Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment No, school should not be year-round. (Score 5, Informative) 421

Kids should have at least a couple of months out of the year when they can just not worry about their studies and have fun and BE KIDS.

I mean, jeez! You only get to be a kid once. Let them enjoy those summer vacations. When I think back to my childhood, my fondest memories are during those summer vacations! Why the heck should we take that away from our future generations?

Leave summer vacation in place. And stop freaking shortening it.

Comment Re:This does pose the question: (Score 1) 195

Well, they may be self contained (which is not true because NIC drivers interact directly with the network stack for example) and small, but they are also highly untestable and undocumented.

What I see is a stack to fix and a continuous stream of drivers to write. The one shot operation is bound to be cheaper on the long term.

Comment Re:Contract binding third parties (Score 1) 183

People agree to pay for things outside of their control all the time. Consider the contract you have with your auto insurance company, for example, in which they agree to pay in the event that you get into an accident. If you agree to the terms of your own free will, in the absence of fraud or duress, you should assume that they're binding, at least morally if not legally. The real problem would be if they were trying to fine the people posting negative reviews directly, when they weren't a party to the contract.

I see no reason why this contract shouldn't be considered binding—which is not to say that I think it's a good idea. I find it a bit surprising that they still have any customers after pulling a stunt like this, which was a clear sign of desperation in its own right. One doesn''t go to such lengths to suppress negative reviews unless one has something to hide.

Comment Re:Moving information for Freedom.... (Score 1) 502

...they also don't have the same justification for refusal, since compliance will not implicate them in anything...

In that particular case, perhaps, but they have their own interests and obligations outside the case which may be harmed by turning over the documents. For example, in this case compliance with the order could conceivably place Microsoft in violation of foreign data privacy laws, which this court cannot grant immunity from as it lacks jurisdiction.

...unless, of course, it would implicate them in something else, in which case they can negotiate a deal for qualified immunity.

Given that you're compelled to comply regardless, under threat of more or less whatever punishment the court happens to deem fit, there isn't much scope for negotiation. The court holds all the cards. You can ask for consideration, but there isn't much you can do about it if they refuse.

In case it wasn't obvious, I am wholly opposed to dragging third-parties into a case against their will when they haven't even been accused of any wrongdoing. That includes both compulsory testimony and the involuntary production of evidence. The courts exist to resolve disputes and protect rights, not to create new disputes and violate rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...