If they don't have a problem handing over 15 private residences to Pfizer, I doubt they'd have any problem reappropriating the contents of college students' essays to Turnitin. It's a brave ne[w|ocon] world we're living in.
It was the liberal judges (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter) and wishy-washy Kennedy who sided with the city. The conservatives (Rhenquist, Scalia, Long Dong) and wishy-washy O'Connor sided with the homeowners.
Let me get this straight: you hate the RIAA, so you want to tax me and give my money to the RIAA? Could you please stop hating the RIAA and hate me instead?
AT&T is a phone company, but they did offer a cable internet service before 2003 when Comcast bought it. You didn't know that? Well then I guess you just discredited yourself.
Beckerman wants to paint Jacobson as an RIAA whore but Jacobson flat out stated that the computer whose hard drive he examined was not used to share MP3s, which blows a huge hole in the RIAA's case. He didn't have to say that. He could have said he didn't find any evidence, but it's possible that *yada yada yada*, and no doubt the RIAA pushed him to say just that. I can see why he doesn't get much work as an expert witness. When I pay good money for a whore I expect her to suck and swallow.
Jacobson made a good argument that NAT wasn't used which Beckerman failed to rebut and then Beckerman continued to talk about NAT as a red herring. Some here claim to have rebutted Jacobson's argument but it's really beside the point. If Lindor had a wide open wireless router she can take the stand and say that. If she won't then any NAT-related arguments are just an attempt to baffle the judge/jury with bullshit.
As for the clock skew claim, Lindor's lawyers could subpeona Verizon for information about when the IP address was assigned and for how long. If they haven't done so it's because they already know the answer and it won't help their client.
Belittling Jacobson for not knowing what "inculpate" means was childish. My SATs were over 1400 under the old system and I attended an ivy league school, but I have never seen or heard the word "inculpate" before today. I was able to guess what it meant from the similarity to "exculpate" (before Beckerman mentioned it), but you can be damn sure that if had to answer a question under oath that contained a word I never heard before I would ask what it meant and not rely on guesswork.
Here's what I think: Lindor is innocent but she allowed the guilty party to use her internet connection and is covering for him/her. The RIAA is leaning on her to get her to cough up a name.
Actually, this is incorrect. Using more traditional notation, you have Alice, Bob, and Eve. Alice wishes to securely send a message to Bob, and Eve is listening in.
In the case of AACS, Alice is the movie studio. Eve is the viewer. Bob, however, is not Eve. Bob is the *video playback device*.
In that case Bob is in Eve's custody and subject to rubber hose cryptanalysis. Anything Bob knows Eve can find out. Thus it is impossible for Alice to send a message to Bob without Eve reading it too.
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't have a problem handing over 15 private residences to Pfizer, I doubt they'd have any problem reappropriating the contents of college students' essays to Turnitin. It's a brave ne[w|ocon] world we're living in.
It was the liberal judges (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter) and wishy-washy Kennedy who sided with the city. The conservatives (Rhenquist, Scalia, Long Dong) and wishy-washy O'Connor sided with the homeowners.
Let me get this straight: you hate the RIAA, so you want to tax me and give my money to the RIAA? Could you please stop hating the RIAA and hate me instead?
Not trying to be a troll here, but why is knowledge of latin often seen as a requirement for intellectualism?
Because medieval European elites saw Rome as the pinnacle of civilization and sought to emulate the Romans in all ways.
AT&T is a phone company, but they did offer a cable internet service before 2003 when Comcast bought it. You didn't know that? Well then I guess you just discredited yourself.
...but I have to call bullshit.
Beckerman wants to paint Jacobson as an RIAA whore but Jacobson flat out stated that the computer whose hard drive he examined was not used to share MP3s, which blows a huge hole in the RIAA's case. He didn't have to say that. He could have said he didn't find any evidence, but it's possible that *yada yada yada*, and no doubt the RIAA pushed him to say just that. I can see why he doesn't get much work as an expert witness. When I pay good money for a whore I expect her to suck and swallow.
Jacobson made a good argument that NAT wasn't used which Beckerman failed to rebut and then Beckerman continued to talk about NAT as a red herring. Some here claim to have rebutted Jacobson's argument but it's really beside the point. If Lindor had a wide open wireless router she can take the stand and say that. If she won't then any NAT-related arguments are just an attempt to baffle the judge/jury with bullshit.
As for the clock skew claim, Lindor's lawyers could subpeona Verizon for information about when the IP address was assigned and for how long. If they haven't done so it's because they already know the answer and it won't help their client.
Belittling Jacobson for not knowing what "inculpate" means was childish. My SATs were over 1400 under the old system and I attended an ivy league school, but I have never seen or heard the word "inculpate" before today. I was able to guess what it meant from the similarity to "exculpate" (before Beckerman mentioned it), but you can be damn sure that if had to answer a question under oath that contained a word I never heard before I would ask what it meant and not rely on guesswork.
Here's what I think: Lindor is innocent but she allowed the guilty party to use her internet connection and is covering for him/her. The RIAA is leaning on her to get her to cough up a name.
Actually, this is incorrect. Using more traditional notation, you have Alice, Bob, and Eve. Alice wishes to securely send a message to Bob, and Eve is listening in. In the case of AACS, Alice is the movie studio. Eve is the viewer. Bob, however, is not Eve. Bob is the *video playback device*.
In that case Bob is in Eve's custody and subject to rubber hose cryptanalysis. Anything Bob knows Eve can find out. Thus it is impossible for Alice to send a message to Bob without Eve reading it too.