No. Google read the email of a person who corresponded with a Google employee. The mailbox they found the mail in was not that of a Google employee.
An email can be read at the sender, in transit, or at the receiver. The receiver was a google employee, and the content was apparently Google's business. If I give my employer permission to read emails that I receive, they are allowed to read emails that _you_ sent to me.
There was a case a while ago that some people thought protected journalistic sources, but where in reality a judge totally destroyed the safety of any sources: Some information leaked from Apple to some website, Apple naturally tried to get the identity of the source from the website, went to court, and was told that they hadn't done enough to find the source themselves. One thing that they should have done was calling in every single employee with access to the information, ask them to declare under oath that they didn't leak the information, and fire anyone refusing to make that declaration. That's what the judge said they should have done.
Google may have very well read what that judge said, asked every employee for permission to read the emails that they received, fired everyone who refused (exactly the way that judge told Apple what they should have done), and found the email. Perfectly legitimate.
Well, that's what I assume. Because according to his own theory, that's when he was at his best, and it went downhill from then on. After five years, Scott Corley is a bumbling idiot, after ten years an imbecile.
My understanding of bitcoin is limited, but I thought that there were distributed public ledgers that track transactions on the bitcoin network. How would they transfer these without anyone knowing?
A bitcoin is a hard-to-compute number. When you officially transfer it, a new number is created by adding to the key, and the old number becomes invalid.
So if I have a bit coin, I can make a million copies of it. However, I can sell it only once. When I sell it, all the million copies of it become worthless.
Security waits for you to leave the shop, because it is far easier to prove that you had a shoplifting intention, but that certainly not the final rule.
It depends on the laws of your country. It seems that in the USA it's legally theft if you move it with the intent to steal (with some crazy details what exactly it means to move an object). In other places, it becomes theft when you leave the building with the object. Probably anywhere leaving the building is a good point to prove intent.
So let me see if I get this right: If MtGox hadn't been hacked, and if they hadn't found this old wallet, then these guys would have lost $116 million out of sheer incompetence? Can you imagine Bezos saying to Amazon shareholders: "Sorry guys, we lost $116 million. The money must be somewhere in the building, but we can't find it. " Or Tim Cook. Or Eric Schmidt. Or Ballmer.
I had a look at www.cpubenchmark.net, and the highest AMD processor with 8 cores is rated about 1 percent higher than the 2.6 GHz quad core processor in a Retina MacBook Pro.
They don't have an obligation to make them larger. They have an obligation to *try* to make them as large as possible.
Actually, no. They have an obligation to do what the corporation was intended to do. Which may not involve making money at all. Now being successful and making money usually helps you doing all kinds of things, so is probably a good way to achieve whatever you want to achieve, but nothing says that making profits has to be the purpose of any corporation.
And then there's the example of Apple, who became the most profitable company outside the oil industry without ever having the goal of making profits. While companies that tried to improve profits every quarter are sinking exactly because of that.
In most large organisations the developers are not the UI designers and although their code may well be creative, they are not the ones behind the creative work as a whole.
That's a strange way of putting it. UI design is a full time job. Many software developers would be quite capable of creating good UI designs (and from what I see at times, an awful lot better than paid UI designers), but not in their spare time when they have a full time job writing code. Many UI designers just don't have the mental capacity to imagine how users will use or want to use their software and get from one step to another. They live in a dream world where users do exactly what the designer wants them to do, while software developers know that they don't.
And technically, you aren't correct either. The patent is published to provide legal protection and remedy for the inventor. People cannot necessarily improve on it without violating the law. They can obtain licenses to use and improve on the original product but the patent holder gets compensated.
Others can improve on the invention and patent the improved invention - quite possible that someone using it would need two patent licenses. And others can take the invention as inspiration to create a totally different invention. You might never have considered that solving problem X was possible, but once you saw the patent solving it using method A, you come up with unrelated method B.
I have always heard different. What has been told to me is that once the trade secret has been revealed, the cat is out of the bag and your legal options are extremely limited (beyond suing the shit out of the party that leaked the secret). This would be the perfect time for an IP lawyer to jump in and set us straight.
It depends on whether the receiver was guilty in any way. If I bribe a Microsoft employee to give me some source code, then I'm not allowed to pass it on, it is still protected. If that Microsoft employee leaves a printout in a cafe by mistake, it's out of the bag.
When Apple said they'd never heard of Prism, they were using lawyer-speak to conflate not knowing the official program name with not knowing the program existed.
