They certainly DO count. If my kids were not in school, they would be at home. That would make their rent $0 and their utilities close to $0, saving them each approx $8K/year. And, btw, the school they attend is the nearest state school to our home that offers the majors they wanted. It is a 2 hour drive in good weather. Commuting is not an option.
Ah, no. If my kids were not in college they would probably still be at home. As it is, each of them are paying $7200/yr in rent which they otherwise would not be paying. They also pay for heating and utilities which they would not be paying. That is at least $32000 over four years that is a direct cost of going to college.
Right, and when no one but dirt bags run for office?
Whose fault is that? Why aren't YOU running for office if the available choices are so bad? What are YOU doing today to help shape the leaders you want tomorrow?
The easiest thing to do is sit around crying and whining and blaming everyone else for your unhappiness.
Nope. Read through the transcript. You'll see evidence of the IP address. You'll see evidence of how the ISP matched that to her account. Evidence of the a user name from kazaa. Evidence of the MAC address of the modem to which the IP addr was assigned. Evidence of how hard it would be to spoof the IP address. Evidence that there was no wireless router being used. Evidence that there were no other computers in her home. Evidence that the Kazaa user name matched her email address. Evidence that the user name on her computer matched the kazaa name. Evidence that her hard drive had been re-imaged after she was warned not to destroy data. Evidence that she used the kazaa name all over the place.
As I said, it means that the jury found the plaintiffs argument persuasive. It has nothing to do with percentages. What does that percentage even mean? What does 100% represent?
Preponderance of the evidence does not mean more likely than not. It means the plaintiff has presented a stronger case than the defense. 'More likely than not' is a simple probabilities statement, and preponderance of the evidence has nothing to do with probabilities.
I don't think there any such laws in the US, and in any case having your internet connection cut off is not losing a lawsuit or being convicted of a crime.
I don't know where you came up with that crap, but it is entirely false. Perhaps you could point us to this 51% law?
I suspect you are referring to the different standards between civil and criminal cases, but your interpretation is way off.
In a criminal case, the standard is 'reasonable doubt'. That is, if the jury has any reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, they must acquit. The defense does not even have to put on a case, and the jury can still decide the prosecutions case was too weak.
In a civil case, the standard is 'preponderance of evidence'. That means that, in the jury's mind, enough unrefuted evidence was presented by the plaintiff to determine that the defendant is liable. The defense MUST put on a case, or they will lose. It has nothing to do with probabilities or any such nonsense.
Of course an IP address is not equal to a person. A fingerprint found at a crime scene does not prove the person committed the crime either. Both are starting points for further investigation and collection of evidence. The only way you are legally going to be able to do the further investigation and collection of evidence is by initiating legal action via a lawsuit.
Good grief, are you really that dumb? Presumption of innocence means you are not guilty until proven otherwise (ie at trial). It does NOT refer to what the police do or who they consider guilty (a suspect). The stuff that happens BEFORE the trial is based on 'probable cause'. If your car is seen fleeing a crime scene, there is good reason (probable cause) to think you were involved. No, you have not been PROVEN to be involved yet, that would occur at trial. Same thing with an IP address. No, it does not mean the owner of the address is the guilty party, but there is probable cause to think he is, and that probable cause opens the door to the collection of further evidence and legal action. Nobody has been convicted or successfully sued based solely on an IP address.
The only thing presented by the plaintiffs at the trial was loss of PSN. No mention was made of games that don't work. If it is true that games don't work, it was the plaintiffs responsibility to present that. However, even if they did present it it probably would not have mattered, as there was never any guarantee made that you would be able to play all (or any) future games, or even that any future games would be made. Or do you think Sony also has a case against users who don't buy future games even though Sony sold the console at a loss based on their expectation you would buy future games?
A judge (who is doing his job properly) only rules based on what was argued. There is no mention of 'new games' in the order. If 'new games' is really an issue, then it is the plaintiff's fault for not bringing it up.
First, that is not bait-and-switch. Bait and switch is when a store advertises something, then when they get you to the store you find out they don't actually have that product, but they have a more expensive and/or different one. The point of bait-and-switch tactics is to convert a thought-out purchase decision (made in the comfort of your home) into an impulse decision (made at the store).
