Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment BS (Score 1) 288

Too busy to read all the replies to see if someone called out your FUD. Microsoft won't update your system to windows 10 on it's own.

Your reading of {some internet nerd}'s advice is incorrect. Unless you are on a metered connection, and a few extra GB of download is going to cause you so much grief that it's worth spending time on it, then you have nothing at all to do, and you won't have Windows 10 installed.

Really, is reading comprehension so hard?

Comment Re:Comments Summarised (Score 1) 435

But if the original source machine has already picked which IPv6 source address to use then the firewall has to use the correct ISP

No it doesn't. The firewall should just throw away the source network prefix, and replace it with whatever the network prefix was assigned by the ISP it wants to use.

In this case, you are just going to use the network prefix like it was a private network prefix internally, and will get NATed as soon as it leaves the internal network. Hence the "N" in NAT. If your cheap NAT can't tell the difference between a packet coming in with your private network address and one already on your network, you should throw away that NAT and get a real one as there are probably a ton of (other) security issues in that POS.

Comment Re:Sounds more like Morgan Stanley screwed up. (Score 1) 43

You've made numerous mistakes, using numerous fallacies:

1) You are being silly. Note that I put "OWNS" in quotes, because while the word does in fact meet some definitions of the word, I was using it as a shorthand without a very long description with the assumption that the average person should understand it's meaning (poisoning the well fallacy). We are talking about the legality of the situation, not the ethics, so I'll skip that (red herring fallacy, strawman fallacy). And the rest of your argument here is irrelevant (burden of proof fallacy, hasty generalization fallacy, guilt by association fallacy).

2) The company's theory I am accepting is based on common law. The rest of your statements are irrelevant. You don't like it, oh well, that's not what the law says and sucks to be you.

3) Also typically irrelevant according to common employment law, except in the case that I originally mentioned that they had a prior existing relationship. The rest of your argument is irrelevant.

What I am describing is common employment law for people who are paid to do a job (Trade secrets). Client lists are considered trade secrets of the company, and it is quite common to have companies sue ex-employees for such behavior that you describe, and it is often spelled out in employment contracts as well (although this isn't necessary in most cases, it is done so ignorant employees don't claim they were unaware). Most of this isn't even up for debate, ask any lawyer who deals in such matters, even a bad one.

Comment Re:That's what Nokia, Moto, and Microsoft said (Score 1) 535

There are no car foundries or car part vendors

There are tens of thousands of them actually, from everything from the screws to the thermostats, to the wiring harnesses, brakes, tires, seats, radios, speakers, steering wheels. How many parts do you think GM/Ford actually MAKES vs just assembles?

Comment Re:Sounds more like Morgan Stanley screwed up. (Score 1) 43

Both the brokers and the employers claim the clients are THEIRS.

Pretty sure they both can claim it, but only the broker is correct. The employee has no right to claim it while employed to do such work -- unless the client was a client PRIOR to becoming an employee. If you are paid (hourly, salary, commission, or other) to find new clients, the company "owns" them, not the employee.

It may be SOP to do otherwise (or claim otherwise), but that doesn't mean it is legal either.

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell