I've long been wanting to see just one new law introduced: it would say that in order to introduce any subsequent new laws, two existing laws must be repealed.
THe problem is that legislators feel they must legislate - and if they don't, there's a perception that they're not doing their jobs.
But they can't. Seriously. It is illegal now. In Texas, it is a state jail crime. (I am sure in other states too, but I do not know all the laws.) The FaceBook TOS forbids sharing passwords, and using another password is "accessing a computer or system without the express permission of the owner" and put both the user and the employer in violation of the Texas hacking statute.
Has this been tested in any court of law? Because I'm failing to see the connection between a company's ToS and state law -- one has nothing to do with the other. I'd go so far as to say that if you're logging in with a user id and a password that has been provided to you by the owner of that uid/password, no law has been broken because you're not obtaining unauthorized access. (Even if according to the ToS you are - again no connection between ToS and law.)
Also, my FaceBook includes information that is protected under a few employment acts. It includes things like race, sexual preference, age, and religious affiliation. By asking, they are breaking employment law.
Now this would seem to have some merit - though I 'd say this supports the argument of *not* needing new federal legislation for this specific issue.
But it's not a matter of "declaring yourself" gay - it's a matter of facebook targeting being able to infer your orientation based on the information you provide (friends, locations, likes, un-friendings, etc) - information that by itself doesn't mean anything, and that many people might not consider revealing when considered individually.
That said, the article didn't focus on gay men - it was basically a paragraph and a couple of scattered references. The actual point is that facebook can provide remarkably accurate ad targeting for any given demographic -- based largely on the inferences drawn from your activity.
While this was trollish, it touches on a valid point: it's not the gay demographic that's worth so much, it's any narrowly targeted regional demographic. The summary is worded as if gay men were the focus of the article, but it's just a single example culled out of a four-page article.
So... in order to escape being bankrupted by Company A's patent, Company B should give away their product for free? I think we skipped the "4. Profit!" step somewhere along the way. (Aside from the fact that patents don't work that way...)
This seems very central - yet the iPad is not a speech synthesis system. The app is not a speech synthesis system either, it is a speech-synthesis application that is designed to run on a general purpose tablet computer.
Can any IP-lawyer-types say if this minor semantic issue is potentially important?
GP is just doing what we slashdottians love to do: if we see an idea that we didn't think of ourselves, the idea must be flawed. Furthermore, it must be flawed in a way that is painfully obvious - because surely the designers of a system we failed to think of couldn't have thought of these obvious failure cases.
It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card.
I sense a conflict that $100 will not resolve. Let the fining (license feeing) into oblivion commence!
Indeed. People seem to think that leaving it open will be sufficient defense -- either glossing over or ignoring the fact that their equipment will be seized under warrant well before the authorities start asking questions that might reveal this defense. Ultimately the lack of offending content will be what saves them - not the fact that their APs are open.
Seems to me that they're tuning the parameters. If subscriptions went up by Y when X = 20, what effect does it have when X = 10?
The fact that they're adjusting down instead of up indicates that they've met with better-than-expected success at 20. If they incurred sufficient readership loss at 20, they would have increased it instead of decreased.
It will work for anybody in a similar position: producing a lot of content that people want to read, and are willing to pay to do so. Since NYT is unlikely to release detailed numbers, the only formula is trial and error to find the right balance between alienating customers and attracting them. (And this move indicates that they're still refining that balance.)
For years I've been telling fellow mobile developers that in exchange for ad revenue - or even for usage statistics - they're giving up AT MINIMUM the privacy of their users -- something which isn't theirs to give up in the first place. As ad libraries grow more complex, it's certainly no surprise to learn that there's more than privacy at stake.
When you incorporate libraries that give up part of your control over your application, you can also be certain that you're giving up your users' control over their device.
Or instead of writing down names an email addresses al day, people could hand you small pre-created cards with this information already present!. The only problem will be what to call this innovative invention.
Didn't you know that success is measured by the amount of funding you receive (profitability is irrelevant). So of *course* the thoughts of the successful entrepreneurs such as the one quoted are of utmost importance to the future of business.
So what you're saying is that you're supposed to feel a specific way when killing out of necessity; and if you don't feel that specific way it's a clear indication of mental problems?
Informed consent is not relevant - the article screwed it up. Informed consent is about treatment, not about how your corpse is disposed of once you are no longer treatable.
That phrase did not mean what the author thought it meant. He said:
You're also giving up your right to informed consent. Doctors don't have to tell you or your relatives what they will do to your body during an organ harvest operation because you'll be dead, with no legal rights.
