I'm not trolling but I don't get it. I remember one of the statements being touted a lot during the dot-com bust was the telecom sector. How the telecom sector had overbuilt capacity based on the anticipated demand and now that that didn't hold true there was all this excess capacity which would cause a financial collapse.
So what happened? How do we go from having too much capacity to too little in a lean economy? Or am I confusing types of capacity or something?
No. WorldCom was always in trouble. the F R A U D only hid the trouble WorldCom was in. The fraud that was committed allowed the top execs to make out like bandits at the expense of shareholders - not the company. The value of a companies stock is only an indicator of how the company is doing - not vice versa. The actual stock price does not affect the assets and liabilities a company has but instead is a reflection of those.
Second, these machines were developed by a corp. Now-a-days when scandels are a dime a dozen, do we really need MORE CORPERATIONS digging their hands into politcs?
Listen to yourself. We should also ban men from standing for elections. Now-a-days when murders are a dime a dozen, do we really need MORE MEN digging their hands into politics?
So just because some members of a particular class commit some crime in some unrelated area, you conclude that all members of that class should be banned from participation in all areas.
It's amazing how morons like you can survive in this world - idiot slash-drones parroting the "corporations are evil" line when none of you probably even understands exactly what a corporation means.
Here's a clue-stick. If it weren't a corporation developing these machines it would either be an individual or *horror* the government.
A class in basic logic theory would go a long way towards helping the average Slashdot reader. Let me guess, you go a pitiful score on the analogies section of the GRE, didn't you?
Some basics: If a => b and b => c, then a => c. a => b does NOT mean b => a a => b does NOT mean that c !=> b
How is this relevant? Just because Congress has a law which states that airlines can refuse admission for failure to consent to a search DOES NOT mean that they can't refuse admission for other reasons also. For example, just because the law says they MUST refuse boarding if you don't consent to a security search, does not mean that they CAN'T refuse boarding because you failed to produce a valid ticket. Last time I checked there was no mandate from Congress authorizing them to refuse boarding to you because you don't have a ticket - however they do it on a regular basis.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how to translate this into whether or not they can use refusal to show id as a reason to refuse boarding.
Corporations have the same "individual rights" as any organization of people do - like the ACLU or the DNP or GOP. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Basically the law says that it doesn't matter whether it is an individual who is doing it by himself or a group of people acting together - they still have the same rights.
That doesn't make this decision any less ridiculous though. The telephone companies are state granted monopolies. As such, there is an expectation of limited rights conferred to them. Maintaining privacy should be a fundamental part of the FCC's mandate to these companies in return for their state granted monopolies.
Privacy is a fundamental right and given that telephone service is a basic necessity and that the local telco has a monopoly granted by the state as far as providing that service is concerned, the telco should also be charged with maintaining that fundamental right. None of this would matter, of course if telephone service was not a basic necessity or if there was a choice of telephone providers. But given that that is not the case, the right to privacy should triumph.
Doesn't a demonstration of such kickass tech (especially the Bluetooth stuff) realised today for the consumer show just how many streets ahead Apple are?
What the hell are you talking about? My PC is quite happy to talk to my IPaq over Bluetooth today.
This is all stuff that should exist under Windows, but doesn't. Apple has, after so many years, arrived at the point of equality (and now usurption) to everything else in the market - they can only produce better and better products.
Yeah, but if any of this stuff was built into Windows wouldn't the same people on this thread be whining about how Microsoft is abusing its monopoly power to shove software no one wants down peoples throats and to drive competitors out of business ? Need I remind you that Microsoft is currently being sued for including a web browser and media player in the OS - nevermind any of the more advanced features.
Gandhi had nothing to do with India gaining its independence. The British left when they felt it wasn't worth it to colonize India anymore - which was about the same time they abandoned most of their other colonies - check your history references.
The British loved Gandhi because he preached non-violence and passiveness - exactly what the British wanted to see in their subjects. The British-controlled media therefore projected Gandhi to be the leader of the masses.
The Hindus and Muslims were sworn enemies before Gandhi - the British were a mere distraction in their fight against each other.
