With the small, truck-sized caveat that axiom number 1 is entirely untrue, this is good advice.
Number 1 should be rephrased to say "If you want to secure an agreement, do it in writing." As written, the converse is not true--an agreement without writing does indeed exist and has consequences all the time. It's like the mythical "it's not a contract unless I signed it" that also isn't true but will never die.
Still, unless he requested the part back up front, that drive became Apple's property as soon as the replacement was installed. Also, unless it was requested and required that the drive be returned, there's likely no way it can be recovered. It got binned with the other bad drives.
This is a simple case of whining because the customer didn't really know what the hell he was doing, when all he needed to know was right in front of him the whole time, not bound in some dusty, obscure location in an archaic form of legalese.
Flat rate repair does not mean universally unitary rate repair. It just means that for the kinds of repairs that are covered, the same price is charged. It can be separated by nature of problem, product family, or level of service based.
For example, you could have desktops at $249, notebooks at $299. Or iMacs/Macbooks at $249, Pro products at a different price. Or replacement of non-display hardware components at one price, LCD replacement at another, and complete system replacement at another. I have no idea how they do it, but it could be any of these.
It's like a prix fixe meal--you might have one set of options at $45 and another at $60. It's still prix fixe, even if it's not the same fixed price for any possible choice. It only means you know ahead of time what you're going to be paying and there's no further hemming and hawing.
If, for example, it goes in because it shuts down randomly and it seems to be a bad thermal sensor but turns out to be the power supply, you've already paid. Whatever surprises happen in the tech's hands are irrelevant. There are no additional labor, diagnostic, or repair charges. You've paid the flat rate for that particular repair.
Small markets exist, and they have to foot the bill to upgrade to digital.
I stand by my statement this isn't business, this is this type of snafu has the earmarks of government. That position makes no sense. Broadcasters that can't afford to go digital will go away and be replaced with ones that can. There's no snafu here.
They had over a decade to make plans and budget accordingly. Three years' worth of revenue is not a terrible hurdle. Financing is available, and amortizing it over 20 years or so would put it within reach of smart planners with reasonable lenders. The benefit/risk analysis in your 2002 article does not apply today with the deadline in sight.
It's not a fleecing. Every change kills someone off--it's part of the natural progression of things. Any small station that can't afford the conversion costs will be replaced with a start-up replacement more able to enter the market, unless they sell out to a large corporation, which is certainly their choice. I am failing to see anything resembling a snafu anywhere...just poor business management. If small stations aren't generating enough revenue, then perhaps they need to reevaluate their business model.
Losing a few small stations barely able to operate as-is is a small price to pay for freeing up the spectrum for other uses more beneficial to society and the economy. Those small stations are going to fold sooner or later regardless if they're taking in that little money.
It's not the "government world." Anyone who can afford an FCC broadcasting license can afford to broadcast in digital. This doesn't close any doors on anyone but broadcasters running in the red. They have service and contingency budgets, right? Maintenance and replacement of hardware is a fact of life.
I'd like to know what an "indie" broadcast TV station would be. I don't believe they exist. Small time "broadcasters" do it on the Internet.
It totally sucks that the government regulates things! Air traffic control? Psh. Waste of money. A road system that ensures transcontinental travel is always possible? Where did they get THAT power? Long distance electric transmission lines? Let the flooded cities do without power! They can just rebuild their shit--without power!
Christ.
You act like designating sections of the spectrum for certain uses, which is in EVERYONE'S benefit, is some arbitrary intrusion into your bedroom. Digital cameras don't transmit high power EM energy across dozens of square miles.
The government doesn't care if you buy a digital TV.
They want the spectrum, and frankly carrying dead weight for some dinosaur broadcast stations is a waste of time. If they don't have a strategy for switching to digital broadcasting, then away they go. Too bad, so sad, welcome to the business world.
Viewership declines because the content sucks compared to other sources (movies, cable, Internet, etc.). That's the long and the short of it. People who can't afford cable aren't going to have any measurable impact on that.
That's not at all accurate. Knowing or intentional failure to report a felony is itself an offense in most US jurisdictions. This is usually a misdemeanor and punishment varies.
Consider Ohio's Title 29, 2921.22 and in California, a felony charge in and of itself for certain designated classes to knowingly (or intentionally) failing to notify authorities. There is an ongoing debate on whether certain kinds of technical professionals are or are not included in these classes and whether or not they should be, if the answer to the former is "no." Frankly, part of being a professional is a higher burden of responsibility.
Further, sua sponte very rarely in legal discourse applies to a party. It is usually a reflexive indicator of the application of an authority's own power (usually a court, but oftentimes government agencies and certain administrative units). Just FYI.
Stupid or not, it is a valid instruction from someone in a position to give instructions. The detention was for insubordination, plain and simple.