People like you are the reason why the NSA is spreading this nonsense. To deflect any anger from themselves to these companies, like Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple. Because they _know_ that there are plenty of fanboys who put all the blame on Apple, or put all the blame on Google, or on Microsoft, and then the other fanboys say that Apple is innocent and Google is evil, or Google is innocent and Apple is evil, and Microsoft is evil anyway, and everyone forgets about the NSA.
Fact is, the NSA are lying and spying scumbags. Fact is, there is no evidence that anyone supported them knowingly or willingly. The only indication that someone did is the word of the lying and spying scumbags.
Nice conversation, but it neglects to mention that Apple has indeed tools to support the use of iPads in controlled environments, including school and enterprise.
Sure, if your bank is dumb enough I can walk up to a teller and say "hey, my account is 1234 give me all my money" and they do so, no questions asked, and not even asking to see my ID. And then I walk to the next teller and say "hey my account is 1235..."
Remember it's not the bank's money. It is the money of the account holder.
On Slashdot, we often talk about how ridiculous it is that software is covered by copyright AND patents, but no one addresses the fact that source code is also covered under trade secret law. This is a conflict of interest and shows how screwed up our intellectual property system is. The intent of copyright is that you get protection in return for making your works public. But in the case of source code, companies get all of the protections of copyright law on that code without being required to ever actually release the code to the public. That is made evident by this exact case.
You are confusing patent law and copyright law. The intention of patent law is that you publish the invention and people can improve on it, in exchange for protection. The intention of copyright law is that you write things. There is nothing wrong with writing things and keeping them secret.
It's free on iCloud.com if you have an AppleId and password. And anyone can create an AppleId for free. So yes, you can use Pages, Numbers, Keynote for free as long as you have any device with a modern browser.
What you have here is an idiot prosecutor, who didn't know enough not to admit what he didn't know. Is the law often ignorant of technology? Yes, particularly this time, but the world self-corrected in this case (it tends to do that) and still stuck this little bastard in jail.
Actually, what you have here is an idiot slashdot poster who didn't know enough not to admit what he didn't know. Is technology often ignorant of the law? Yes, particularly this time.
Now according to what others posted here, this "weev" seems to be the kind of person that everybody should punch in the face wherever they see him.
And the court decided otherwise. So you can argue here all you like, it doesn't change the fact of what he did, and that the court decided it was illegal. And plenty of people here will agree that he deserved to be punished - all those who don't see it as an attack of a genius hacker against a huge evil company, but as an attack by a geek with an exaggerated sense of entitlement on random customers of that company.
One more reason to hate Jobs. He was able to get on the transplant list in Tennessee only because he had the money to fly out there (to a house bought just for that purpose) whenever he needed to for the various pre-op and post op appointments necessary.
It's obvious that you will find any number of reasons to hate Steve Jobs (although it makes you a bit of a weirdo), but reality is different.
He would have easily got on the transplant list by actually moving to Tennessee, if he hadn't had much money. It would have been less convenient for him, but not at all a problem.
It is unethical, in my opinion, to buy a house that you don't live in, simply to get on the state's donor list. He didn't live in Tennessee and the only person who ever apparently did live in that house was his doctor.
It has been published that a significant number of people are on donor lists in multiple states. One important criteria is that you turn up at the hospital quickly if an organ becomes available. Which he did. The only difference that being a billionaire made was that he didn't have to live close to the hospital, because he had a private jet at his command.
Copyright never should've been allowed to last longer than the creator's lifetime (and quite frankly I think the original 14 years plus another 14 was more than enough). Anything more is simply a bastardization of the original intent.
I have a job, I get paid, and a not insignificant amount of that money goes to a pension scheme, so I get money when I stop working. With copyrighted works, the financial success comes from the number of copies that you can sell. Why would it be reasonable to limit this to the copies you can sell in the first year, or the first 14 years? It's part of the deal: Creating the copyrighted work gives you the right to exploit it for a long time. Removing that right retroactively is the same as reducing your salary retroactively and telling you to return half your salary. Or everything in your pension fund. Reducing the time now means that we will end up with works that can be exploited in a short time and have no lasting value. Throw-away culture. That's already visible and a real problem in the eBook market where the market is overrun by cheap works without any value.
How about if copyright protected the rights of the creator... not his estate or corporate sell out 70+ years later. So when the creator dies (including a corporation being dissolved), then the art becomes open source.
And why would that make any sense? A 20 year old writer gets about 60 years of copyright protection, and a 70 year old only gets 10 years? Unless the 20 year old has an car accident, and his pregnant wife has no money to feed her children?