Secondly, read the ruling. The only thing Sony removed was access to the PSN, which it owns and you do not have expectation of continued access to (you have no contract). The decision to remove the OtherOS feature was made by the users, so they could continue access to PSN. It had nothing to do with EULAs or contracts.
Well, unless they have some sort of service contract with Sony that states they get exact replacements, including firmware, that's just too bad. There's a reason enterprise and military stuff is more expensive than consumer equipment, and serviceability and product longevity is a big part of it.
It is explained clearly in the order. The key is PSN, which is owned by Sony, not you. Access to PSN is completely at their discretion, and you have no reasonable expectation that you will have access forever. They changed the rules of PSN access to be 'no OtherOS'. YOU elected to install the upgrade (remove the feature) in order to continue access to THEIR service. Nothing was 'forced'. It was YOUR decision.
Well, you're wrong. See for instance this story about a well-known case.
The 18-year-old Rutgers freshman killed himself after prosecutors say his roommate secretly recorded a video of Clementi kissing another man and posted it online. His final message on Facebook read, "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."
I disagree. Trolling is discriminatory. It is commonly used by sport fishermen. You select bait, lure, whatever that will appeal to the fish you want, put your line in the water, and slowly move around until you get a bite. Then, you bring the fish in and keep it if it the type you want.
Trawling is non-discriminatory. It is used by commercial fishermen. You drag a great big net behind your boat and it catches everything in it's path.
Trolling would be what Facebook would be doing - looking for specific phrases, words, etc that may indicate suicide and ignoring everything else.
Trawling would mean that they would trigger on every post made, with no discrimination. Which would be entirely useless.
Trolling is fishing with a line hanging off a moving boat. You only catch fish that bite. Trawling is fishing by dragging a net. You catch everything. Trolling is correct in this context.
Slashdot Mirror
They certainly DO count. If my kids were not in school, they would be at home. That would make their rent $0 and their utilities close to $0, saving them each approx $8K/year. And, btw, the school they attend is the nearest state school to our home that offers the majors they wanted. It is a 2 hour drive in good weather. Commuting is not an option.
Assuming, of course, that there just happens to be a school offering the courses you want near your parent's house.
Ah, no. If my kids were not in college they would probably still be at home. As it is, each of them are paying $7200/yr in rent which they otherwise would not be paying. They also pay for heating and utilities which they would not be paying. That is at least $32000 over four years that is a direct cost of going to college.
Right, and when no one but dirt bags run for office?
Whose fault is that? Why aren't YOU running for office if the available choices are so bad? What are YOU doing today to help shape the leaders you want tomorrow?
The easiest thing to do is sit around crying and whining and blaming everyone else for your unhappiness.
Nope. Read through the transcript. You'll see evidence of the IP address. You'll see evidence of how the ISP matched that to her account. Evidence of the a user name from kazaa. Evidence of the MAC address of the modem to which the IP addr was assigned. Evidence of how hard it would be to spoof the IP address. Evidence that there was no wireless router being used. Evidence that there were no other computers in her home. Evidence that the Kazaa user name matched her email address. Evidence that the user name on her computer matched the kazaa name. Evidence that her hard drive had been re-imaged after she was warned not to destroy data. Evidence that she used the kazaa name all over the place.
As I said, it means that the jury found the plaintiffs argument persuasive. It has nothing to do with percentages. What does that percentage even mean? What does 100% represent?
Preponderance of the evidence does not mean more likely than not. It means the plaintiff has presented a stronger case than the defense. 'More likely than not' is a simple probabilities statement, and preponderance of the evidence has nothing to do with probabilities.
I don't think there any such laws in the US, and in any case having your internet connection cut off is not losing a lawsuit or being convicted of a crime.
Name a case where the ONLY evidence was an IP address, and the plaintiff won.
Name one case where someone lost a civil case based solely on an IP address.
I don't know where you came up with that crap, but it is entirely false. Perhaps you could point us to this 51% law?
I suspect you are referring to the different standards between civil and criminal cases, but your interpretation is way off.