It is called picking your battles, and if you think not following the directive of an instructor in an academic setting is some sort of crusade for righteousness, it's a sad state of affairs. There are real, honest-to-God battles to fight. A mouthy and insubordinate 17 year old failing to do as instructed is not one of them.
It could not possibly matter less whether he was told to use IE or Firefox, nor could the reason why one was chosen over the other be less important.
When you're in an environment that requires it, absolutely. There is nothing to be gained by being contrary and flippant for procedural contexts.
He wouldn't have been disruptive, nor would it damage the computer in question. Someone shouldn't be punished if there wasn't any harm done.
Refusing to comply with an instruction is grounds for discipline in and of itself. The teacher is in charge in the classroom. The place for protest or complaint is elsewhere. Knwoing when to fight is at least as important as how. The computer is utterly irrelevant. The student does not get to make policy decisions regarding the parameters of the assignment, the authority of the instructor on procedural matters, or the relative merits of a particular software application. It is beyond the scope of the student's discretion and authority. Refusing to comply is deleterious to the clear hierarchy in a classroom environment. Discipline and order is critical when dealing with 30+ teenagers and being stifled in a too-short school year.
Clearly, you don't have experience on the other side of the desks in a classroom.
Ahh, you mean like my wife being told to redo charts at her clinic because the paper used was a shade off?
Absolutely. There are procedural requirements to filing and sorting, which is essential in any litigation and insurance interactions at the administrative level. Forms are standardized for a reason. Knock bureaucracy all you want in passing, but it is essential to the efficient operation of large organizations and critical when you're receiving boxes of documents and billing out at $500+ an hour.
That's completely independent of the life-saving potential that clarity and standards and practices serve in a medical environment.
re-creating on the new paper could lead to errors (if one record were not recreated, for example) and in general be a waste of her time.
Then she is either incompetent or overworked. If done correctly the first time, the problem would be avoided. Good habits are essential in an industry involving the care of other lives. In that situation, like here, there is nothing to be gained. There will not be a paper liberation, a tactical victory, or anything else. It is a complete waste of time and energy to refuse to comply with established procedure, especially where it saves lives, saves money, and protects liability.
Or like when I questioned why we print orders / invoices with white text in black boxes as column headings.
Clarity and error prevention. It uses a negligible amount of increased toner in terms of volume per page and it has a substantial impact on readability and accuracy. It's exactly the same with alternating table rows with a pale grey background.
Even still, raising the question in an appropriate manner is entirely different from refusing to print your invoices in that manner when directly required to do so by a superior, and by doing so, creating a disruption on the office floor instead of dealing with the situation in private.
Your myopic disregard for procedure and its role is just as childish as your linking of "questioning authority" with a software policy at a high school.
But you're right, next time I won't question anything.
Unsurprisingly, your broad strokes miss the point entirely. Subtlety and precision clearly are not valued highly. Firefox has nothing to do with this issue, nor does principled stands to inappropriate uses of authority, nor does questioning come into play.
This was an insubordinate, disruptive act by a student over a matter which has no moral, social, or economic value and for which no appropriate acts were taken by the student. This student overstepped his authority for no good reason except to be a pain in the ass. The merits of Firefox are not at stake. The practice of being a good citizen and c
That's a happy sound bite, but it's utterly moronic here.
This isn't some stand against authority. It's not a principled anything. It's a kid who was given an instruction by someone entitled to do so, and who failed to comply. That's the end of it. It doesn't matter if it's arbitrary that Firefox isn't permitted on the machines. It's not the student's decision to make.
There is no injustice here. This "defy authority" crap is juvenile and pompously self-righteous, but that's par for the course for Slashdot.
If you're asked to print a memo on green paper, print the damn thing on green paper. There is no ground to be taken by questioning the decision. Your adolescent protest notwithstanding, society is hierarchical by design. Deal with it or use it to your advantage, but quit bitching.
What are you talking about? I haven't seen a school with just one IT person in over a decade.
Hell, the elementary school down the street has two full time IT staff members, and they are supported by an entire IT/IS department for the district should the need arise. There are networks, Internet connections, email servers, and network storage space to be maintained even at a typical middle school. There's no way one of the teachers supports the typical school in any official capacity.
As for "not a lot of formal IT policies", I suggest you're out of touch there as well. Ask a neighborhood kid to take a look at their student handbook. I imagine you'll find two or three pages of policies for the use of electronics and computers in the school.
It's 2007. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, the school, or at the very least, the district, has a professional IT staff.
It boils down to this: "Apple turns the computer into something more resembling a television." That's exactly right, and framing it as a Bad Thing(tm) is not unexpected, but certainly ludicrous. Linux wouldn't have gotten off the ground on Apple machines, no. That would be contrary to the computer-as-an-appliance model.