I could be mistaken, but it sounds an awful lot like this is just a bad attempt to blame the big bad men for what the founder's wife did. She sounds like a bitch on wheels with a jetpack strapped to her for good measure. Sure, the one engineer was a problem, but if the wife wasn't involved and out to get her HR would probably have put him in his place if she asked.
It doesn't really matter _why_ there was a problem. It looks like the problems were in this order: 1. A "founder" who allowed a non-employee (his wife) to interfere with the company, and who didn't stop that non-employee in their tracks as soon as it was apparent that her interference caused problems. 2. A bitchy woman interfering with the company and causing problems. 3. HR not jumping on the fact that a non-employee was allowed in the company and causing problems. 4. An apparently insane male employee trying to chat up a colleague knowing that she is an a relationship, and then going bonkers when he is predictably rejected. 5. HR not jumping on the fact that an employee is sabotaging another employee's work.
There was harassment by three people. And the company has to ask itself if there is a climate that encouraged this.
So we know one side of the story. But what about the other side? Maybe she was really bad worker and used 'discrimination' card each time to defend her work? "You are saying that this code is bad not because of the code, but just because I'm a woman". It would be nice if somebody could anonymously 'leak' some of her pull requests plus entire conversation around it - and then we could see how much harrasment was from reviewer and how much unfair pushing from her side.
So you are saying that it would be nice if any woman who claims to be harassed would be further harassed? If a woman claims to be harassed, we have to go over her work with a fine tooth comb? Fact is, if there was harassment, then the quality of her work is of no concern whatsoever. Harassing an exceptionally good employee or a not so good employee is harassment, in each case. And somehow I think that being harassed could have negative effects on the quality of someone's work, which would not be her fault at all.
Given that Google will likely have a very clear record that you did indeed authorize the payment this action could very quickly land you in hot water.
But you didn't. Not if your three year old pressed the button, without you knowing. It's not just a matter of payment. It is a purchase, which is a contract. The payment is just part of that contract. The three year old entered a contract, which as we all should know is voidable for the next fifteen years (when the three year old turned 18). When the contract is voided, any payments have to be repaid.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Google read the email of a person who corresponded with a Google employee. The mailbox they found the mail in was not that of a Google employee.
An email can be read at the sender, in transit, or at the receiver. The receiver was a google employee, and the content was apparently Google's business. If I give my employer permission to read emails that I receive, they are allowed to read emails that _you_ sent to me.
There was a case a while ago that some people thought protected journalistic sources, but where in reality a judge totally destroyed the safety of any sources: Some information leaked from Apple to some website, Apple naturally tried to get the identity of the source from the website, went to court, and was told that they hadn't done enough to find the source themselves. One thing that they should have done was calling in every single employee with access to the information, ask them to declare under oath that they didn't leak the information, and fire anyone refusing to make that declaration. That's what the judge said they should have done.
Google may have very well read what that judge said, asked every employee for permission to read the emails that they received, fired everyone who refused (exactly the way that judge told Apple what they should have done), and found the email. Perfectly legitimate.
Well, that's what I assume. Because according to his own theory, that's when he was at his best, and it went downhill from then on. After five years, Scott Corley is a bumbling idiot, after ten years an imbecile.
My understanding of bitcoin is limited, but I thought that there were distributed public ledgers that track transactions on the bitcoin network. How would they transfer these without anyone knowing?
A bitcoin is a hard-to-compute number. When you officially transfer it, a new number is created by adding to the key, and the old number becomes invalid.
So if I have a bit coin, I can make a million copies of it. However, I can sell it only once. When I sell it, all the million copies of it become worthless.
Security waits for you to leave the shop, because it is far easier to prove that you had a shoplifting intention, but that certainly not the final rule.
It depends on the laws of your country. It seems that in the USA it's legally theft if you move it with the intent to steal (with some crazy details what exactly it means to move an object). In other places, it becomes theft when you leave the building with the object. Probably anywhere leaving the building is a good point to prove intent.
So let me see if I get this right: If MtGox hadn't been hacked, and if they hadn't found this old wallet, then these guys would have lost $116 million out of sheer incompetence? Can you imagine Bezos saying to Amazon shareholders: "Sorry guys, we lost $116 million. The money must be somewhere in the building, but we can't find it. " Or Tim Cook. Or Eric Schmidt. Or Ballmer.