The source for this is his ass.... but it's not true in the United States or Canada or Mexico
And you know this because?
I assume, of course, that you have driven several cars at very very high speeds. Also, you probably have reverse-engineered most modern cars to determine this is not true. I'm assuming also that you have worked with the designers of cars sold in the US to determine that this is not the case.
What? You don't say! You haven't done any of those? So did you just pull this out of your ass?
The truth is, most modern cars sold in the US DO have a speed governor. Try driving your car at about 150mph and you'll see it's there.
Ahhh!!! WRONG! I use a Sprint PCS myself and know that's not true.
Sounds like you're confusing Blocked with Unavailable. Numbers will only show as blocked if someone has explicitly asked for caller-id blocking - and *68 will unlock that. Numbers can show up as unavailable for a variety of reasons.
You're right. Despite the seeming ubiquity of cellphones in the US, they've achieved nowhere near the penetration they have in the UK. This is probably one of the reasons why.
Also, there is no need to. Crappy as the local Telco's in the US are they are nowhere near as bad as the state-run monopolies that most of the rest of the world has to put up with. In most countries in Europe you have to pay per minute while you are dialed in, for example.
I think you're oversimplifying this. If MS takes me to court and I say, "I didn't click agree" (even if I did). Tee burden of proof is on THEM not ME. In a court system that is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY, theoretically, I would be found innocent. Microsoft simply CAN'T prove (at least not yet) that _I_ clicked "AGREE".
Exactly. However, you have to say "I didn't click agree.". You can't say "I clicked it but it shouldn't stand because it was not a signature." The burden of proof is indeed on them to show that you agreed to it.
Btw, Innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal cases. Civil law only requires a determination of what is the more likely story. So in a civil case if the jury believes that you are probably lying even if they have some doubts you are still guilty. That's what got OJ.
No, because most companies reserve the "right" to change the terms of the EULA, without notification, at ANY TIME.
Horseshit! You can't change a EULA without notification. This is Contract Law 101. You can't change a contract unilaterally. Show me a EULA which reserves the right to change itself without notice and I'll show you a EULA that has no feet to stand on.
The whole concept of the EULA is so silly... I really hope it gets tossed out of court ASAP. Where else can the manufacturer of a product hold you under a contract you did not sign, and change the terms of that contract at any time without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes?
The concept of a EULA is not silly. A paper signature is only one way to prove that you actually indulged in the transaction. It is not necessary to prove that you actually did. And nowhere can anyone change the terms of a contract without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes. It hasn't happened in this instance and won't happen ever.
Wrong. The fact that there is no customer signature only means that there is no proof that the customer actually engaged in the transaction. It does not mean that the customer is actually not liable if they did. This is no different from a paper signature.
If the customer can make a reasonable case that they were not the ones involved, then they are not liable. With an electronic transaction that is relatively easy to do.
It's the same with EULAs. If you can prove that you were not the one accepting it then it is not binding.
However, just as you can't say "I bought that but there is no signature on it so I shouldn't be liable" with credit cards, you can't say "I accepted that but I'm not liable without a paper signature".
People, this really isn't that hard. A contract is something you agree to - whether it be a credit card or a EULA. The other party needs to prove that you agreed to it and the paper signatures are just a means of doing that. They are sufficient but not necessary to prove that you agreed to the contract.
We all know that "piracy" is just a myth! I bought a CD once and I know a friend who bought one once and everyone on Slashdot says they buy CDs they like so obviously he is lying!
Are you one of those foreigners who have a hard time reading numbers on dollar bills?
Ever wonder why basic phone service costs you $40/month when they advertise $15?
Ask your local congressperson. The remaining $25 in charges is usually taxes.
Or when they promise you 10 cents/min for a low $5 monthly fee, but when you get the bill you see that 10 cents only applies to interstate calls. So not only did you get screwed out of $5, you also get charged 25 cents a minute to call your mother...