Under no contorted version of reality would Apple ever be the sole vendor of computers. If everyone followed the Apple model, you can be absolutely certain that Linux would have a better hold on the marketplace. Getting the hardware and software from the same people (IBM, Apple, Amiga, SGI--the "dinosaurs") would have ensured that some cross-compatible development would go on; a common reference design for low-end competitors to cut costs, and customizable for each vendor.
Most computer resellers wouldn't have had the resources to develop an end-to-end solution on their own; the thought of using something free and not having to get in bed with another corporation would have clearly been desirable. Microsoft won because it got there first, not because it is or was the "lesser evil" (are you kidding me?!). Microsoft solved the problem of manufacturers having to do their own OS and support, making it cheap for them to enter the market. There was no such thing as Linux; there was no cheaper option, so they sucked it up and signed on with MS. It was the cheapest, easiest path.
If the other model had succeeded, you'd see all kinds of companies jumping at the chance to have a free OS that they could have tweaked to their desires, and be beholden to Microsoft for security, connectivity, or making their products functional. It's the detached expectations that created the 800-pound gorilla. If each company were expected to develop and sell a wholly working product like Apple does, the budget brands would be using Linux to do it, and there'd be no OS monopoly--just several different OSes that worked together.
Well, first the TWO working pumps have to fail, and then the backup has to fail, and by that time I would think they'd shut down the reactor.
As it is, it's working fine, and a pump is not a thin red line separating "life goes on" and "catastrophe"--this isn't even a big power reactor.
If both of the main pumps were to go offline, it would be a bad call not to shut down the reactor at that point, but even if they waited for the backup to fail (three pump failures in a row? What are the odds?), it's still possible for them to shut down the reactor and do a controlled release within safety limits if necessary. Hardly the end of the world, or even a town.
I don't see how a hurried tone automatically translates to being rude. She was rightly upset to think that she was being brushed off by a slacking employee based on the response (given her assumption that poster was an employee).
That "sap" WASN'T there to help, which is the cause of her going to the manager--rightly so. Minimum wage or not, they're getting paid to do a job.
So I don't see where you get that she was rude. That doesn't make the story not funny, but you're piling an awful lot on the woman for what seems to be nothing at all.
A Cease and Desist doesn't abridge, truncate, bifurcate, transmogrify, or in any way alter your rights.
Sending a letter does not commit you to any course of action. Period. You can't (successfully) sue for receiving a C&D...come on, Slashdot's legal IQ is low, but that low? Really?
Not being able to get the latest Britney Spears album on your terms is NOT a civil rights issue. It's not a criminal law issue.
The law is not unjust. The RIAA is unjust. Civil disobedience just comes off as whiny entitlement issues, which is unsurprising, since that's exactly what it is. That increases substantially when it's not even real civil obedience. Where are the forums? The sit-ins? The people willing to be arrested, to speak for their cause rationally, calmly, and lucidly?
This is all absent because there is no cause. You don't like the business model of an industry consortium. Too fucking bad. Buy from somewhere else--if they see the profit stream going somewhere else, they'll go there. If they see the profit stream drying up (because people on the whole aren't 'rewarding' artists they do like of their own free will, despite a few people who do), they squeeze tighter. Yes, they're greedy. It's a corporation; we encourage that.
You want to show them an economic lesson? Cut demand. Demand isn't measured solely in dollars. Do it right. Civil disobedience involves sacrifice, and even if it were called for, you're not doing it. Instead, you're just proving their point.
What should be important is that Slashdot understands it, and you've handedly demonstrated that you don't.
If Verizon wins this case, it sets no precedent whatsoever. If it evolves to a precedential ruling, at best it will simply cause damage to the notion of suing for any kind of open source infringement, by invalidating restrictions that can't be enforced (granting distributions rights without a contract) or that never legally existed (requires no notice or assent--users are not so much as presented with the GPL prior to download).
Not all copyright infringement is stealing (there are other ways to infringe), and for what it's worth, it's difficult to "steal" GPL software--it comes with the right to redistribute, to modify, and to copy indefinitely, so the only property right that can really be unduly taken by a wrongdoer is attribution. That then poses a problem for piracy, since there is no money involved and no restrictions on pure reproduction.
From there, it's not clear whether the GPL violation ultimately will be judged copyright infringement, since Verizon has an unlimited, irrevocable right to copy the exact material copyrighted by BusyBox without restriction. New Verizon code would be copyrighted by Verizon, and so failure to disclose its own code only becomes copyright infringement through the operation of the GPL, a contract...only lots of people don't want to say that the GPL is a contract, so without this link, there's no telling where a court might go with it. That's why when the day comes that someone really pushes the issue of the GPL, it might not go the way you're hoping.
So if they said Verizon was stealing or pirating, they'd be mistaken. They are infringing on copyright, but more specifically they are violating the GPL. Moreover, why would you want to lose that specificity in the headline? Talking about the GPL and potential repercussions of noncompliance raises the profile of open source software.