I had a look at www.cpubenchmark.net, and the highest AMD processor with 8 cores is rated about 1 percent higher than the 2.6 GHz quad core processor in a Retina MacBook Pro.
They don't have an obligation to make them larger. They have an obligation to *try* to make them as large as possible.
Actually, no. They have an obligation to do what the corporation was intended to do. Which may not involve making money at all. Now being successful and making money usually helps you doing all kinds of things, so is probably a good way to achieve whatever you want to achieve, but nothing says that making profits has to be the purpose of any corporation.
And then there's the example of Apple, who became the most profitable company outside the oil industry without ever having the goal of making profits. While companies that tried to improve profits every quarter are sinking exactly because of that.
In most large organisations the developers are not the UI designers and although their code may well be creative, they are not the ones behind the creative work as a whole.
That's a strange way of putting it. UI design is a full time job. Many software developers would be quite capable of creating good UI designs (and from what I see at times, an awful lot better than paid UI designers), but not in their spare time when they have a full time job writing code. Many UI designers just don't have the mental capacity to imagine how users will use or want to use their software and get from one step to another. They live in a dream world where users do exactly what the designer wants them to do, while software developers know that they don't.
And technically, you aren't correct either. The patent is published to provide legal protection and remedy for the inventor. People cannot necessarily improve on it without violating the law. They can obtain licenses to use and improve on the original product but the patent holder gets compensated.
Others can improve on the invention and patent the improved invention - quite possible that someone using it would need two patent licenses. And others can take the invention as inspiration to create a totally different invention. You might never have considered that solving problem X was possible, but once you saw the patent solving it using method A, you come up with unrelated method B.
I have always heard different. What has been told to me is that once the trade secret has been revealed, the cat is out of the bag and your legal options are extremely limited (beyond suing the shit out of the party that leaked the secret). This would be the perfect time for an IP lawyer to jump in and set us straight.
It depends on whether the receiver was guilty in any way. If I bribe a Microsoft employee to give me some source code, then I'm not allowed to pass it on, it is still protected. If that Microsoft employee leaves a printout in a cafe by mistake, it's out of the bag.
When Apple said they'd never heard of Prism, they were using lawyer-speak to conflate not knowing the official program name with not knowing the program existed.
People like you are the reason why the NSA is spreading this nonsense. To deflect any anger from themselves to these companies, like Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple. Because they _know_ that there are plenty of fanboys who put all the blame on Apple, or put all the blame on Google, or on Microsoft, and then the other fanboys say that Apple is innocent and Google is evil, or Google is innocent and Apple is evil, and Microsoft is evil anyway, and everyone forgets about the NSA.
Fact is, the NSA are lying and spying scumbags. Fact is, there is no evidence that anyone supported them knowingly or willingly. The only indication that someone did is the word of the lying and spying scumbags.
Nice conversation, but it neglects to mention that Apple has indeed tools to support the use of iPads in controlled environments, including school and enterprise.
Sure, if your bank is dumb enough I can walk up to a teller and say "hey, my account is 1234 give me all my money" and they do so, no questions asked, and not even asking to see my ID. And then I walk to the next teller and say "hey my account is 1235..."
Remember it's not the bank's money. It is the money of the account holder.
On Slashdot, we often talk about how ridiculous it is that software is covered by copyright AND patents, but no one addresses the fact that source code is also covered under trade secret law. This is a conflict of interest and shows how screwed up our intellectual property system is. The intent of copyright is that you get protection in return for making your works public. But in the case of source code, companies get all of the protections of copyright law on that code without being required to ever actually release the code to the public. That is made evident by this exact case.
You are confusing patent law and copyright law. The intention of patent law is that you publish the invention and people can improve on it, in exchange for protection. The intention of copyright law is that you write things. There is nothing wrong with writing things and keeping them secret.
It's free on iCloud.com if you have an AppleId and password. And anyone can create an AppleId for free. So yes, you can use Pages, Numbers, Keynote for free as long as you have any device with a modern browser.
What you have here is an idiot prosecutor, who didn't know enough not to admit what he didn't know. Is the law often ignorant of technology? Yes, particularly this time, but the world self-corrected in this case (it tends to do that) and still stuck this little bastard in jail.
Actually, what you have here is an idiot slashdot poster who didn't know enough not to admit what he didn't know. Is technology often ignorant of the law? Yes, particularly this time.
Now according to what others posted here, this "weev" seems to be the kind of person that everybody should punch in the face wherever they see him.