Firstly, that's the non-monopoly long-distance provider you chose, not your monopoly local telephone company. Secondly, it's not that hard. Separate rates apply to interstate calls, intrastate calls and local long distance. Make sure you check the rates you're getting on each. I've never had any trouble here. Don't blame the phone company for you not doing the due diligence to realize that the interstate rate doesn't apply to local calls.
There is a difference between the SCIENCE of software and computing and writing programs. Kinda like the difference between Mechanical Engineering and being able to fix a car. Please don't confuse the two.
As far as the subject at hand is concerned, asking someone to write code without a convenient editor (like emacs) and a debugging environment is just plain stupid. You wouldn't write code in real life without those tools - why would you want to even test someones ability to do something with artificial constraints that will never be met in any realistic scenario?
I have a Bachelors and a Masters degree in Computer Science and I cannot remember a time when I had to write code in a written exam that was not pseudo. Consider taking a different class if that is not ok with your professor.
someone in Illinois can easily buy a cheap used hardback over the Net from a New York dealer, read it and then resell it to someone in California, having spent, in effect, only a few dollars.
I can usually walk down to the one down the street from me, borrow the one I want and return it, having spent, in effect, nothing.
Yes, not all books are available at the local library but I'll wager the vast majority of the ones being traded are. And if it isn't available at the local one, they are usually willing to get it for you within a few days.
Sadly, though, with the economy the way it is, the library system is one of the areas that my city is considering cutting back on.
I'll probably be modded down by the editors for saying this but that is exactly what this article is.
It doesn't argue against the actual conclusion or the logic used (granted that's kinda hard to do for a study that hasn't been released yet). Instead, there are the baseless allegations about the motivations (no evidence that they actually took money from Microsoft) and completely irrelevant links to other studies which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. You're right, of course.
Here's a reference to an article talking about this overbuilt capacity. I know I wasn't imagining it.
I'm not trolling but I don't get it. I remember one of the statements being touted a lot during the dot-com bust was the telecom sector. How the telecom sector had overbuilt capacity based on the anticipated demand and now that that didn't hold true there was all this excess capacity which would cause a financial collapse.
So what happened? How do we go from having too much capacity to too little in a lean economy? Or am I confusing types of capacity or something?
No. WorldCom was always in trouble. the F R A U D only hid the trouble WorldCom was in. The fraud that was committed allowed the top execs to make out like bandits at the expense of shareholders - not the company. The value of a companies stock is only an indicator of how the company is doing - not vice versa. The actual stock price does not affect the assets and liabilities a company has but instead is a reflection of those.
Second, these machines were developed by a corp. Now-a-days when scandels are a dime a dozen, do we really need MORE CORPERATIONS digging their hands into politcs?
Listen to yourself. We should also ban men from standing for elections. Now-a-days when murders are a dime a dozen, do we really need MORE MEN digging their hands into politics?
So just because some members of a particular class commit some crime in some unrelated area, you conclude that all members of that class should be banned from participation in all areas.
It's amazing how morons like you can survive in this world - idiot slash-drones parroting the "corporations are evil" line when none of you probably even understands exactly what a corporation means.
Here's a clue-stick. If it weren't a corporation developing these machines it would either be an individual or *horror* the government.
In large countries like China, Canada, USA or Brazil
Canada?? Dude, LA has more people living in it than Canada.
China is not a democracy so don't worry about voting.
And you left out the biggest of them all: India.
A class in basic logic theory would go a long way towards helping the average Slashdot reader. Let me guess, you go a pitiful score on the analogies section of the GRE, didn't you?
Some basics:
If a => b and b => c, then a => c.
a => b does NOT mean b => a
a => b does NOT mean that c !=> b
How is this relevant? Just because Congress has a law which states that airlines can refuse admission for failure to consent to a search DOES NOT mean that they can't refuse admission for other reasons also. For example, just because the law says they MUST refuse boarding if you don't consent to a security search, does not mean that they CAN'T refuse boarding because you failed to produce a valid ticket. Last time I checked there was no mandate from Congress authorizing them to refuse boarding to you because you don't have a ticket - however they do it on a regular basis.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how to translate this into whether or not they can use refusal to show id as a reason to refuse boarding.
