Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#131

Post by dx034 »

hyperman1 wrote: post #127
IntelMiner wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this one of those "only in America" stereotypes? I'd love to see how the hell they justified that, much less if they won

It happens in Belgium. Someone I know was away from home for an evening, and found the police at her door when she came back. Turns out some junky decided to break into her gardening shed to find something to force entry to the main house. Was so high he accidentally slit his wrist on the glass window he broke to climb inside the shed. Neighbours heard him cry and called the police. Police told her she was very lucky…

>Police told her she was very lucky he didn't die, as she was responsible for his well-being while breaking in. I doubt that. Just because a police officer says sth doesn't mean it's true. Perhaps people sued in the past but lost in court.

Otherwise I could break in somewhere, hurt myself (there is always a possibility) and sue the owner of the house. Unless the owner builds traps to severely injure anyone who enters the house even if there's no danger to residents, I cannot imagine a court deciding in favour of the burglar.

It may be different if you have a dog that is trained to injure/kill anyone who enters the premise. That could lead to a court case, e.g. if the dog injures a child who wanted to retrieve a ball from the garden and there was no warning sign.

Do you have any links for cases that were actually won by the burglar?

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#132

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

Ah, psychology. Must be what the "OneDrive team" is using.

So you have all these people who bought Lumia phones, enjoying 30 GB of cloud storage, 15 of them acquired with the phone purchase.

Cut it down to 5 GB with an announcement in a blog post, and watch the customers leaving in droves.

Problem solved.

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#133

Post by yandie »

I work with big catalog data, and with lots of human input. We have these internal classifications but people mis-assign items all the time.

I was horrified when I learned about the state of our datasets. The only reliable features are the ones that are exposed to the customers on the website, because when they're broken people can actually see them.

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#134

Post by syshum »

monochromatic wrote: post #25
ryukafalz wrote: post #20

>And there are some legal issues that are tied to the date a feature first becomes available to the public. Seeing a feature go public prematurely throws a bunch of scheduling into disarray because you now have to finish those legal documents in less time than you planned. As someone who's never worked for a company that produces commercial software, I'm curious about what he's referring to.

Might be considered a public disclosure for purposes of patenting the feature.

The solution that is ending software patents which should not be a thing in the first place

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#135

Post by corobo »

sequence7 wrote: post #130
rodgerd wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burglars have been known to go to court over getting injured in the commission of a crime, suing the property owner.

This seems to be an urban myth that gets often repeated but I've never actually seen a concrete example. Could someone point me to an example of someone suing a property owner because of an injury received in the commission of a crime?

Wasn't it from that old Jim Carrey film Liar Liar?

Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof—a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend. He sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?

Fletcher: No!…I'd have got him ten.

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Liar_Liar

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#136

Post by pbhjpbhj »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #105
optimiz3 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents. If you have features you need to file patents on, that needs to be done before the feature is publicly disclosed/exposed.

I was going to say that you had a year after disclosure to file a patent. But then I remembered that there are other countries in the world other than the USA. Those other countries have different rules! It's sometimes difficult for Americans to remember that, since we're so insular here. E.g. I haven't been out of the USA in probably about 25 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure

I thought USA had moved to first to file, public disclosure then is prior art to your own application, except in limited circumstances (which usually means showing the invention at specific trade shows)?

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#137

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Mithaldu wrote: post #61
DougWebb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I am. Does the Pro version support turning off the privacy and updating features without being joined to a domain? If there is only partial control, that's not good enough. Otherwise I may owe you a beer :)

I'm sorry, but i have no idea what it does in regards to privacy features. I do however have access to this, and it works: http://i.imgur.com/9dutfsY.png

[Image shows Local Group Policy Editor screen with Configure Automatic Update settings pane open.]

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#138

Post by restalis »

0x0 wrote: post #73
prplhaz4 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple example would be adding a feature that collects user information before you update the EULA to tell people that you're collecting their information. The EULA will likely need to go through multiple iterations between local and partner lawyers before the language is agreed upon - so expediting is not always an option.

If you're running a pirated OS, are you really going to go to court over a missing disclaimer in the pirated EULA?!

They don't care that much about the pirated version doing things not mentioned in the EULA, they care about not being rushed to ship a legit version (that has not yet a ready EULA) because it has to get released in order to limit the spread of the pirated version or for any other reason.

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#139

Post by specialist »

xxbondsxx wrote: post #114
nols wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The justification for a lot of these frivolous injury lawsuits are often very similar. The person suing has thousands or tens of thousands of medical debt. They could spend years paying it off or they could look like a moron in the hopes of a settlement that will pay off the debt or at least make a dent in it. Probably the most famous case, Bodine v Enterprise High School, involved a teenager who fell through a paint…

Thank you for this perspective; was a new take on a lot of the common tropes I've heard. As said in Mr Robot, debt is the invisible hand that coerces us all

I wonder if this book had some influence. It's definitely blowing my mind.

Debt: The First 5,000 Years

https://www.amazon.com/Debt-Updated-Expanded-First-Years

Re: How to get people who installed a leaked build to stop using that build?

#140

Post by dragonwriter »

briHass wrote: post #107
dragonwriter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm. But, even so... > So - if an intruder breaks in to your house, you can shoot him without repercussions Your loose stair carpet was not created as a specific and immediate response to a particular unla…

> In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm. Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA. If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal fir…

> Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around.

You're misunderstanding my statement. And/or considering only the duty to retreat and not the threat aspect of self-defense.

> Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength.

Right, key part being "of varying strength"; but, AFAIK, very few have a strong castle doctrine law that would make "you can shoot an intruder without liability" generally true; IIRC, the most common version is the very weak form where being in your home basically just eliminates the obligation to flee if able in preference to using deadly force in self defense, but does not have an effect on the level of threat (both subjective and objective) which must be posed before using deadly force.

> If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder.

Generally, "licensed/legal firearm" is irrelevant to self-defense analysis (whether in the home or otherwise).

Post reply on HN