And the court decided otherwise. So you can argue here all you like, it doesn't change the fact of what he did, and that the court decided it was illegal. And plenty of people here will agree that he deserved to be punished - all those who don't see it as an attack of a genius hacker against a huge evil company, but as an attack by a geek with an exaggerated sense of entitlement on random customers of that company.
One more reason to hate Jobs. He was able to get on the transplant list in Tennessee only because he had the money to fly out there (to a house bought just for that purpose) whenever he needed to for the various pre-op and post op appointments necessary.
It's obvious that you will find any number of reasons to hate Steve Jobs (although it makes you a bit of a weirdo), but reality is different.
He would have easily got on the transplant list by actually moving to Tennessee, if he hadn't had much money. It would have been less convenient for him, but not at all a problem.
It is unethical, in my opinion, to buy a house that you don't live in, simply to get on the state's donor list. He didn't live in Tennessee and the only person who ever apparently did live in that house was his doctor.
It has been published that a significant number of people are on donor lists in multiple states. One important criteria is that you turn up at the hospital quickly if an organ becomes available. Which he did. The only difference that being a billionaire made was that he didn't have to live close to the hospital, because he had a private jet at his command.
Copyright never should've been allowed to last longer than the creator's lifetime (and quite frankly I think the original 14 years plus another 14 was more than enough). Anything more is simply a bastardization of the original intent.
I have a job, I get paid, and a not insignificant amount of that money goes to a pension scheme, so I get money when I stop working. With copyrighted works, the financial success comes from the number of copies that you can sell. Why would it be reasonable to limit this to the copies you can sell in the first year, or the first 14 years? It's part of the deal: Creating the copyrighted work gives you the right to exploit it for a long time. Removing that right retroactively is the same as reducing your salary retroactively and telling you to return half your salary. Or everything in your pension fund. Reducing the time now means that we will end up with works that can be exploited in a short time and have no lasting value. Throw-away culture. That's already visible and a real problem in the eBook market where the market is overrun by cheap works without any value.
How about if copyright protected the rights of the creator ... not his estate or corporate sell out 70+ years later. So when the creator dies (including a corporation being dissolved), then the art becomes open source.
And why would that make any sense? A 20 year old writer gets about 60 years of copyright protection, and a 70 year old only gets 10 years? Unless the 20 year old has an car accident, and his pregnant wife has no money to feed her children?
I could be mistaken, but it sounds an awful lot like this is just a bad attempt to blame the big bad men for what the founder's wife did. She sounds like a bitch on wheels with a jetpack strapped to her for good measure. Sure, the one engineer was a problem, but if the wife wasn't involved and out to get her HR would probably have put him in his place if she asked.
It doesn't really matter _why_ there was a problem. It looks like the problems were in this order: 1. A "founder" who allowed a non-employee (his wife) to interfere with the company, and who didn't stop that non-employee in their tracks as soon as it was apparent that her interference caused problems. 2. A bitchy woman interfering with the company and causing problems. 3. HR not jumping on the fact that a non-employee was allowed in the company and causing problems. 4. An apparently insane male employee trying to chat up a colleague knowing that she is an a relationship, and then going bonkers when he is predictably rejected. 5. HR not jumping on the fact that an employee is sabotaging another employee's work.
There was harassment by three people. And the company has to ask itself if there is a climate that encouraged this.
So we know one side of the story. But what about the other side? Maybe she was really bad worker and used 'discrimination' card each time to defend her work? "You are saying that this code is bad not because of the code, but just because I'm a woman". It would be nice if somebody could anonymously 'leak' some of her pull requests plus entire conversation around it - and then we could see how much harrasment was from reviewer and how much unfair pushing from her side.
So you are saying that it would be nice if any woman who claims to be harassed would be further harassed? If a woman claims to be harassed, we have to go over her work with a fine tooth comb? Fact is, if there was harassment, then the quality of her work is of no concern whatsoever. Harassing an exceptionally good employee or a not so good employee is harassment, in each case. And somehow I think that being harassed could have negative effects on the quality of someone's work, which would not be her fault at all.
This sounds awfully familiar... Didn't Apple have this exact same problem?
Apple did. Past tense. Fixed in iOS 7.1.
Given that Google will likely have a very clear record that you did indeed authorize the payment this action could very quickly land you in hot water.
But you didn't. Not if your three year old pressed the button, without you knowing. It's not just a matter of payment. It is a purchase, which is a contract. The payment is just part of that contract. The three year old entered a contract, which as we all should know is voidable for the next fifteen years (when the three year old turned 18). When the contract is voided, any payments have to be repaid.