Sing it, brother. I got paid to surf porn web sites one time, because I was told to completely document the misdeeds of an employee who had access to an unrestricted computer. Most of them were obviously porn, and needed no further investigation, but some I had to go to the home page to be sure. In the end, I had 45 pages of proxy logs, in small print (for one week). I'd had a conversation with that employee less than 2 weeks earlier about how if you did someone on my network, I have a log of it.

(And he liked to print it out - in black & white. They still call the bottom drawer of the file cabinet "the porn drawer.")

Such stations should be limited to a white list only, with everything else blocked. And by rights, be on a separate network, but it has to be on the same network as the server behind the POS stations to work at all, and that's an intruder is after anyway. There's only so much you can do.

The real lesson is there are no easy answers, and every situation has to be handled on its own merits.

The question is "Why block at all?" not "Should we block at all?" In other words, "What is the specific goal of blocking?" If it's to prevent malware, it requires a different approach than if it's to prevent watching porn. If it's to protect sensitive information, it requires a very different approach, and may well involve blocking in both directions.

So, no, it isn't that idiots as "why block at all" so much as only idiots don't distinguish between "why" and "should we".

Obscene has a specific (if very fuzzy) legal definition. Essentially, until it's been ruled obscene by a court, it isn't. This is a canard, by a pissed off judge. (Fortunately, the rest of his reasoning is pretty solid.)

I suspect the legal theory goes like this:

By calling our fine, outstanding product "shitware," you have defamed us.

Or, possibly, "You encourage others to engage is practices that harm our business, which somehow constitutes some kind of fraud or conspiracy or something."

Mind you, I agree these people should be publicly whipped for being assholes, but it isn't at all difficult to come up with an internally consistent legal theory to support their claim.

Fortunately, the court saw fit to spank them for being retards.

The thing is, you can't find a brute force attack without testing it. And this one is so basic that it's mind boggling that even a clueless web designer let it slip though. This is one that can't be reasonably reported without testing it.

Mind you, I'm as in favor ore Bennett Hassleton being sodomized by a mutant goat on Viagra as anybody, but United's position is, frankly, kinda silly.

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\JavaSoft]
"SPONSORS"="DISABLE"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\JavaSoft]
"SPONSORS"="DISABLE"

The screen with the checkboxes does not even appear.

I use Internet Explorer, primarily so that I can say so on Slashdot and piss off the outrage monkeys.

I am not, in fact, a lawyer, but I do know how to use Google (unlike so many here). For instance, I can, without any adult help, open up my web browser, and type in http://www.google.com/ and go to a convenient search engine. In the search box for that search engine, I can type in "eula struck down as unconscionable" and click on the button labeled "Search." And get results such as

this, which talks about Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., in which Linden's TOS (specifically, the arbitration clause) is struck down as unconscionable not once, not twice, but at least three or four different times and ways ("procedural unconscionability" and "substantive unconscionability" in two different ways, and then again on the latter after Linden amended it).

Wired also covers Gatton v. T-Mobile, again on an arbitration clause, and ruled unconscionable both procedurally and substantively. Also unconscionable for prohibiting class action lawsuits, because "that form of litigation is often the only means of stopping and punishing corporate wrongdoing." It also discusses Douglas v. U.S. District Court, which is about changing the terms of a contact after it has been signed, and which was ruled unconscionable. Gatton is often cited as recognizing that all click-wrap license have an element of unconscionability that must be considered by the court.

This has a link to this", which is a ruling on McKee v. AT&T, ruing their arbitration clause unconscionable.

Note that these are the first three results on the search, and the fourth is on McKee v. AT&T again.

Also note that these are all different courts, state and federal, all over the country.

Unconscionability is an affirmative defense - the defendant has to demonstrate why the contract is unconscionable, but it does, in fact, happen, and more importantly, it took me, literally, less than ten seconds to find example (and five of that was waiting for the browser to open.)

To quote the third link, you may now feed my cats for a week.

It's basic research, done in the hopes that some new ideas or technology will come out of it. The military does that a lot, with no specific goals in mind (same as civilian scientists). Only the press fails to grasp this.

Second semester law school: unconscionable contracts are unenforceable.

Aside from any contractual obligations between Samsung and Microsoft that would affect this, and you can bet there are some.

The lesson here, boys and girls, don't get legal advice from first semester law students. Consult a real lawyer.

It is not a binary equation. There are other categories in between. And there are a lot of examples of restrictions within that spectrum. And Facebook is probably violating some of them, if the allegations are true. It has, for instance, been illegal for 50+ years to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, etc. If your name doesn't sound "authentic" because you are from, say, an African tribe (I mean, really, if Johnathon Goodluck weren't the president of a country, how many Americans would believe that was a real name? Thus, making him, but not people with names like John Smith or Joe Jones, provide documents that can easily be used for identity theft, because he is from Africa and doesn't have a white sounding name, has been illegal for half a century.

There's also the matter of whether or not Facebook (realizes) they are responsible for any misuse those identity documents are put to. It's only a matter of time before some disgruntled insider sells the whole database to some Russian mafia type.

As long as your streaming service is working. And your internet service. And any number of other steps in between. And the streaming service doesn't get in to a dispute with a studio, and drop (or be forced to drop) their entire product line. And as long as they don't change the price from ten bucks a month to 20, or 50, or 500. Or you lose your job and can't even afford ten.

I'll stop listening to music before I pay for something as insubstantial as radio (and that's what streaming is. And don't think for a second you won't have ads within a few years, even on premium accounts.)

How else could it possibly be? If the judge (or jury) hears only one side, how can they possibly consider the other side? Your position is literally irrational and disconnected from reality.