Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter [uspis.gov] that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise.
There are plenty of government websites that are horribly unclear on things. In this case, I suspect someone was tasked to explain to people what the legalities are if a company does an "unsolicited delivery" scam, that is a scam where they deliberately send goods to people who never ordered anything, fully knowing that they never ordered anything, in the hope that some will pay up. And the person writing this site wrote everything from that point of view. A totally different scenario, where (a) a company has an order, but by mistake sends the wrong product or (b) a company has an order, but by mistake sends the product to the wrong address, most likely never occurred to them.
Clearly this site is not serious legal advice. For example, they say "if you don't like what you find, you may throw it away. If you like what you find, you may keep it". But it's quite idiotic to claim that if you don't like it and keep it, or if you like it and throw it away, you are acting illegally.
She likely felt that I was in the wrong for attempting to "steal" it.
Since a similar event involving a prototype iPhone was heavily discussed, I read up a bit on it. In Californian law, it would have been theft if you kept the Mac. In New York law, it would have been theft if you kept it for six months. In many countries, if a place like an airport, or a shop, or a taxi is owned and controlled by someone, then any property at that place is by definition not lost, and taking it when it's not yours is theft. It's like a restaurant storing away my coat while I have lunch and you take it from the place where it is stored. Even though I don't have the coat at the time, it isn't lost, so taking it is theft. For example, picking up someone else's computer in a German airport is most definitely theft.
Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter [uspis.gov] that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise.
If you ordered it and got the wrong merchandise by mistake, it is ordered. If I ordered it and they sent it to you by mistake, it is ordered.
24 (a) seems to say that sending the wrong goods to someone who ordered something else, or sending goods to the wrong person, isn't covered by this.
If Mr. Smith ordered item X, and the company sends item X to Mr. Jones, then they didn't send it so that Mr. Jones aquires it, but with the intent that Mr. Smith aquires it.
Assuming you live in the UK, and that the law says you have to send it back to them, what's to prevent the recipient from just smashing the PS Vita to bits and shipping that back? Are there any UK laws that say you are responsible for the safetly and security of unordered merchandise?
I think they'd call the police and charge you with property damage. And everyone else would think that you are an asshole. And if they managed to not inconvenience but to convict you, then everyone would think that you are a stupid asshole who got what he deserves.
You're still wrong, because this is UK law, not US law. In the UK, they DO have a right to demand them back, unless three specific conditions are all met at the same time. Look up in the comments for the law.
Just a reminder: In a similar but not identical situation, someone found to his surprise that £100,000 had appeared in his bank account. He withdrew the money and started spending it. The guy now has a conviction for theft. The reminder would be: If you are in a situation like theft, you better make damn sure where you stand legally. And you better ask yourself whether they gain is worth the risk if you are not 100% sure. Some guys posted about there being no witnesses and lying that they never received the item... That would quite possibly make it fraud. Very high risk strategy.
On the positive side, on MacRumors some guy posted that he had ordered a Mac and received a better model than he paid for, and he asked what to do. He took the advice to contact Apple and was told by them to keep it, so now he has good karma, a nice bargain, _and_ everything totally legal.
Just out of curiosity: Given a "black box" implementation of a random number generator, is it possible to test its output sufficiently to gain some faith in its proper randomness?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: There is "statistical randomness" and "cryptographical randomness". "Statistical randomness" tells you whether a random number generator can be used reasonably to simulate random physical phenomena. "Cryptographical randomness" means that it is impossible to predict the next random number if you know the mechanism that produces the random numbers, and the previous sequence of random numbers. Statistical randomness can be tested. For example, if you calculate three random numbers a, b and c, there are six possible ways how they could be ordered, and each possible ordering should be equally likely. Cryptographical randomness cannot be tested.
Going around your boss to their boss only makes sense if you have enough solid evidence to get your boss fired. Otherwise, you just took any pretense of a professional or even congenial relationship out back and shot it in the head.