You are wrong. GPL violation is _not_ copyright infringement. Distributing software without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. Wow. You were SO close. GPL violation sparks what action? Termination of license. Distributing without a license is what? Distribution without permission. Distribution without permission is what? Copyright infringement.
That is an important distinction, because it means the copyright infringement has happened, and distributing the source code now doesn't help anymore. It's not a distinction at all! You're living a fiction totally unsupported by the law. There is no mechanism--let me repeat--there is NO mechanism, for perpetually terminating a GPL user's license. You can seek an injunction requiring a company to stop sales until they comply with the license. You can seek damages for the failure to comply. If they start complying, though, there's nothing you can do. Distributing source puts them in compliance and they can go on their merry way. The GPL is a grant to the world--the entire world. There is no mechanism in the GPL that says 'anyone EXCEPT you, you, and you."
You cannot sue anyone for breach of the GPL Then this suit would not exist. You can't bring a copyright infringement suit without an infringing act. Either there is no license or the license has been breached. In this case, it's an alleged breach, because you cannot deny the existence of a license for anything released unilaterally under an open source license.
It's bad nitpicking, for several reasons, not the least of which being that GPL violation is copyright infringement, among other things, so you're in distinction-without-a-difference land. Breach of license is a means of infringing on a copyright, and frankly is more useful as a term that "he violated my copyright!" which urges the followup question, "How?" This takes care of both in one fell swoop.
Further, what you claim has never been established or held to be true in a US court. The GNU Public License is indeed a license--a license extending beyond statutory provisions. The text therefore forms a license agreement, since you can only modify a statutory scheme by operation of contract.
This fantasy framework of yours is a fun way to think of things, but it's not grounded in reality. One must also still notify a noncomplying party of their noncompliance--termination is automatic, but it's not repudiation. There's nothing in the toolbox that allows you to pretend that distribution wasn't originally authorized.
To put things in a more concrete perspective, a holdover tenant is not a trespasser. Someone who had permission to distribute (granted by the copyright owner unilaterally without even meeting the prospective distributors) cannot be treated as though they never had such permission. You can seek an injunction. You can seek damages. You can't say they had no rights whatsoever, though. It just doesn't work, because the fact is that they did indeed have permission to distribute which was not instantaneously coupled with a restriction--there is no provision requiring immediate release (only a reasonable timeframe standard). Violation of the license is a multiple-step process.
There's an ongoing debate about whether, upon notice of termination, what interest is being misappropriated by the "GPL violator." Frankly, most courts are going to see it the way they see everything else: you've violated a contract which gave you a license. That license can of course be terminated, but the GPL has no provision for blacklisting--each conveyed copy arguably restarts the process, because the GPL is an imperfect tool. You can't skip to "there's no license in play" because it simply isn't true.
So if load up a PC with a copy of windows i bought in a back alley in china for $1 and "resell" the hardware/software in the US then im legally in the clear With regard to the resale, yes.
The trouble is that you purchased illicit goods knowing them to be of questionable origin (strike one, bad faith), installed unlicensed software (strike two, copyright infringement), aren't licensed to do business with China (strike three, multiple no-nos [tax, commercial code, etc.]), and misrepresented what you're selling as legitimate (strike four, fraud). You'll get busted for any number of things. Resale of goods purchased in good faith would not be one of them.
Now, had you simply bought the computer from a vendor assuming it to be legitimate and having no reason to suspect otherwise, you'd be fine. You'd also be in the position of a reseller here...as opposed to your off-base hypothetical that supposes Verizon is installing GPL-violating software and trying to pass it off. Unless Verizon knew, orchestrated, or had reason to suspect that Actiontec was violating its license terms, it has nothing to do with this.
They're striating the market. They want to raise prices on content, but they don't want to look like they're raising prices on content. This way, the DRM crap will become a discount version--a reduced set of rights for a lower cost. The "premium" DVD will now act essentially as a VHS tape or a DVD without encryption or an audio CD.
The format changes and the license changes over time. The problem with equitable use arguments is that it presumes all media purchases are created equal. They're not. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a restriction on them selling something less to you for a lower price, which is exactly what they did when they entered the digital marketplace.
With this two-version setup, they've essentially embraced the shareware model of business. Yeah, that's basically a dinosaur too, but at least they're moving into the 1990s. Change doesn't come easily. This is something of a positive step. Just a few dozen more to go.
Civil damages are not punishments. 'Cruel and unusual punishment' refers to deprivation of personal liberty--imprisonment, certain labor conditions, and the like. We don't have stockades or stonings anymore, partly because of this.
It's also disingenuous to report a life sentence for "$150 worth of video tapes"--if you were familiar with the case you'd know that he had multiple prior theft, robbery, and misdemeanor charges along with, as I recall, having escaped from prison. It was not a soccer mom in an isolated burst of kleptomania.