In a criminal case, the standard is 'reasonable doubt'. That is, if the jury has any reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, they must acquit. The defense does not even have to put on a case, and the jury can still decide the prosecutions case was too weak.
In a civil case, the standard is 'preponderance of evidence'. That means that, in the jury's mind, enough unrefuted evidence was presented by the plaintiff to determine that the defendant is liable. The defense MUST put on a case, or they will lose. It has nothing to do with probabilities or any such nonsense.
Which they (and only they) have the right to do, as they own the copyright.
Of course an IP address is not equal to a person. A fingerprint found at a crime scene does not prove the person committed the crime either. Both are starting points for further investigation and collection of evidence. The only way you are legally going to be able to do the further investigation and collection of evidence is by initiating legal action via a lawsuit.
Good grief, are you really that dumb? Presumption of innocence means you are not guilty until proven otherwise (ie at trial). It does NOT refer to what the police do or who they consider guilty (a suspect). The stuff that happens BEFORE the trial is based on 'probable cause'. If your car is seen fleeing a crime scene, there is good reason (probable cause) to think you were involved. No, you have not been PROVEN to be involved yet, that would occur at trial. Same thing with an IP address. No, it does not mean the owner of the address is the guilty party, but there is probable cause to think he is, and that probable cause opens the door to the collection of further evidence and legal action. Nobody has been convicted or successfully sued based solely on an IP address.
The only thing presented by the plaintiffs at the trial was loss of PSN. No mention was made of games that don't work. If it is true that games don't work, it was the plaintiffs responsibility to present that. However, even if they did present it it probably would not have mattered, as there was never any guarantee made that you would be able to play all (or any) future games, or even that any future games would be made. Or do you think Sony also has a case against users who don't buy future games even though Sony sold the console at a loss based on their expectation you would buy future games?
I got my definition of bait and switch from the FTC. Where did you get yours from?
A judge (who is doing his job properly) only rules based on what was argued. There is no mention of 'new games' in the order. If 'new games' is really an issue, then it is the plaintiff's fault for not bringing it up.
First, that is not bait-and-switch. Bait and switch is when a store advertises something, then when they get you to the store you find out they don't actually have that product, but they have a more expensive and/or different one. The point of bait-and-switch tactics is to convert a thought-out purchase decision (made in the comfort of your home) into an impulse decision (made at the store).
Secondly, read the ruling. The only thing Sony removed was access to the PSN, which it owns and you do not have expectation of continued access to (you have no contract). The decision to remove the OtherOS feature was made by the users, so they could continue access to PSN. It had nothing to do with EULAs or contracts.
The only other function affected (as presented in the case) was access to PSN, which, as the judge mentioned, there was no guarantee of.
Well, unless they have some sort of service contract with Sony that states they get exact replacements, including firmware, that's just too bad. There's a reason enterprise and military stuff is more expensive than consumer equipment, and serviceability and product longevity is a big part of it.
It is explained clearly in the order. The key is PSN, which is owned by Sony, not you. Access to PSN is completely at their discretion, and you have no reasonable expectation that you will have access forever. They changed the rules of PSN access to be 'no OtherOS'. YOU elected to install the upgrade (remove the feature) in order to continue access to THEIR service. Nothing was 'forced'. It was YOUR decision.
Well, you're wrong. See for instance this story about a well-known case.
The 18-year-old Rutgers freshman killed himself after prosecutors say his roommate secretly recorded a video of Clementi kissing another man and posted it online. His final message on Facebook read, "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."
I disagree. Trolling is discriminatory. It is commonly used by sport fishermen. You select bait, lure, whatever that will appeal to the fish you want, put your line in the water, and slowly move around until you get a bite. Then, you bring the fish in and keep it if it the type you want.
Trawling is non-discriminatory. It is used by commercial fishermen. You drag a great big net behind your boat and it catches everything in it's path.
Trolling would be what Facebook would be doing - looking for specific phrases, words, etc that may indicate suicide and ignoring everything else.
Trawling would mean that they would trigger on every post made, with no discrimination. Which would be entirely useless.
Trolling is fishing with a line hanging off a moving boat. You only catch fish that bite. Trawling is fishing by dragging a net. You catch everything. Trolling is correct in this context.
Thanks for the info