Not necessarily. Your point should be that (a) you have security concerns, (b) your boss has a lot of concerns that he must juggle and his decision is right, (c) you feel of course that it is a shame that security concerns are not addressed, but you fully support your bosses decision. Your bosses boss has his own list of concerns. And he might then think that a website with security concerns is actually _not_ a good idea. So he disagrees with your assessment that your boss is right, he disagrees with your boss, and tells your boss to address these concerns.
Cover your ass BEFORE you talk to somebody in legal. The legal department is there to protect the company and NOT its employees. A good legal dept will say "hey, this employee is trying to reduce our liability" -- but a bad one will say "this employee is a liability" and shoot the messenger.
And _talk_ to someone in legal. No email. As soon as you send an email or anything in writing, you have created a liability. If _you_ are the reason why a vulnerabiility lead to a lost court case, that's on your head. Even if you have a _good_ legal department.
Except that wasn't a fine it was a retribution payment. He is being made to pay for 100% of the damages though he probably represented less than a small fraction of a single percentage of the attack. So what happens if they manage to find another one of the perpetrators, does that person get off without any financial penalties because the retribution has already been allocated to another?
In that kind of situation they would be most likely found jointly + separately liable. Which means all perpetrators together have to pay for the damage, but the victim can demand the money of each single person. So if one has $100,000 and another has $10,000 the victim can get $100,000 from the first one and $10,000 from the second one. Of course the total limit is the damage award.
That's why ambulance chasers often try to find someone with money at fault, even if only a tiny bit. If someone smashes up your car, and the judge finds that person to be 99% at fault and the town 1% at fault by putting the traffic lights into an unusual position, then the victim can ask the town for the _whole_ amount of damages.
Charging the vandals for first grade shatter proof glass replacement is bogus though. Charging that guy for what was broken (perhaps a part of the tarnished reputation ??) would have been the equivalent.
Actually, you want to take into account what percentage of perpetrators are caught. If a gang of ten causes $10,000 worth of damage, and you catch only one, it is only justified that the one should pay for your total damage - much fairer to put the risk onto the perpetrator (who had the choice of joining in or not) than on the victim.
First, chargers and cables should be separate. You can take an Apple cable (Lightning on one end, USB 2 on the other hand) and plug it into an iPhone and a Samsung or Nokia USB charger and it works. And the charger is the expensive bit, not the cable.
Second, Apple sells a Micro-USB to Lightning adapter, so if you have a charger with a Micro USB cable that cannot be removed, you can still use it to charge an Apple phone. Not that I think Apple is selling many of these⦠So that's why Apple didn't need to get any exception, because selling that adapter means they are within the law.
But in the end, there are plenty of people with several Apple devices, and using any charger with any device, so there is nothing here that would be against the spirit of the EU directive. The point isn't Micro USB, the point is using the same charger for more than one device.
The US never had Nazis in control of our nation so we feel the best protection is freedom of speech. In many places in the EU they do not feel secure in that.
Has nothing to do with feeling secure. We just want the f***ers to go away and die. There's nobody in Germany saying "Oh, I'm so afraid of these neo nazis, please protect me". They are saying "get rid of the bastards, kick their arses, and I don't want to hear their insane rubbish". Then of course there is the surreal point that these guys would have been the first to be put into a concentration camp 80 years ago. I mean there are _gay_ neo nazis. Don't they know anything about history?
They've been prohibiting Nazi-type groups since WWII. And as the article said, they're still a major problem in Germany. So yeah, it is working out about as well as the drug war. But hey, it lets the politicians say they're "doing something" and lets the cops get all sorts of new toys (and ever more tax dollars to buy more cool toys), so it's all good, right?
Not really a _problem_. It gives every good and law-abiding citizen a target to get rid of their aggressions without anyone complaining.