Under the FRCP, if you don't act with regard to instructions and pleadings at the right time, you have waived your right to complain about them later. There was ample opportunity to challenge the amount in question beforehand. There was ample opportunity to settle before hand. There was ample opportunity to plead out beforehand. She did the deed, and she tried to get off the hook entirely. It backfired. Lesson learned.
Don't lie to juries. Don't lie to the court. Pick a more sympathetic victim to rally behind.
Slashdot Mirror
With the small, truck-sized caveat that axiom number 1 is entirely untrue, this is good advice.
Number 1 should be rephrased to say "If you want to secure an agreement, do it in writing." As written, the converse is not true--an agreement without writing does indeed exist and has consequences all the time. It's like the mythical "it's not a contract unless I signed it" that also isn't true but will never die.
Still, unless he requested the part back up front, that drive became Apple's property as soon as the replacement was installed. Also, unless it was requested and required that the drive be returned, there's likely no way it can be recovered. It got binned with the other bad drives.
This is a simple case of whining because the customer didn't really know what the hell he was doing, when all he needed to know was right in front of him the whole time, not bound in some dusty, obscure location in an archaic form of legalese.
Hedonistic?
You use that word, but I do not think it means,[sic] what you think it means.
A fairly typical one?
Flat rate repair does not mean universally unitary rate repair. It just means that for the kinds of repairs that are covered, the same price is charged. It can be separated by nature of problem, product family, or level of service based.
For example, you could have desktops at $249, notebooks at $299. Or iMacs/Macbooks at $249, Pro products at a different price. Or replacement of non-display hardware components at one price, LCD replacement at another, and complete system replacement at another. I have no idea how they do it, but it could be any of these.
It's like a prix fixe meal--you might have one set of options at $45 and another at $60. It's still prix fixe, even if it's not the same fixed price for any possible choice. It only means you know ahead of time what you're going to be paying and there's no further hemming and hawing.
If, for example, it goes in because it shuts down randomly and it seems to be a bad thermal sensor but turns out to be the power supply, you've already paid. Whatever surprises happen in the tech's hands are irrelevant. There are no additional labor, diagnostic, or repair charges. You've paid the flat rate for that particular repair.
I stand by my statement this isn't business, this is this type of snafu has the earmarks of government. That position makes no sense. Broadcasters that can't afford to go digital will go away and be replaced with ones that can. There's no snafu here.
They had over a decade to make plans and budget accordingly. Three years' worth of revenue is not a terrible hurdle. Financing is available, and amortizing it over 20 years or so would put it within reach of smart planners with reasonable lenders. The benefit/risk analysis in your 2002 article does not apply today with the deadline in sight.
It's not a fleecing. Every change kills someone off--it's part of the natural progression of things. Any small station that can't afford the conversion costs will be replaced with a start-up replacement more able to enter the market, unless they sell out to a large corporation, which is certainly their choice. I am failing to see anything resembling a snafu anywhere...just poor business management. If small stations aren't generating enough revenue, then perhaps they need to reevaluate their business model.
Losing a few small stations barely able to operate as-is is a small price to pay for freeing up the spectrum for other uses more beneficial to society and the economy. Those small stations are going to fold sooner or later regardless if they're taking in that little money.
It's not the "government world." Anyone who can afford an FCC broadcasting license can afford to broadcast in digital. This doesn't close any doors on anyone but broadcasters running in the red. They have service and contingency budgets, right? Maintenance and replacement of hardware is a fact of life.
I'd like to know what an "indie" broadcast TV station would be. I don't believe they exist. Small time "broadcasters" do it on the Internet.
It totally sucks that the government regulates things! Air traffic control? Psh. Waste of money. A road system that ensures transcontinental travel is always possible? Where did they get THAT power? Long distance electric transmission lines? Let the flooded cities do without power! They can just rebuild their shit--without power!
Christ.
You act like designating sections of the spectrum for certain uses, which is in EVERYONE'S benefit, is some arbitrary intrusion into your bedroom. Digital cameras don't transmit high power EM energy across dozens of square miles.
The government doesn't care if you buy a digital TV.
They want the spectrum, and frankly carrying dead weight for some dinosaur broadcast stations is a waste of time. If they don't have a strategy for switching to digital broadcasting, then away they go. Too bad, so sad, welcome to the business world.
Viewership declines because the content sucks compared to other sources (movies, cable, Internet, etc.). That's the long and the short of it. People who can't afford cable aren't going to have any measurable impact on that.
That's not at all accurate. Knowing or intentional failure to report a felony is itself an offense in most US jurisdictions. This is usually a misdemeanor and punishment varies.
