I seem to have stopped this by adding the following to my hosts file: 127.0.0.1 www1.tynt.com 127.0.0.1 tynt.com 127.0.0.1 www.tynt.com 127.0.0.1 w1.tcr112.tynt.com
What do you mean, your "organization"? Is this letter directed at an ISP or are you the network admin for a company? Have you checked the machine with the corresponding IP to see if Limewire is installed?
Apples and oranges, my friend, and applese and oranges made of straw at that. Look at it like music. If you purchase an MP3, you can play it on your Zune, your Ipod, your MobiBlu, whatever. But you can't make copies and sell them because that's already covered by copyright law.
Actually, they do. Look at what just happened to Dell. Their EULA stated that you had to agree to arbitration, but a judge ruled that it was invalid. Just because a company writes something down on a piece of paper and sticks that piece of paper into a product that you buy, doesn't make it necessarily enforceable.
Wouldn't it be nice if they fought this? If they said, hey, we bought your software, we can install it on whatever we want. And then, in my imaginary world, a judge sees their point of view and rules that once you purchase a piece of software, it's yours to do with as you please.
I'd actually like the reminder that we are doing something like this. I can already see coal-fired power plants from the freeway, why is it a positive thing that something like this, which doesn't belch black smoke, can only been seen? You don't want the tourists to know that you're for a cleaner environment?
whoops, forgot the following: First, a link PVC2300. Secondly, the camera goes for >$300 and they have a wireless version as well, but, of course, that won't do POE.
I've been using the Linksys PVC2300 of late. It has a built-in web server, will auto upload stills to an FTP server or email them to you and runs on POE if you can't get regular power to it. And the image quality is very nice. I had to buy an different lens in order to get the wide-angle image I was looking for, but it was only an additional $55, so no biggie there. Oh, and it has full-duplex sound capability.
That's not the case, in my experience. I received a faulty part for my motorcycle. The seller refused to take a return, so I didn't ship it back. I opened a case with PayPal, explained the situation and they granted me a refund. I still have the part, too.
I understand that she didn't create the profile, I did not say that she did. I will grant you the celebrity point was, well, pointless. However, the actual case is linked in the article and in it she states that the picture is not a picture of her, it just looks like her.
I do not believe, though that "someone that looks very similar to you, and has the same weight, height, hair color, body build and face, in the same zip code, is remote." It would really depend on what "Doris" looks like. If she's a 5'4" - 5'6", brown hair and medium build Caucasian, I'd say it's pretty likely. Without a pic of her and the profile in question, it's really just a guessing game. That being said, as I stated before, I'm 6'3", have red hair and a bone structure that takes elements from a very varied heritage, yet I still get, every once in a while, someone telling me "Hey, I saw a guy who looked just like you the other day."
Again, this is from the actual case file:
the plaintiff alleges she had nothing to do with creating the profile, that she does not engage in the "promiscuous sexual lifestyle" or the " perverse" sexual activities it describes, and that the photograph does not depict her. Nevertheless, she claims that the biographical information and photo "reasonably identified" her as "petra03755" to people in her community. The plaintiff does not know the true identity of the user who created the profile
So, someone who looks similar to this woman, who lives in the same area, who has similar biographical information (which isn't surprising considering that they are both from the same area) made a profile. People who have seen it have, supposedly, mistaken it for this woman. So I still fail to see where she has a case. She doesn't have any right over this other person's likeness or biographical information, however similar it is to her own.
There's nothing in the article to indicate that this is a "fake profile". This doesn't sound like a case of "hey, let's screw with Doris, it'll be a gas." but rather like some woman out there, who bears a passing (or even strong) resemblance to to the plaintiff, created a profile on FriendFinder. That person didn't claim to be "Doris", she merely has some similar characteristics. If people in her community think it's "Doris Doe", rather than the person who created it, I don't see how that's FriendFinder's fault or responsibility. And if their terms of service, which the person who actually created the profile agreed to, stipulate that they have the right to use submitted profiles in advertising, then I, again, don't see how there's a case.
We've all seen people that look like someone we know. It happens. But just because person A looks like person B, doesn't give person B the right to keep person A from using their own likeness however they see fit. If that was the case, then celebrity impersonators would all be out of business.
