I have to disagree... What I have expressed is a correlation between gender and personality traits, whereas the parent has assigned a personality trait to a gender. That, I believe, is what defines sexism/racism/*ism: when you assign a trait to a person of that class. There is a difference, but there's also a huge gray area in between.
Futhermore, technically, you can't really make a sweeping generalization about a class. If you somehow take an average of the probability of a man/woman claiming to know something that he/she does not, the male average must come out to a number, as must the female average. All I have expressed is that, in my opinion, the male average would be much closer to 1 than the female average. You can disagree with that comparison, but you can't disagree with the fact that men and women must "tend" to be one way or the other.
You're nuts. Men are far more likely to claim to know something that they don't - especially when it's a "manly" thing like technology. Men tend to be more boastful and to try to show off, whereas women are more likely to play dumb. (And before you call me sexist, I am female)
But, the truth is, male or female, most people are scared of computers and scared to fiddle with programs. Go outside into that scary natural light, you'll find that it's true:-).
Oh, and yes, that was sexist. And if you walk around with the attitude of women not being tech-savy, yeah, you'll have a tough time meeting one who is because you walk in assuming the worst.
Yes, trade secrets are very much a legally protected thing.
You can read this article for a fuller description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret/. The important part of the article is this though:
The "quality of confidence" highlights the fact that trade secrets are a legal concept. With sufficient effort or through illegal acts (such as break and enter), competitors can usually obtain trade secrets. However, so long as the owner of the trade secret demonstrates that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the information confidential, the information remains a trade secret and is legally protected as such.
Harry Potter could potentially be called a trade secret, so the injunction does make sense.
Look, this is real simple. It's about contract violation. The publisher has a contract with bookstores across the world stating that no one will sell before a specific date. The bookstore violated that contract with the publisher. The publisher has effectively now violated the contract with all the other publishers. The court is issuing an injunction to attempt to limit the damage from the contract violation.
You can talk all you want about whether or not it hurts the publisher, but the fact is, it IS a contract and it is their RIGHT to protect that contract.
As far as the customers who purchased that book, think of it this way: If I somehow peek into Coca-Cola's factory and learn their secret recipe, I've obtained a trade secret. The court will stop me from revealing the trade secret. If I tell a friend, the court will stop my friend from revealing it - that's how trade secrets work. Although my friend did nothing wrong, my friend can not reveal the trade secret.
There are damn good reasons to protect contracts and trade secrets. And it's the publisher's right to decide when they want to exercise their right.
If you send an email to bubba@somecompany.com, you are making use of somecompany's servers and are draining their servers' speed just a bit. Did you get explicit permission to use their servers? No. The presumption on email is that, until otherwise told, you may send email whereever you like without the parent company's permission. (This was upheld in Hamidi vs Intel. There are similar cases involving scaping ebay's pages.).
Wi-Fi, I believe, works much the same way. Like email, use of a wireless connection without explicit permission does not affect another's use of it (as long as you are making moderate use - if you're downloading huge files, then that's different). Furthermore, it is impractical to require a person to discover the owner of a wireless connection simply to make non-destructive use of it, when the owner could just as easily secure it. If the owner fails to secure their wireless, they are giving implied consent.
This man was within reason to assume that the owner did not mind other people using his wireless . If the owner cared so much, why didn't he just secure his wireless connection - or just walk outside and tell the man to go away?
Anyway, it's a simple question: is there in fact a law explicitly stating that permission for any wireless connections must be obtained each and every time?
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree... What I have expressed is a correlation between gender and personality traits, whereas the parent has assigned a personality trait to a gender. That, I believe, is what defines sexism/racism/*ism: when you assign a trait to a person of that class. There is a difference, but there's also a huge gray area in between. Futhermore, technically, you can't really make a sweeping generalization about a class. If you somehow take an average of the probability of a man/woman claiming to know something that he/she does not, the male average must come out to a number, as must the female average. All I have expressed is that, in my opinion, the male average would be much closer to 1 than the female average. You can disagree with that comparison, but you can't disagree with the fact that men and women must "tend" to be one way or the other.
You're nuts. Men are far more likely to claim to know something that they don't - especially when it's a "manly" thing like technology. Men tend to be more boastful and to try to show off, whereas women are more likely to play dumb. (And before you call me sexist, I am female) But, the truth is, male or female, most people are scared of computers and scared to fiddle with programs. Go outside into that scary natural light, you'll find that it's true :-).
Oh, and yes, that was sexist. And if you walk around with the attitude of women not being tech-savy, yeah, you'll have a tough time meeting one who is because you walk in assuming the worst.
Look, this is real simple. It's about contract violation. The publisher has a contract with bookstores across the world stating that no one will sell before a specific date. The bookstore violated that contract with the publisher. The publisher has effectively now violated the contract with all the other publishers. The court is issuing an injunction to attempt to limit the damage from the contract violation. You can talk all you want about whether or not it hurts the publisher, but the fact is, it IS a contract and it is their RIGHT to protect that contract. As far as the customers who purchased that book, think of it this way: If I somehow peek into Coca-Cola's factory and learn their secret recipe, I've obtained a trade secret. The court will stop me from revealing the trade secret. If I tell a friend, the court will stop my friend from revealing it - that's how trade secrets work. Although my friend did nothing wrong, my friend can not reveal the trade secret. There are damn good reasons to protect contracts and trade secrets. And it's the publisher's right to decide when they want to exercise their right.
You say that Win XP sucks, but then you also ask why anyone would upgrade. Pick one or the other.
If you send an email to bubba@somecompany.com, you are making use of somecompany's servers and are draining their servers' speed just a bit. Did you get explicit permission to use their servers? No. The presumption on email is that, until otherwise told, you may send email whereever you like without the parent company's permission. (This was upheld in Hamidi vs Intel. There are similar cases involving scaping ebay's pages.). Wi-Fi, I believe, works much the same way. Like email, use of a wireless connection without explicit permission does not affect another's use of it (as long as you are making moderate use - if you're downloading huge files, then that's different). Furthermore, it is impractical to require a person to discover the owner of a wireless connection simply to make non-destructive use of it, when the owner could just as easily secure it. If the owner fails to secure their wireless, they are giving implied consent. This man was within reason to assume that the owner did not mind other people using his wireless . If the owner cared so much, why didn't he just secure his wireless connection - or just walk outside and tell the man to go away? Anyway, it's a simple question: is there in fact a law explicitly stating that permission for any wireless connections must be obtained each and every time?
What a fine way for child molestors to reach their target market. Efficiency at its best.