Informed consent has nothing to do with telling anyone how your cadaver is being disposed. In the US, according to wikipedia:
Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires that significant risks be disclosed, as well as risks which would be of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.
It just means that you're aware of your treatment options, the risks associated with them, and how those risks apply to you. It doesn't go any further than that. I don't understand how an actual news article on the WSJ (as opposed to a blog post) got this one wrong.
How about if you leave government and get a cushy job at a corporation, you have to pay 50% taxes on all your earnings for 5 to pay back the government for the skills and insider information they gave you that this company is now leeching off of?
How about if you leave an employer and get a cushy job with a new employer, you have to pay 50% of your earnings to your prior employer to pay them back for the skills and experience they gave you that this company is now leeching off of? Gosh, that sounds sort of ridiculous doesn't it...
While I agree that this smells fishy, it's also possible that dude just wanted a better job. He did a lot of work during his time with the FTC; some of it was bound to go in a direction that MS liked. Some of it was bound to go in the other direction; and most of it probably had no relation to MS at all.
I'm not saying that there was no backroom dealing going on - but I am say that just because a write-up happens to highlight two incidents during a career that make this look suspicious, that shouldn't prevent us from looking at the rest of that career before reaching a conclusion.
And yes, I vote. Yes I'm politically active. I spend a few days researching the candidates coming up for election and choose the one that I think will do what I believe to be best for my city, state, county, or countr
And you want to know the coolest part of this? For every person such as you or me who does his due diligence and takes the time to understand the issues and the candidates... there are a hundred or a thousand who cast their votes blindly, or at best along the lines of whoever has been doing the most advertising, or has the most effective social campaign.
I don't know if it's always been this way or if I've just become more aware of it in the last decade or so, but I am rapidly reaching the point where I realize my vote does *not* matter - my single vote will be buried in the onslaught of ignorant and ill-informed votes, for all but the smallest of elections.
Slashdot Mirror
-- Ethanol-fueled, perma-banned from Slashdot on account of me being a douche-monkey and all.
FTFY
I've long been wanting to see just one new law introduced: it would say that in order to introduce any subsequent new laws, two existing laws must be repealed.
THe problem is that legislators feel they must legislate - and if they don't, there's a perception that they're not doing their jobs.
But they can't. Seriously. It is illegal now. In Texas, it is a state jail crime. (I am sure in other states too, but I do not know all the laws.) The FaceBook TOS forbids sharing passwords, and using another password is "accessing a computer or system without the express permission of the owner" and put both the user and the employer in violation of the Texas hacking statute.
Has this been tested in any court of law? Because I'm failing to see the connection between a company's ToS and state law -- one has nothing to do with the other. I'd go so far as to say that if you're logging in with a user id and a password that has been provided to you by the owner of that uid/password, no law has been broken because you're not obtaining unauthorized access. (Even if according to the ToS you are - again no connection between ToS and law.)
Also, my FaceBook includes information that is protected under a few employment acts. It includes things like race, sexual preference, age, and religious affiliation. By asking, they are breaking employment law.
Now this would seem to have some merit - though I 'd say this supports the argument of *not* needing new federal legislation for this specific issue.
But it's not a matter of "declaring yourself" gay - it's a matter of facebook targeting being able to infer your orientation based on the information you provide (friends, locations, likes, un-friendings, etc) - information that by itself doesn't mean anything, and that many people might not consider revealing when considered individually.
That said, the article didn't focus on gay men - it was basically a paragraph and a couple of scattered references. The actual point is that facebook can provide remarkably accurate ad targeting for any given demographic -- based largely on the inferences drawn from your activity.
While this was trollish, it touches on a valid point: it's not the gay demographic that's worth so much, it's any narrowly targeted regional demographic. The summary is worded as if gay men were the focus of the article, but it's just a single example culled out of a four-page article.
So... in order to escape being bankrupted by Company A's patent, Company B should give away their product for free? I think we skipped the "4. Profit!" step somewhere along the way. (Aside from the fact that patents don't work that way...)
in a speech synthesis system.
This seems very central - yet the iPad is not a speech synthesis system. The app is not a speech synthesis system either, it is a speech-synthesis application that is designed to run on a general purpose tablet computer.
Can any IP-lawyer-types say if this minor semantic issue is potentially important?
GP is just doing what we slashdottians love to do: if we see an idea that we didn't think of ourselves, the idea must be flawed. Furthermore, it must be flawed in a way that is painfully obvious - because surely the designers of a system we failed to think of couldn't have thought of these obvious failure cases.
The same one's that taught you roll vs. role?
Muphry strikes again!
stop selling infringing articles
It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card.