Corporations have the same "individual rights" as any organization of people do - like the ACLU or the DNP or GOP. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Basically the law says that it doesn't matter whether it is an individual who is doing it by himself or a group of people acting together - they still have the same rights.
That doesn't make this decision any less ridiculous though. The telephone companies are state granted monopolies. As such, there is an expectation of limited rights conferred to them. Maintaining privacy should be a fundamental part of the FCC's mandate to these companies in return for their state granted monopolies.
Privacy is a fundamental right and given that telephone service is a basic necessity and that the local telco has a monopoly granted by the state as far as providing that service is concerned, the telco should also be charged with maintaining that fundamental right. None of this would matter, of course if telephone service was not a basic necessity or if there was a choice of telephone providers. But given that that is not the case, the right to privacy should triumph.
Doesn't a demonstration of such kickass tech (especially the Bluetooth stuff) realised today for the consumer show just how many streets ahead Apple are?
What the hell are you talking about? My PC is quite happy to talk to my IPaq over Bluetooth today.
This is all stuff that should exist under Windows, but doesn't. Apple has, after so many years, arrived at the point of equality (and now usurption) to everything else in the market - they can only produce better and better products.
Yeah, but if any of this stuff was built into Windows wouldn't the same people on this thread be whining about how Microsoft is abusing its monopoly power to shove software no one wants down peoples throats and to drive competitors out of business ? Need I remind you that Microsoft is currently being sued for including a web browser and media player in the OS - nevermind any of the more advanced features.
It's called humor.
I hope you don't accidentally read any of the Unix man pages or more famous books by authors such as Kernighan and Ritchie - you might hurt yourself.
Gandhi had nothing to do with India gaining its independence. The British left when they felt it wasn't worth it to colonize India anymore - which was about the same time they abandoned most of their other colonies - check your history references.
The British loved Gandhi because he preached non-violence and passiveness - exactly what the British wanted to see in their subjects. The British-controlled media therefore projected Gandhi to be the leader of the masses.
The Hindus and Muslims were sworn enemies before Gandhi - the British were a mere distraction in their fight against each other.
The source for this is his ass.... but it's not true in the United States or Canada or Mexico
And you know this because?
I assume, of course, that you have driven several cars at very very high speeds. Also, you probably have reverse-engineered most modern cars to determine this is not true. I'm assuming also that you have worked with the designers of cars sold in the US to determine that this is not the case.
What? You don't say! You haven't done any of those? So did you just pull this out of your ass?
The truth is, most modern cars sold in the US DO have a speed governor. Try driving your car at about 150mph and you'll see it's there.
Fucking idiot.
Ahhh!!! WRONG! I use a Sprint PCS myself and know that's not true.
Sounds like you're confusing Blocked with Unavailable. Numbers will only show as blocked if someone has explicitly asked for caller-id blocking - and *68 will unlock that. Numbers can show up as unavailable for a variety of reasons.
Just tell her to hit *68 before dialing your number. That will unblock her number.
You're right. Despite the seeming ubiquity of cellphones in the US, they've achieved nowhere near the penetration they have in the UK. This is probably one of the reasons why.
Also, there is no need to. Crappy as the local Telco's in the US are they are nowhere near as bad as the state-run monopolies that most of the rest of the world has to put up with. In most countries in Europe you have to pay per minute while you are dialed in, for example.
I think you're oversimplifying this. If MS takes me to court and I say, "I didn't click agree" (even if I did). Tee burden of proof is on THEM not ME. In a court system that is innocent until PROVEN GUILTY, theoretically, I would be found innocent. Microsoft simply CAN'T prove (at least not yet) that _I_ clicked "AGREE".
Exactly. However, you have to say "I didn't click agree.". You can't say "I clicked it but it shouldn't stand because it was not a signature." The burden of proof is indeed on them to show that you agreed to it.
Btw, Innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal cases. Civil law only requires a determination of what is the more likely story. So in a civil case if the jury believes that you are probably lying even if they have some doubts you are still guilty. That's what got OJ.
No, because most companies reserve the "right" to change the terms of the EULA, without notification, at ANY TIME.
