (c) genuinely not enough people to hire.
That's different from the USA where the causes are (a) stupidity (I'd want workers who are fresh and not tired), (b) disrespect for workers, and (c) greed, pressuring people to work overtime without pay.
What you're saying basically boils down to "in the end you have to trust the people who wrote the OS or built the device". Yes, yes you do. This article is an example of how one such group abused that trust. Of course Apple and Google could do the same, but absent of any evidence that they have done so saying they could is kind of redundant.
It's more than that. Google and Apple can harm, in principle, by either being evil or incompetent (I'm not claiming they are either). But they have lots of competent developers who try hard to keep you safe. This company here has most likely 10 times less security expertise than either Google or Apple. Which means your risk is much much higher.
the "haters" were often accused of "hating on Obama". That use of "on" was hardly proper English, and I for one was wondering, if Illiberals are genuinely Illiterate
Language is changing. "Hate" used to be a noun, and usually a verb. Like "his hate was aimed at the wrong person" or "he hated the wrong person"; in each case "hate" being the opposite of "love".
"To hate" has developed a new meaning. Someone who "hates on Obama" isn't the same as someone who "hates Obama". Instead, it means making wild accusations against Obama, which usually have no rational explanation but are just issued to hurt or annoy the person himself or his supporters.
A similar case, compare the totally different meanings of "He hit the girl" and "He hit on the girl". Or just check here: http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
How? Be specific. If I put a gun on a table in front of you, it will sit there for a thousand years without hurting either one of us. Are you concerned it will spontaneously explode, or grow some sort of nerve tentacles that will intrude into your brain and make you do something awful?
Now start cleaning that gun and the picture changes. Now take the gun to a shooting range, and remove all the bullets when you take it home and put it on the table. What are the chances that you left a bullet? Now show your friends that there are no bullets. What are the chances that you fire a shot from a gun that you absolutely positively definitely knew had no bullets in it, and kill one of your friends?
You don't leave a gun on the table for thousand years without touching it, so the safety of leaving it there is irrelevant. And leaving your gun with no human touching it isn't safe: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/20...
That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.
Since you're comparing USA and Denmark (or UK, which is quite the same), it should be obvious that there are two stable states: One, where everyone has guns, so criminals need to have guns to avoid being shot during a crime, and upright citizens need to have guns to avoid beig shot during a crime, too. Two, where nobody has guns, and criminals know that carrying a gun during a crime means that the whole police force will do anything possible to catch them, and they will go to jail for a long time. And upright citizens know that killing an unarmed criminal say during a burglary will get them into legal trouble.
Two stable states. Both stable states are hard to leave. I prefer the stable state with no (few) guns and very few people shot.
Unless Apple disables the software that prevents iOS from installing software without the user. This function would only be used for security reasons of course.
It all depends on your definition of "can". Apple could theoretically do _anything_ with your iOS device. Some things would be detectable, some wouldn't, some would be illegal, most would be pointless to do for Apple and would be damaging to business if found out, which is a very good reason not to do it.
Apple _can_ install apps remotely without asking you, and it actually happens if you buy an app on one phone, and you have set up the other phone to automatically install purchased apps. Well, technically you asked for it, but nothing needs to appear on your iOS device at that moment to ask you. Quite obviously, Apple _can_ install software on your iPhone, because that's what they have to do when you purchase software. Being asked by you to do it is just a small detail. In reality, Apple doesn't install software without asking you.
Apple _can_ remove software without asking you, and would probably do that to remove malware, if it decides that removing the malware without your explicit permission is better for the customer than not removing it. I don't think they have ever removed anything for that reason, and they haven't removed anything with copyright problems.
"Starts selling" is the key. Yes, they had some DRM free content. Amazon had all DRM free music content. That's a massive difference. I was very much against Amazon at the time because of the one click patent, but I started buying music there because they were doing it the right way. iTunes went all DRM free later on, well after Amazon.
The reason was that the music labels were worried about Apple's strength in the market, so they forced Apple to sell an inferior product (music with DRM), and they only allowed Apple to sell DRM free music after Apple agreed to raising prices.
And anyway, I have the impression that Apple's music DRM is the only one that still works. If you bought music with Apple's DRM ten years ago, you can still play it. Try playing PlayForSure music. No chance. It doesn't work anymore. I think there are some other schemes that stopped working. (If anyone knows of any other music DRM that still works, I'd be interested to hear about it).
And Apple's DRM could always be removed legally by burning the music onto a CD using Apple's own iTunes software, and today Apple's DRM can be removed legally (unfortunately not for free) by subscribing to iTunes Match once.