I sense a conflict that $100 will not resolve. Let the fining (license feeing) into oblivion commence!
Indeed. People seem to think that leaving it open will be sufficient defense -- either glossing over or ignoring the fact that their equipment will be seized under warrant well before the authorities start asking questions that might reveal this defense. Ultimately the lack of offending content will be what saves them - not the fact that their APs are open.
Seems to me that they're tuning the parameters. If subscriptions went up by Y when X = 20, what effect does it have when X = 10?
The fact that they're adjusting down instead of up indicates that they've met with better-than-expected success at 20. If they incurred sufficient readership loss at 20, they would have increased it instead of decreased.
"change processing fee" is just fucked up shit. I have a shop here in Argentina and I don't get charged anything to deposit cash.
GP was stretching to make his point, most banks provide this service without any fees associated.
It will work for anybody in a similar position: producing a lot of content that people want to read, and are willing to pay to do so. Since NYT is unlikely to release detailed numbers, the only formula is trial and error to find the right balance between alienating customers and attracting them. (And this move indicates that they're still refining that balance.)
It's working for them, that's actually pretty cool. Those who want it pay or circumvent; those who don't move on to other options. '
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the way it's supposed to work?
For years I've been telling fellow mobile developers that in exchange for ad revenue - or even for usage statistics - they're giving up AT MINIMUM the privacy of their users -- something which isn't theirs to give up in the first place. As ad libraries grow more complex, it's certainly no surprise to learn that there's more than privacy at stake.
When you incorporate libraries that give up part of your control over your application, you can also be certain that you're giving up your users' control over their device.
Or instead of writing down names an email addresses al day, people could hand you small pre-created cards with this information already present!. The only problem will be what to call this innovative invention.
Makes your look very stupid.
This.
Didn't you know that success is measured by the amount of funding you receive (profitability is irrelevant). So of *course* the thoughts of the successful entrepreneurs such as the one quoted are of utmost importance to the future of business.
So what you're saying is that you're supposed to feel a specific way when killing out of necessity; and if you don't feel that specific way it's a clear indication of mental problems?
Moving right along...
Informed consent is not relevant - the article screwed it up. Informed consent is about treatment, not about how your corpse is disposed of once you are no longer treatable.
That phrase did not mean what the author thought it meant.
He said:
You're also giving up your right to informed consent. Doctors don't have to tell you or your relatives what they will do to your body during an organ harvest operation because you'll be dead, with no legal rights.
Informed consent has nothing to do with telling anyone how your cadaver is being disposed. In the US, according to wikipedia:
Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires that significant risks be disclosed, as well as risks which would be of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.
It just means that you're aware of your treatment options, the risks associated with them, and how those risks apply to you. It doesn't go any further than that. I don't understand how an actual news article on the WSJ (as opposed to a blog post) got this one wrong.
Seriously? This from djlowe is what started the whole thing:
I sued your sister for giving me the clap, and she settled with me, too.
Oh, and, she wasn't that great a lay, either, though I couldn't get any money for that.
So, do I get modded up as Informative, too?
Regards,
dj
You call that classy?
How about if you leave government and get a cushy job at a corporation, you have to pay 50% taxes on all your earnings for 5 to pay back the government for the skills and insider information they gave you that this company is now leeching off of?
How about if you leave an employer and get a cushy job with a new employer, you have to pay 50% of your earnings to your prior employer to pay them back for the skills and experience they gave you that this company is now leeching off of? Gosh, that sounds sort of ridiculous doesn't it...
While I agree that this smells fishy, it's also possible that dude just wanted a better job. He did a lot of work during his time with the FTC; some of it was bound to go in a direction that MS liked. Some of it was bound to go in the other direction; and most of it probably had no relation to MS at all.
I'm not saying that there was no backroom dealing going on - but I am say that just because a write-up happens to highlight two incidents during a career that make this look suspicious, that shouldn't prevent us from looking at the rest of that career before reaching a conclusion.
And yes, I vote. Yes I'm politically active. I spend a few days researching the candidates coming up for election and choose the one that I think will do what I believe to be best for my city, state, county, or countr
And you want to know the coolest part of this? For every person such as you or me who does his due diligence and takes the time to understand the issues and the candidates... there are a hundred or a thousand who cast their votes blindly, or at best along the lines of whoever has been doing the most advertising, or has the most effective social campaign.
I don't know if it's always been this way or if I've just become more aware of it in the last decade or so, but I am rapidly reaching the point where I realize my vote does *not* matter - my single vote will be buried in the onslaught of ignorant and ill-informed votes, for all but the smallest of elections.