Horseshit! You can't change a EULA without notification. This is Contract Law 101. You can't change a contract unilaterally. Show me a EULA which reserves the right to change itself without notice and I'll show you a EULA that has no feet to stand on.
The whole concept of the EULA is so silly... I really hope it gets tossed out of court ASAP. Where else can the manufacturer of a product hold you under a contract you did not sign, and change the terms of that contract at any time without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes?
The concept of a EULA is not silly. A paper signature is only one way to prove that you actually indulged in the transaction. It is not necessary to prove that you actually did. And nowhere can anyone change the terms of a contract without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes. It hasn't happened in this instance and won't happen ever.
Wrong. The fact that there is no customer signature only means that there is no proof that the customer actually engaged in the transaction. It does not mean that the customer is actually not liable if they did. This is no different from a paper signature.
If the customer can make a reasonable case that they were not the ones involved, then they are not liable. With an electronic transaction that is relatively easy to do.
It's the same with EULAs. If you can prove that you were not the one accepting it then it is not binding.
However, just as you can't say "I bought that but there is no signature on it so I shouldn't be liable" with credit cards, you can't say "I accepted that but I'm not liable without a paper signature".
People, this really isn't that hard. A contract is something you agree to - whether it be a credit card or a EULA. The other party needs to prove that you agreed to it and the paper signatures are just a means of doing that. They are sufficient but not necessary to prove that you agreed to the contract.
1. Repost every post from the previous MS security release thread here changing MS to Apple/Unix/Linux and vice versa.
2. ???
3. Profit!
We all know that "piracy" is just a myth! I bought a CD once and I know a friend who bought one once and everyone on Slashdot says they buy CDs they like so obviously he is lying!
Are you one of those foreigners who have a hard time reading numbers on dollar bills?
Ever wonder why basic phone service costs you $40/month when they advertise $15?
Ask your local congressperson. The remaining $25 in charges is usually taxes.
Or when they promise you 10 cents/min for a low $5 monthly fee, but when you get the bill you see that 10 cents only applies to interstate calls. So not only did you get screwed out of $5, you also get charged 25 cents a minute to call your mother...
Firstly, that's the non-monopoly long-distance provider you chose, not your monopoly local telephone company. Secondly, it's not that hard. Separate rates apply to interstate calls, intrastate calls and local long distance. Make sure you check the rates you're getting on each. I've never had any trouble here. Don't blame the phone company for you not doing the due diligence to realize that the interstate rate doesn't apply to local calls.
There is a difference between the SCIENCE of software and computing and writing programs. Kinda like the difference between Mechanical Engineering and being able to fix a car. Please don't confuse the two.
As far as the subject at hand is concerned, asking someone to write code without a convenient editor (like emacs) and a debugging environment is just plain stupid. You wouldn't write code in real life without those tools - why would you want to even test someones ability to do something with artificial constraints that will never be met in any realistic scenario?
I have a Bachelors and a Masters degree in Computer Science and I cannot remember a time when I had to write code in a written exam that was not pseudo. Consider taking a different class if that is not ok with your professor.
someone in Illinois can easily buy a cheap used hardback over the Net from a New York dealer, read it and then resell it to someone in California, having spent, in effect, only a few dollars.
I can usually walk down to the one down the street from me, borrow the one I want and return it, having spent, in effect, nothing.
Yes, not all books are available at the local library but I'll wager the vast majority of the ones being traded are. And if it isn't available at the local one, they are usually willing to get it for you within a few days.
Sadly, though, with the economy the way it is, the library system is one of the areas that my city is considering cutting back on.
Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
I'll probably be modded down by the editors for saying this but that is exactly what this article is.
It doesn't argue against the actual conclusion or the logic used (granted that's kinda hard to do for a study that hasn't been released yet). Instead, there are the baseless allegations about the motivations (no evidence that they actually took money from Microsoft) and completely irrelevant links to other studies which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
When you can't attack the logic, attack the person making the conclusion.
That, in a nutshell is the definition of FUD and FUD is what the article in the Register is.