According to Wikipedia, the US has an active manpower of almost 1.5 million people. When mobilised, It is safe to assume they with training and equipment they can kill at least 5 a day, meaning the epidemic is over in less than a fortnight.
"The Passage" by Justin Cronin should be an interesting read.
Microsoft helped the NSA bypass their crypto. They were the first to join PRISM.
Do you actually have any evidence for this? Seriously, there are huge amounts of accusations flying around, but no real evidence. And what are the alternatives? Walled garden, becoming property of the advertisers, or a UI that only Stallman could love.
What? Oh, why someone would like to buy anonymously even if it's legit what he buys? Well, maybe because he doesn't want anyone to know that he's buying porn or (legal) drugs, that he buys information certain entities do not want him to have. There's plenty of stuff that is perfectly legal to buy, sell and possess, but embarrassing.
There's also plenty of stuff that is perfectly illegal to buy, sell and possess, and some for very good reasons. For the embarrassing stuff, complete anonymity doesn't help you hiding stuff from your wife, because she still sees money disappearing from bank accounts and you have to explain that. If she doesn't notice that, then your bank will sell you a credit-card like thing where you have to pay in money and then can use it without anyone else knowing.
Yes he's a git with an over inflated ego, but he's fully entitled to an explanation and maybe an apology.
Explanation: The owner doesn't want glassholes in his restaurant. Apology: None forthcoming. Clarification: People wearing "Google Glass" are commonly referred to as "glassholes", and treated as assholes.
that "never acting to harm KlearGear" clause is not legally binding IMO. Since in this case it violated her first amendment right to say that she had bad service from KlearGear. For them to say in a contract she couldn't do that is complete BS. as for suring for 75grand, i would sued for a lot more then that.
Bad but correct reviews are not harmful. To the contrary, they force the company to improve their products and services, which can only improve their profits in the long term.
There are plenty of cruises that will leave from Britain, mostly Southampton. 1. You avoid idiocies like the one in the article. 2. There are no Americans on board!!!! Or only those that want to avoid Americans.
Let's be honest, they're a pain in the arse and the last people you would want near you on a relaxing holiday.
"It's not my fault I'm an obese pig. It has nothing to do with all the food and snacks I stuff into my fat gizzard, it's the way my brain is wired, honest!"
Meant to be sarcastic, but absolutely true except for some misunderstandings or misrepresentations.
Yes, your body is very keen on eating high calorie foods, because during 99% of human history people could eat all the food available to them without bad side effects, and still the majority of people on earth can.
Computers are taking queues from cell phones and becoming cheap, commodity, throw-away items.
Calling them "throw-away" items is stupid. There is unrepairable; that's throw-away. There's user repairable, which in practice means I have to fix it in my family. And there's the huge and growing middle ground where you have to pay someone to repair it.
Things like glued-in batteries are easy to replace if you work at a place that has the right tools.
The battery is non-removable. But it is rated for 1,000 charge cycles, which should last for many years if you know what you are doing. (Some people don't. Apparently there are people who put their laptop on the desk, remove the charger, work until the battery is empty, then plug in the charger). The battery isn't cheap, but batteries aren't cheap - unless you get one from eBay that looks exactly like the original but isn't an original.
RAM and hard drive are user upgradeable on the non-Retina MacBook Pro, and if you don't need the optical drive you can build your own Fusion drive.
Or you get the retina display and buy it with the amount of RAM you need.
How do you define "science"? The scientific method demands that a theory be testable and reproducible in the laboratory. Macroevolution isn't testable and reproducible. It is arguably more like a theory of HISTORY.
There is no requirement for testability _in the laboratory_. Starting with Galileo, who didn't stay in a lab but climbed up the tower of Pisa. Speed of light measurements involving Jupiter's moons. And so on. This sounds like a typical creatonist argument again. So superficially convincing and utterly wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter [uspis.gov] that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise .
There are plenty of government websites that are horribly unclear on things. In this case, I suspect someone was tasked to explain to people what the legalities are if a company does an "unsolicited delivery" scam, that is a scam where they deliberately send goods to people who never ordered anything, fully knowing that they never ordered anything, in the hope that some will pay up. And the person writing this site wrote everything from that point of view. A totally different scenario, where (a) a company has an order, but by mistake sends the wrong product or (b) a company has an order, but by mistake sends the product to the wrong address, most likely never occurred to them.
Clearly this site is not serious legal advice. For example, they say "if you don't like what you find, you may throw it away. If you like what you find, you may keep it". But it's quite idiotic to claim that if you don't like it and keep it, or if you like it and throw it away, you are acting illegally.
She likely felt that I was in the wrong for attempting to "steal" it.
Since a similar event involving a prototype iPhone was heavily discussed, I read up a bit on it. In Californian law, it would have been theft if you kept the Mac. In New York law, it would have been theft if you kept it for six months. In many countries, if a place like an airport, or a shop, or a taxi is owned and controlled by someone, then any property at that place is by definition not lost, and taking it when it's not yours is theft. It's like a restaurant storing away my coat while I have lunch and you take it from the place where it is stored. Even though I don't have the coat at the time, it isn't lost, so taking it is theft. For example, picking up someone else's computer in a German airport is most definitely theft.
Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter [uspis.gov] that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise .
If you ordered it and got the wrong merchandise by mistake, it is ordered. If I ordered it and they sent it to you by mistake, it is ordered.
24 (a) seems to say that sending the wrong goods to someone who ordered something else, or sending goods to the wrong person, isn't covered by this.
If Mr. Smith ordered item X, and the company sends item X to Mr. Jones, then they didn't send it so that Mr. Jones aquires it, but with the intent that Mr. Smith aquires it.
Assuming you live in the UK, and that the law says you have to send it back to them, what's to prevent the recipient from just smashing the PS Vita to bits and shipping that back? Are there any UK laws that say you are responsible for the safetly and security of unordered merchandise?
I think they'd call the police and charge you with property damage. And everyone else would think that you are an asshole. And if they managed to not inconvenience but to convict you, then everyone would think that you are a stupid asshole who got what he deserves.
You're still wrong, because this is UK law, not US law. In the UK, they DO have a right to demand them back, unless three specific conditions are all met at the same time. Look up in the comments for the law.
Just a reminder: In a similar but not identical situation, someone found to his surprise that £100,000 had appeared in his bank account. He withdrew the money and started spending it. The guy now has a conviction for theft. The reminder would be: If you are in a situation like theft, you better make damn sure where you stand legally. And you better ask yourself whether they gain is worth the risk if you are not 100% sure. Some guys posted about there being no witnesses and lying that they never received the item... That would quite possibly make it fraud. Very high risk strategy.
On the positive side, on MacRumors some guy posted that he had ordered a Mac and received a better model than he paid for, and he asked what to do. He took the advice to contact Apple and was told by them to keep it, so now he has good karma, a nice bargain, _and_ everything totally legal.
Just out of curiosity: Given a "black box" implementation of a random number generator, is it possible to test its output sufficiently to gain some faith in its proper randomness?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: There is "statistical randomness" and "cryptographical randomness". "Statistical randomness" tells you whether a random number generator can be used reasonably to simulate random physical phenomena. "Cryptographical randomness" means that it is impossible to predict the next random number if you know the mechanism that produces the random numbers, and the previous sequence of random numbers. Statistical randomness can be tested. For example, if you calculate three random numbers a, b and c, there are six possible ways how they could be ordered, and each possible ordering should be equally likely. Cryptographical randomness cannot be tested.
Going around your boss to their boss only makes sense if you have enough solid evidence to get your boss fired. Otherwise, you just took any pretense of a professional or even congenial relationship out back and shot it in the head.