That's exactly what this is about. The actual court doc was linked in the article, here's a clip from it: In June 2005, a profile of a female member under the screen name " petra03755" was created on the AdultFriendFinder site. The profile identified the member as a recently separated 40-year old woman in the Upper Valley region of New Hampshire who was seeking "Men or Women for Erotic Chat/E-mail/Phone Fantasies and Discreet Relationship."[ 1 The Upper Valley region of New Hampshire encompasses a number of towns along or near the Connecticut River in Sullivan and Grafton Counties, including Hanover, the home of Dartmouth College.]1 To create the profile, " petra03755" entered a variety of information on her sexual proclivities into an on-line form provided by the website. She also provided biographical data, such as her birth date, height, build, and hair and eye color, and submitted a nude photograph, purportedly of herself. The plaintiff alleges she had nothing to do with creating the profile, that she does not engage in the "promiscuous sexual lifestyle" or the " perverse" sexual activities it describes, and that the photograph does not depict her. Nevertheless, she claims that the biographical information and photo "reasonably identified" her as "petra03755" to people in her community. The plaintiff does not know the true identity of the user who created the profile
So basically, someone created an account. This person is similar to the plaintiff, but not actually her. And she's suing because FriendFinder "allowed" someone to create that account. So if a 6'3", skinny, red-headed guy in the Los Angeles area creates a profile on their site, I can sue for invasion of my "intellectual-property rights" and violations to my "right of publicity,". Even if it's not actually ME???? Cha ching! Gonna go try to find someone on FriendFinder that bears a slight resemblance to myself.
Flamebait? Really? In what way? The article is about how "protecting" kids might end up doing more harm than good. I gave what I think is an example. If you disagree, say so, but that's not flamebait.
My aunt is very protective of my cousin. She home-schooled him until high school, carefully monitored everything he ever saw or did, that sort of thing. One thing she did was cut out the scene in Bambi where Bambi's mother dies. She just removed it, one second she's there, the next she's not. Anyway, the kid ends up growing up to love hunting. I mean to the extent that he gets up at 4am and goes out before school to kill a couple of ducks or a deer, goes to class, then stops on his way home for some rabbit or quail. Their freezer is full of game meat, they can't eat it fast enough. Hunting and fishing is all he does. As far as I know, he's never even had a girlfriend. I just wonder if, as a child, he had had that moment of sadness watching Bambi, he'd have turned out a little differently.
One of the ways I usually demonstrate to people the advantage of Firefox 2 over IE7 is to show them the difference in time it takes to open multiple tabs. With Firefox, they open as fast as I can hit CTRL-T, but with IE it takes about a second for each one.
No, putting up the sign makes it "intent to distribute", which is not the same as having files in a publicly available folder. This would be like making a copy of a song on a CD, leaving that CD on your porch and having someone come along and pick it up. Then getting sued for distribution.
I would say, "How much more mainstream do you want than Slashdot?" After all, we are legion, we bring down servers across the internet merely by visiting them en masse. But then I look at Ron Paul's primary results and slink back to my basement.
Again, this is a "but..but what if" non-issue. Geek Squad doesn't service Macs. If you took it to a place that does service Macs, they would be able to remove the hard drive for you.
That is not a logical extension of my statement. If the problem is that the system won't power on, then remove the hard drive. If you aren't technically capable, then the service that you leave it with is, so have them remove your hard drive before leaving it. The point here is that you, and no one else, are ultimately responsible for the security of your data. If you're not up to the task of securing that data, don't put it on a computer. You can still pay your bills, file your taxes and check your bank account without a computer. Doing it on a computer is a convenience, one for which you exchange a certain amount of control over your data. How much control you relinquish is up to you.
The best outcome that can come of this is if someone, anyone out there figures out that when you give your laptop to someone else, make sure there isn't any private data on it. This is also important, as has been covered before, when you're traveling internationally.
Slashdot Mirror
and... fail. For some reason it stopped and has now started again. I'll look into it further when I'm back in front of a computer.