Consider Ohio's Title 29, 2921.22 and in California, a felony charge in and of itself for certain designated classes to knowingly (or intentionally) failing to notify authorities. There is an ongoing debate on whether certain kinds of technical professionals are or are not included in these classes and whether or not they should be, if the answer to the former is "no." Frankly, part of being a professional is a higher burden of responsibility.
Further, sua sponte very rarely in legal discourse applies to a party. It is usually a reflexive indicator of the application of an authority's own power (usually a court, but oftentimes government agencies and certain administrative units). Just FYI.
Stupid or not, it is a valid instruction from someone in a position to give instructions. The detention was for insubordination, plain and simple.
It is called picking your battles, and if you think not following the directive of an instructor in an academic setting is some sort of crusade for righteousness, it's a sad state of affairs. There are real, honest-to-God battles to fight. A mouthy and insubordinate 17 year old failing to do as instructed is not one of them.
It could not possibly matter less whether he was told to use IE or Firefox, nor could the reason why one was chosen over the other be less important.
Obey simply because you're told to?
When you're in an environment that requires it, absolutely. There is nothing to be gained by being contrary and flippant for procedural contexts.
He wouldn't have been disruptive, nor would it damage the computer in question. Someone shouldn't be punished if there wasn't any harm done.
Refusing to comply with an instruction is grounds for discipline in and of itself. The teacher is in charge in the classroom. The place for protest or complaint is elsewhere. Knwoing when to fight is at least as important as how. The computer is utterly irrelevant. The student does not get to make policy decisions regarding the parameters of the assignment, the authority of the instructor on procedural matters, or the relative merits of a particular software application. It is beyond the scope of the student's discretion and authority. Refusing to comply is deleterious to the clear hierarchy in a classroom environment. Discipline and order is critical when dealing with 30+ teenagers and being stifled in a too-short school year.
Clearly, you don't have experience on the other side of the desks in a classroom.
Ahh, you mean like my wife being told to redo charts at her clinic because the paper used was a shade off?
Absolutely. There are procedural requirements to filing and sorting, which is essential in any litigation and insurance interactions at the administrative level. Forms are standardized for a reason. Knock bureaucracy all you want in passing, but it is essential to the efficient operation of large organizations and critical when you're receiving boxes of documents and billing out at $500+ an hour.
That's completely independent of the life-saving potential that clarity and standards and practices serve in a medical environment.
re-creating on the new paper could lead to errors (if one record were not recreated, for example) and in general be a waste of her time.
Then she is either incompetent or overworked. If done correctly the first time, the problem would be avoided. Good habits are essential in an industry involving the care of other lives. In that situation, like here, there is nothing to be gained. There will not be a paper liberation, a tactical victory, or anything else. It is a complete waste of time and energy to refuse to comply with established procedure, especially where it saves lives, saves money, and protects liability.
Or like when I questioned why we print orders / invoices with white text in black boxes as column headings.
Clarity and error prevention. It uses a negligible amount of increased toner in terms of volume per page and it has a substantial impact on readability and accuracy. It's exactly the same with alternating table rows with a pale grey background.
Even still, raising the question in an appropriate manner is entirely different from refusing to print your invoices in that manner when directly required to do so by a superior, and by doing so, creating a disruption on the office floor instead of dealing with the situation in private.
Your myopic disregard for procedure and its role is just as childish as your linking of "questioning authority" with a software policy at a high school.
But you're right, next time I won't question anything.
Unsurprisingly, your broad strokes miss the point entirely. Subtlety and precision clearly are not valued highly. Firefox has nothing to do with this issue, nor does principled stands to inappropriate uses of authority, nor does questioning come into play.
This was an insubordinate, disruptive act by a student over a matter which has no moral, social, or economic value and for which no appropriate acts were taken by the student. This student overstepped his authority for no good reason except to be a pain in the ass. The merits of Firefox are not at stake. The practice of being a good citizen and c
That's a happy sound bite, but it's utterly moronic here.
This isn't some stand against authority. It's not a principled anything. It's a kid who was given an instruction by someone entitled to do so, and who failed to comply. That's the end of it. It doesn't matter if it's arbitrary that Firefox isn't permitted on the machines. It's not the student's decision to make.
There is no injustice here. This "defy authority" crap is juvenile and pompously self-righteous, but that's par for the course for Slashdot.
If you're asked to print a memo on green paper, print the damn thing on green paper. There is no ground to be taken by questioning the decision. Your adolescent protest notwithstanding, society is hierarchical by design. Deal with it or use it to your advantage, but quit bitching.
What are you talking about? I haven't seen a school with just one IT person in over a decade.
Hell, the elementary school down the street has two full time IT staff members, and they are supported by an entire IT/IS department for the district should the need arise. There are networks, Internet connections, email servers, and network storage space to be maintained even at a typical middle school. There's no way one of the teachers supports the typical school in any official capacity.