Not necessarily. Your point should be that (a) you have security concerns, (b) your boss has a lot of concerns that he must juggle and his decision is right, (c) you feel of course that it is a shame that security concerns are not addressed, but you fully support your bosses decision. Your bosses boss has his own list of concerns. And he might then think that a website with security concerns is actually _not_ a good idea. So he disagrees with your assessment that your boss is right, he disagrees with your boss, and tells your boss to address these concerns.
Cover your ass BEFORE you talk to somebody in legal. The legal department is there to protect the company and NOT its employees. A good legal dept will say "hey, this employee is trying to reduce our liability" -- but a bad one will say "this employee is a liability" and shoot the messenger.
And _talk_ to someone in legal. No email. As soon as you send an email or anything in writing, you have created a liability. If _you_ are the reason why a vulnerabiility lead to a lost court case, that's on your head. Even if you have a _good_ legal department.
Except that wasn't a fine it was a retribution payment. He is being made to pay for 100% of the damages though he probably represented less than a small fraction of a single percentage of the attack. So what happens if they manage to find another one of the perpetrators, does that person get off without any financial penalties because the retribution has already been allocated to another?
In that kind of situation they would be most likely found jointly + separately liable. Which means all perpetrators together have to pay for the damage, but the victim can demand the money of each single person. So if one has $100,000 and another has $10,000 the victim can get $100,000 from the first one and $10,000 from the second one. Of course the total limit is the damage award.
That's why ambulance chasers often try to find someone with money at fault, even if only a tiny bit. If someone smashes up your car, and the judge finds that person to be 99% at fault and the town 1% at fault by putting the traffic lights into an unusual position, then the victim can ask the town for the _whole_ amount of damages.
Charging the vandals for first grade shatter proof glass replacement is bogus though. Charging that guy for what was broken (perhaps a part of the tarnished reputation ??) would have been the equivalent.
Actually, you want to take into account what percentage of perpetrators are caught. If a gang of ten causes $10,000 worth of damage, and you catch only one, it is only justified that the one should pay for your total damage - much fairer to put the risk onto the perpetrator (who had the choice of joining in or not) than on the victim.
Didn't Apple get an exception to that?
Apple didn't _need_ an exception.
First, chargers and cables should be separate. You can take an Apple cable (Lightning on one end, USB 2 on the other hand) and plug it into an iPhone and a Samsung or Nokia USB charger and it works. And the charger is the expensive bit, not the cable.
Second, Apple sells a Micro-USB to Lightning adapter, so if you have a charger with a Micro USB cable that cannot be removed, you can still use it to charge an Apple phone. Not that I think Apple is selling many of these⦠So that's why Apple didn't need to get any exception, because selling that adapter means they are within the law.
But in the end, there are plenty of people with several Apple devices, and using any charger with any device, so there is nothing here that would be against the spirit of the EU directive. The point isn't Micro USB, the point is using the same charger for more than one device.
The US never had Nazis in control of our nation so we feel the best protection is freedom of speech. In many places in the EU they do not feel secure in that.
Has nothing to do with feeling secure. We just want the f***ers to go away and die. There's nobody in Germany saying "Oh, I'm so afraid of these neo nazis, please protect me". They are saying "get rid of the bastards, kick their arses, and I don't want to hear their insane rubbish". Then of course there is the surreal point that these guys would have been the first to be put into a concentration camp 80 years ago. I mean there are _gay_ neo nazis. Don't they know anything about history?
They've been prohibiting Nazi-type groups since WWII. And as the article said, they're still a major problem in Germany. So yeah, it is working out about as well as the drug war. But hey, it lets the politicians say they're "doing something" and lets the cops get all sorts of new toys (and ever more tax dollars to buy more cool toys), so it's all good, right?
Not really a _problem_. It gives every good and law-abiding citizen a target to get rid of their aggressions without anyone complaining.
According to Wikipedia, the US has an active manpower of almost 1.5 million people. When mobilised, It is safe to assume they with training and equipment they can kill at least 5 a day, meaning the epidemic is over in less than a fortnight.