I seem to have stopped this by adding the following to my hosts file:
127.0.0.1 www1.tynt.com
127.0.0.1 tynt.com
127.0.0.1 www.tynt.com
127.0.0.1 w1.tcr112.tynt.com
What do you mean, your "organization"? Is this letter directed at an ISP or are you the network admin for a company? Have you checked the machine with the corresponding IP to see if Limewire is installed?
Apples and oranges, my friend, and applese and oranges made of straw at that. Look at it like music. If you purchase an MP3, you can play it on your Zune, your Ipod, your MobiBlu, whatever. But you can't make copies and sell them because that's already covered by copyright law.
Actually, they do. Look at what just happened to Dell. Their EULA stated that you had to agree to arbitration, but a judge ruled that it was invalid. Just because a company writes something down on a piece of paper and sticks that piece of paper into a product that you buy, doesn't make it necessarily enforceable.
Wouldn't it be nice if they fought this? If they said, hey, we bought your software, we can install it on whatever we want. And then, in my imaginary world, a judge sees their point of view and rules that once you purchase a piece of software, it's yours to do with as you please.
I'd actually like the reminder that we are doing something like this. I can already see coal-fired power plants from the freeway, why is it a positive thing that something like this, which doesn't belch black smoke, can only been seen? You don't want the tourists to know that you're for a cleaner environment?
When was the last time a ship landed on someone's house?
Nah, the musical instruction debate is still going on, this has killed the musical appreciation debate.
I was really, truly hoping that would be great. Or good. It was neither.
whoops, forgot the following:
First, a link PVC2300. Secondly, the camera goes for >$300 and they have a wireless version as well, but, of course, that won't do POE.
I've been using the Linksys PVC2300 of late. It has a built-in web server, will auto upload stills to an FTP server or email them to you and runs on POE if you can't get regular power to it. And the image quality is very nice. I had to buy an different lens in order to get the wide-angle image I was looking for, but it was only an additional $55, so no biggie there. Oh, and it has full-duplex sound capability.
The USPS is a part of the government that hasn't grown much beyond its originally intended purpose.
The USPS is not a part of the government.
That's not the case, in my experience. I received a faulty part for my motorcycle. The seller refused to take a return, so I didn't ship it back. I opened a case with PayPal, explained the situation and they granted me a refund. I still have the part, too.
I understand that she didn't create the profile, I did not say that she did. I will grant you the celebrity point was, well, pointless. However, the actual case is linked in the article and in it she states that the picture is not a picture of her, it just looks like her.
I do not believe, though that "someone that looks very similar to you, and has the same weight, height, hair color, body build and face, in the same zip code, is remote." It would really depend on what "Doris" looks like. If she's a 5'4" - 5'6", brown hair and medium build Caucasian, I'd say it's pretty likely. Without a pic of her and the profile in question, it's really just a guessing game. That being said, as I stated before, I'm 6'3", have red hair and a bone structure that takes elements from a very varied heritage, yet I still get, every once in a while, someone telling me "Hey, I saw a guy who looked just like you the other day."
Again, this is from the actual case file:
the plaintiff alleges she had nothing to do with creating the profile,
that she does not engage in the "promiscuous sexual lifestyle" or the "
perverse" sexual activities it describes, and that the photograph does not
depict her. Nevertheless, she claims that the biographical information
and photo "reasonably identified" her as "petra03755" to people in her
community. The plaintiff does not know the true identity of the user who
created the profile
So, someone who looks similar to this woman, who lives in the same area, who has similar biographical information (which isn't surprising considering that they are both from the same area) made a profile. People who have seen it have, supposedly, mistaken it for this woman. So I still fail to see where she has a case. She doesn't have any right over this other person's likeness or biographical information, however similar it is to her own.
There's nothing in the article to indicate that this is a "fake profile". This doesn't sound like a case of "hey, let's screw with Doris, it'll be a gas." but rather like some woman out there, who bears a passing (or even strong) resemblance to to the plaintiff, created a profile on FriendFinder. That person didn't claim to be "Doris", she merely has some similar characteristics. If people in her community think it's "Doris Doe", rather than the person who created it, I don't see how that's FriendFinder's fault or responsibility. And if their terms of service, which the person who actually created the profile agreed to, stipulate that they have the right to use submitted profiles in advertising, then I, again, don't see how there's a case.
