More to the point, evidence that contradicts dogma is likely to be discounted no matter how good it is. Such as evidence of how good Windows 7 is being posted here on slashdot. Or a negative report against the Air being posted on apple's forums.
Almost true, except that once the packet gets into the global routing system, it's impossible to authenticate the source, as the packet literally could have come from anywhere.
The only assurance that the alleged sourcing network is legitimate is that the true sourcing network is properly filtering out emigrating martians. Not all networks do their part here, and any network far enough up the hierarchy soon can make few if any assumptions about where their packets come from.
Not always. Knowledge is accounted for.
Such as: Moral hazard in the insurance industry, information itself being a commodity, as well as how price discrimination can exploit how three different grades of green beans are actually the same.
The FTC actually had a case about this, since the consumers did NOT have complete information.
It's just plain selfishness.
Economic theory is based on the assumption that people are greedy and will advance their own self interests.
Sadly, it's a sound theory exactly BECAUSE people are greedy.
That doesn't change whether or not the punishment is out of line with the offense.
Lying in court is already penalizable as perjury, obstruction, and the like, so I see no reason to let the legal system double dip.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like GoogleFS
At least they issued refunds... Many other uses of DRM don't even go that far when the auth server goes down.
How then DO you suggest taxpayer money be spent?
NYCL flaunting ethical standards?
Even if that were true, I'll go back to bed. Wake me when you can show cause for him being WORSE than a run of the mill lawyer.
IMHO, he can do plenty of bad and still be above average for a profession as sleazy as his.
Statue of frauds
Holy smokes you're right. Statute of frauds ppl!
Honestly I think it already is these days.
I thought security bugs were supposed to be confidential.
darknet?
But does it run linux?
Jury nullification is a concept derived from the combination of double jeopardy and trial by jury.
Don't forget about these oddballs:
As well as the regular:
And...
Evidence can be good and still not believed.
Just ask Galileo.
More to the point, evidence that contradicts dogma is likely to be discounted no matter how good it is. Such as evidence of how good Windows 7 is being posted here on slashdot. Or a negative report against the Air being posted on apple's forums.
The only assurance that the alleged sourcing network is legitimate is that the true sourcing network is properly filtering out emigrating martians. Not all networks do their part here, and any network far enough up the hierarchy soon can make few if any assumptions about where their packets come from.
Not always. Knowledge is accounted for. Such as: Moral hazard in the insurance industry, information itself being a commodity, as well as how price discrimination can exploit how three different grades of green beans are actually the same. The FTC actually had a case about this, since the consumers did NOT have complete information.
You mean like Wells Fargo?
Selfishness however is what makes corporate fatcats lobby for such laws in the first place.
Now that's what I call being a "grammar nazi"
It's just plain selfishness. Economic theory is based on the assumption that people are greedy and will advance their own self interests. Sadly, it's a sound theory exactly BECAUSE people are greedy.
I'd be careful about that. Precedents could be established.
It's still encrypted.
But I use git you insensitive clod!
NASA - 20 million
More efficient organization - 3 billion
Um...what?
That doesn't change whether or not the punishment is out of line with the offense. Lying in court is already penalizable as perjury, obstruction, and the like, so I see no reason to let the legal system double dip.
That still doesn't hide the fact that a history, particularly one with suspiciously *timed* edits, may taint the credibility of the evidence.