"The Passage" by Justin Cronin should be an interesting read.
Microsoft helped the NSA bypass their crypto. They were the first to join PRISM.
Do you actually have any evidence for this? Seriously, there are huge amounts of accusations flying around, but no real evidence. And what are the alternatives? Walled garden, becoming property of the advertisers, or a UI that only Stallman could love.
What? Oh, why someone would like to buy anonymously even if it's legit what he buys? Well, maybe because he doesn't want anyone to know that he's buying porn or (legal) drugs, that he buys information certain entities do not want him to have. There's plenty of stuff that is perfectly legal to buy, sell and possess, but embarrassing.
There's also plenty of stuff that is perfectly illegal to buy, sell and possess, and some for very good reasons. For the embarrassing stuff, complete anonymity doesn't help you hiding stuff from your wife, because she still sees money disappearing from bank accounts and you have to explain that. If she doesn't notice that, then your bank will sell you a credit-card like thing where you have to pay in money and then can use it without anyone else knowing.
Yes he's a git with an over inflated ego, but he's fully entitled to an explanation and maybe an apology.
Explanation: The owner doesn't want glassholes in his restaurant. Apology: None forthcoming. Clarification: People wearing "Google Glass" are commonly referred to as "glassholes", and treated as assholes.
that "never acting to harm KlearGear" clause is not legally binding IMO. Since in this case it violated her first amendment right to say that she had bad service from KlearGear. For them to say in a contract she couldn't do that is complete BS. as for suring for 75grand, i would sued for a lot more then that.
Bad but correct reviews are not harmful. To the contrary, they force the company to improve their products and services, which can only improve their profits in the long term.
There are plenty of cruises that will leave from Britain, mostly Southampton. 1. You avoid idiocies like the one in the article. 2. There are no Americans on board!!!! Or only those that want to avoid Americans.
Let's be honest, they're a pain in the arse and the last people you would want near you on a relaxing holiday.
"It's not my fault I'm an obese pig. It has nothing to do with all the food and snacks I stuff into my fat gizzard, it's the way my brain is wired, honest!"
Meant to be sarcastic, but absolutely true except for some misunderstandings or misrepresentations.
Yes, your body is very keen on eating high calorie foods, because during 99% of human history people could eat all the food available to them without bad side effects, and still the majority of people on earth can.
Try putting Linux or Android on an iPad, or Surface Pro or RT then come back and tell me who is full of fud.
Why would anyone want to ruin a perfectly fine iPad? (Don't know about the Surface Pro or RT).
Computers are taking queues from cell phones and becoming cheap, commodity, throw-away items.
Calling them "throw-away" items is stupid. There is unrepairable; that's throw-away. There's user repairable, which in practice means I have to fix it in my family. And there's the huge and growing middle ground where you have to pay someone to repair it.
Things like glued-in batteries are easy to replace if you work at a place that has the right tools.
The battery is non-removable. But it is rated for 1,000 charge cycles, which should last for many years if you know what you are doing. (Some people don't. Apparently there are people who put their laptop on the desk, remove the charger, work until the battery is empty, then plug in the charger). The battery isn't cheap, but batteries aren't cheap - unless you get one from eBay that looks exactly like the original but isn't an original.
RAM and hard drive are user upgradeable on the non-Retina MacBook Pro, and if you don't need the optical drive you can build your own Fusion drive. Or you get the retina display and buy it with the amount of RAM you need.
How do you define "science"? The scientific method demands that a theory be testable and reproducible in the laboratory. Macroevolution isn't testable and reproducible. It is arguably more like a theory of HISTORY.
There is no requirement for testability _in the laboratory_. Starting with Galileo, who didn't stay in a lab but climbed up the tower of Pisa. Speed of light measurements involving Jupiter's moons. And so on. This sounds like a typical creatonist argument again. So superficially convincing and utterly wrong.