We've all seen people that look like someone we know. It happens. But just because person A looks like person B, doesn't give person B the right to keep person A from using their own likeness however they see fit. If that was the case, then celebrity impersonators would all be out of business.
That's exactly what this is about. The actual court doc was linked in the article, here's a clip from it:
In June 2005, a profile of a female member under the screen name "
petra03755" was created on the AdultFriendFinder site. The profile
identified the member as a recently separated 40-year old woman in the
Upper Valley region of New Hampshire who was seeking "Men or Women for
Erotic Chat/E-mail/Phone Fantasies and Discreet Relationship."[ 1 The
Upper Valley region of New Hampshire encompasses a number of towns along
or near the Connecticut River in Sullivan and Grafton Counties, including
Hanover, the home of Dartmouth College.]1 To create the profile, "
petra03755" entered a variety of information on her sexual proclivities into an on-line form
provided by the website. She also provided biographical data, such as her
birth date, height, build, and hair and eye color, and submitted a nude
photograph, purportedly of herself.
The plaintiff alleges she had nothing to do with creating the profile,
that she does not engage in the "promiscuous sexual lifestyle" or the "
perverse" sexual activities it describes, and that the photograph does not
depict her. Nevertheless, she claims that the biographical information
and photo "reasonably identified" her as "petra03755" to people in her
community. The plaintiff does not know the true identity of the user who
created the profile
So basically, someone created an account. This person is similar to the plaintiff, but not actually her. And she's suing because FriendFinder "allowed" someone to create that account. So if a 6'3", skinny, red-headed guy in the Los Angeles area creates a profile on their site, I can sue for invasion of my "intellectual-property rights" and violations to my "right of publicity,". Even if it's not actually ME???? Cha ching! Gonna go try to find someone on FriendFinder that bears a slight resemblance to myself.
Flamebait? Really? In what way? The article is about how "protecting" kids might end up doing more harm than good. I gave what I think is an example. If you disagree, say so, but that's not flamebait.
My aunt is very protective of my cousin. She home-schooled him until high school, carefully monitored everything he ever saw or did, that sort of thing. One thing she did was cut out the scene in Bambi where Bambi's mother dies. She just removed it, one second she's there, the next she's not. Anyway, the kid ends up growing up to love hunting. I mean to the extent that he gets up at 4am and goes out before school to kill a couple of ducks or a deer, goes to class, then stops on his way home for some rabbit or quail. Their freezer is full of game meat, they can't eat it fast enough. Hunting and fishing is all he does. As far as I know, he's never even had a girlfriend. I just wonder if, as a child, he had had that moment of sadness watching Bambi, he'd have turned out a little differently.
One of the ways I usually demonstrate to people the advantage of Firefox 2 over IE7 is to show them the difference in time it takes to open multiple tabs. With Firefox, they open as fast as I can hit CTRL-T, but with IE it takes about a second for each one.
No, putting up the sign makes it "intent to distribute", which is not the same as having files in a publicly available folder. This would be like making a copy of a song on a CD, leaving that CD on your porch and having someone come along and pick it up. Then getting sued for distribution.
I would say, "How much more mainstream do you want than Slashdot?" After all, we are legion, we bring down servers across the internet merely by visiting them en masse. But then I look at Ron Paul's primary results and slink back to my basement.
Again, this is a "but..but what if" non-issue. Geek Squad doesn't service Macs. If you took it to a place that does service Macs, they would be able to remove the hard drive for you.
That is not a logical extension of my statement. If the problem is that the system won't power on, then remove the hard drive. If you aren't technically capable, then the service that you leave it with is, so have them remove your hard drive before leaving it. The point here is that you, and no one else, are ultimately responsible for the security of your data. If you're not up to the task of securing that data, don't put it on a computer. You can still pay your bills, file your taxes and check your bank account without a computer. Doing it on a computer is a convenience, one for which you exchange a certain amount of control over your data. How much control you relinquish is up to you.
The best outcome that can come of this is if someone, anyone out there figures out that when you give your laptop to someone else, make sure there isn't any private data on it. This is also important, as has been covered before, when you're traveling internationally.