Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Heresy (Score 3, Informative) 689

If the couple wants legal status designating that previously unrelated individuals should henceforth be treated as a legally related group, then government must be involved. Being legally allowed a relatives-only visit to a hospitalized parter, for example; or legal standing in probate, for another; or legal responsibility for a child's actions -- is the partner legally a "parent" or just someone who happens to live in the same house?. Such legal acknowledgement does not have to be called "marriage," nor does it have to be conflated with any religious practice.

Comment Re:But remember (Score 1) 205

No, it's very different. Banks don't get to put "suspicious" money into their own pockets. You don't have to "keep after" banks "long enough" -- you only have to say "lawyer" because banks don't get away with ignoring legal challenges. Banks can only tell you "because we said so" until law enforcement, jurists, or banking regulators get involved.

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 262

Make it part of the contract that the cloud provider is adequately insured to cover the costs of data redemption followed by wiping the cloud servers in the event of going belly up. Include a provision for periodically proving to the client that the insurance is in force. Not a perfect solution, but it's probably the best you're going to get. The cloud provider could use the phrase "bonded and insured" as part of their own marketing. Then it becomes standard business practice to only entrust sensitive data to "bonded and insured" providers.

Comment Re:Finally, a reasonable lawsuit (Score 1) 547

Well, I suppose I should remove tongue from cheek and give an actual answer.

Taken in isolation, there's no reason to put one before the other.

But it's not isolated. I've seen every episode of Top Gear UK and I've read some 50 or so of Clarkson's editorials and I've read up on some of the juicier incidents in his life; so thus am very well acquainted with his somewhat strained relationship with the truth. And with his inability to admit when he's been caught in a flat-out lie. That may make me biased, but I'm neither the judge nor the jury; I'm a bystander opining on the outcome.

Add to that Tesla's position:
1) They waited two years before filing suit.
2) They claim to have actual data.
3) They're not asking for an exorbitant monetary award; the money they are asking for is less than the cost of the car.
These things suggest to me that Tesla's suit is not a knee-jerk reaction, but one which was rationally reasoned. This sways my opinion over to the notion that they may actually have a solid case.

You can dismiss all of this as hearsay and personal opinion, because it is. The whole point of litigation is to attempt to determine the truth, which process is exactly what Tesla has just started. I'm betting on them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.