As for "not a lot of formal IT policies", I suggest you're out of touch there as well. Ask a neighborhood kid to take a look at their student handbook. I imagine you'll find two or three pages of policies for the use of electronics and computers in the school.
It's 2007. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, the school, or at the very least, the district, has a professional IT staff.
No text.
That's utterly absurd.
It boils down to this: "Apple turns the computer into something more resembling a television." That's exactly right, and framing it as a Bad Thing(tm) is not unexpected, but certainly ludicrous. Linux wouldn't have gotten off the ground on Apple machines, no. That would be contrary to the computer-as-an-appliance model.
Under no contorted version of reality would Apple ever be the sole vendor of computers. If everyone followed the Apple model, you can be absolutely certain that Linux would have a better hold on the marketplace. Getting the hardware and software from the same people (IBM, Apple, Amiga, SGI--the "dinosaurs") would have ensured that some cross-compatible development would go on; a common reference design for low-end competitors to cut costs, and customizable for each vendor.
Most computer resellers wouldn't have had the resources to develop an end-to-end solution on their own; the thought of using something free and not having to get in bed with another corporation would have clearly been desirable. Microsoft won because it got there first, not because it is or was the "lesser evil" (are you kidding me?!). Microsoft solved the problem of manufacturers having to do their own OS and support, making it cheap for them to enter the market. There was no such thing as Linux; there was no cheaper option, so they sucked it up and signed on with MS. It was the cheapest, easiest path.
If the other model had succeeded, you'd see all kinds of companies jumping at the chance to have a free OS that they could have tweaked to their desires, and be beholden to Microsoft for security, connectivity, or making their products functional. It's the detached expectations that created the 800-pound gorilla. If each company were expected to develop and sell a wholly working product like Apple does, the budget brands would be using Linux to do it, and there'd be no OS monopoly--just several different OSes that worked together.
Well, first the TWO working pumps have to fail, and then the backup has to fail, and by that time I would think they'd shut down the reactor.
As it is, it's working fine, and a pump is not a thin red line separating "life goes on" and "catastrophe"--this isn't even a big power reactor.
If both of the main pumps were to go offline, it would be a bad call not to shut down the reactor at that point, but even if they waited for the backup to fail (three pump failures in a row? What are the odds?), it's still possible for them to shut down the reactor and do a controlled release within safety limits if necessary. Hardly the end of the world, or even a town.
I don't see how a hurried tone automatically translates to being rude. She was rightly upset to think that she was being brushed off by a slacking employee based on the response (given her assumption that poster was an employee).
That "sap" WASN'T there to help, which is the cause of her going to the manager--rightly so. Minimum wage or not, they're getting paid to do a job.
So I don't see where you get that she was rude. That doesn't make the story not funny, but you're piling an awful lot on the woman for what seems to be nothing at all.
A Cease and Desist doesn't abridge, truncate, bifurcate, transmogrify, or in any way alter your rights.
Sending a letter does not commit you to any course of action. Period. You can't (successfully) sue for receiving a C&D...come on, Slashdot's legal IQ is low, but that low? Really?
Who modded up this drivel?
Not being able to get the latest Britney Spears album on your terms is NOT a civil rights issue. It's not a criminal law issue.
The law is not unjust. The RIAA is unjust. Civil disobedience just comes off as whiny entitlement issues, which is unsurprising, since that's exactly what it is. That increases substantially when it's not even real civil obedience. Where are the forums? The sit-ins? The people willing to be arrested, to speak for their cause rationally, calmly, and lucidly?
This is all absent because there is no cause. You don't like the business model of an industry consortium. Too fucking bad. Buy from somewhere else--if they see the profit stream going somewhere else, they'll go there. If they see the profit stream drying up (because people on the whole aren't 'rewarding' artists they do like of their own free will, despite a few people who do), they squeeze tighter. Yes, they're greedy. It's a corporation; we encourage that.
You want to show them an economic lesson? Cut demand. Demand isn't measured solely in dollars. Do it right. Civil disobedience involves sacrifice, and even if it were called for, you're not doing it. Instead, you're just proving their point.
Maybe so :)
What should be important is that Slashdot understands it, and you've handedly demonstrated that you don't.
If Verizon wins this case, it sets no precedent whatsoever. If it evolves to a precedential ruling, at best it will simply cause damage to the notion of suing for any kind of open source infringement, by invalidating restrictions that can't be enforced (granting distributions rights without a contract) or that never legally existed (requires no notice or assent--users are not so much as presented with the GPL prior to download).
Not all copyright infringement is stealing (there are other ways to infringe), and for what it's worth, it's difficult to "steal" GPL software--it comes with the right to redistribute, to modify, and to copy indefinitely, so the only property right that can really be unduly taken by a wrongdoer is attribution. That then poses a problem for piracy, since there is no money involved and no restrictions on pure reproduction.
From there, it's not clear whether the GPL violation ultimately will be judged copyright infringement, since Verizon has an unlimited, irrevocable right to copy the exact material copyrighted by BusyBox without restriction. New Verizon code would be copyrighted by Verizon, and so failure to disclose its own code only becomes copyright infringement through the operation of the GPL, a contract...only lots of people don't want to say that the GPL is a contract, so without this link, there's no telling where a court might go with it. That's why when the day comes that someone really pushes the issue of the GPL, it might not go the way you're hoping.
So if they said Verizon was stealing or pirating, they'd be mistaken. They are infringing on copyright, but more specifically they are violating the GPL. Moreover, why would you want to lose that specificity in the headline? Talking about the GPL and potential repercussions of noncompliance raises the profile of open source software.
It's bad nitpicking, for several reasons, not the least of which being that GPL violation is copyright infringement, among other things, so you're in distinction-without-a-difference land. Breach of license is a means of infringing on a copyright, and frankly is more useful as a term that "he violated my copyright!" which urges the followup question, "How?" This takes care of both in one fell swoop.
Further, what you claim has never been established or held to be true in a US court. The GNU Public License is indeed a license--a license extending beyond statutory provisions. The text therefore forms a license agreement, since you can only modify a statutory scheme by operation of contract.
This fantasy framework of yours is a fun way to think of things, but it's not grounded in reality. One must also still notify a noncomplying party of their noncompliance--termination is automatic, but it's not repudiation. There's nothing in the toolbox that allows you to pretend that distribution wasn't originally authorized.
To put things in a more concrete perspective, a holdover tenant is not a trespasser. Someone who had permission to distribute (granted by the copyright owner unilaterally without even meeting the prospective distributors) cannot be treated as though they never had such permission. You can seek an injunction. You can seek damages. You can't say they had no rights whatsoever, though. It just doesn't work, because the fact is that they did indeed have permission to distribute which was not instantaneously coupled with a restriction--there is no provision requiring immediate release (only a reasonable timeframe standard). Violation of the license is a multiple-step process.
There's an ongoing debate about whether, upon notice of termination, what interest is being misappropriated by the "GPL violator." Frankly, most courts are going to see it the way they see everything else: you've violated a contract which gave you a license. That license can of course be terminated, but the GPL has no provision for blacklisting--each conveyed copy arguably restarts the process, because the GPL is an imperfect tool. You can't skip to "there's no license in play" because it simply isn't true.
The trouble is that you purchased illicit goods knowing them to be of questionable origin (strike one, bad faith), installed unlicensed software (strike two, copyright infringement), aren't licensed to do business with China (strike three, multiple no-nos [tax, commercial code, etc.]), and misrepresented what you're selling as legitimate (strike four, fraud). You'll get busted for any number of things. Resale of goods purchased in good faith would not be one of them.
Now, had you simply bought the computer from a vendor assuming it to be legitimate and having no reason to suspect otherwise, you'd be fine. You'd also be in the position of a reseller here...as opposed to your off-base hypothetical that supposes Verizon is installing GPL-violating software and trying to pass it off. Unless Verizon knew, orchestrated, or had reason to suspect that Actiontec was violating its license terms, it has nothing to do with this.
Perhaps your [sic] confused.
Isn't that basically what's happening?
They're striating the market. They want to raise prices on content, but they don't want to look like they're raising prices on content. This way, the DRM crap will become a discount version--a reduced set of rights for a lower cost. The "premium" DVD will now act essentially as a VHS tape or a DVD without encryption or an audio CD.
The format changes and the license changes over time. The problem with equitable use arguments is that it presumes all media purchases are created equal. They're not. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a restriction on them selling something less to you for a lower price, which is exactly what they did when they entered the digital marketplace.
With this two-version setup, they've essentially embraced the shareware model of business. Yeah, that's basically a dinosaur too, but at least they're moving into the 1990s. Change doesn't come easily. This is something of a positive step. Just a few dozen more to go.
Civil damages are not punishments. 'Cruel and unusual punishment' refers to deprivation of personal liberty--imprisonment, certain labor conditions, and the like. We don't have stockades or stonings anymore, partly because of this.
It's also disingenuous to report a life sentence for "$150 worth of video tapes"--if you were familiar with the case you'd know that he had multiple prior theft, robbery, and misdemeanor charges along with, as I recall, having escaped from prison. It was not a soccer mom in an isolated burst of kleptomania.
Under the FRCP, if you don't act with regard to instructions and pleadings at the right time, you have waived your right to complain about them later. There was ample opportunity to challenge the amount in question beforehand. There was ample opportunity to settle before hand. There was ample opportunity to plead out beforehand. She did the deed, and she tried to get off the hook entirely. It backfired. Lesson learned.
Don't lie to juries. Don't lie to the court. Pick a more sympathetic victim to rally behind.