I read that part, I was just under the assumption that the law is actually what's written down in the books, not whatever the courts decide to do. The actual statute clearly states that a person who records a private conversation without the consent of all parties, regardless of whether or not they are a participant, has committed a felony. I don't know how things work in Michigan though, so I could be wrong, maybe the courts have free reign to declare what is and is not legal. It was my understanding that is supposed to be the job of the legislators, not the judges.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law [citmedialaw.org] since you're too lazy to attempt to debunk me, like a typical 7-digit slashdotter.
Scroll up, I already debunked you replying to someone else (using your same source, no less).
Feel free to click the link in that article also and follow it to the mi.gov site, where you'll read this:
750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation.
Sec. 539c.
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Remember, I'm the guy that kicked EA's ass over the Spore DRM issue.
Why would I remember that? I don't know who you are. I remember a lot of people writing negative reviews for Spore on Amazon, if all of those reviewers were you, then congratulations.
Back to reality though, how does it feel that Wikipedia is right about this, and you're wrong?
Also, just because I want to see what happens, Michigan cops are liars.
Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." This looks like an "all party consent" law, but one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. The Michigan Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this question, so it is not clear whether you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to it. But, if you plan on recording a conversation to which you are not a party, you must get the consent of all parties to that conversation.
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Great, more anecdotal evidence. Exactly what I was looking for.
See judge, I know this guy online.. well not "know", but I was talking to him. Well not "talking", and it might have not been a guy, but we were communicating. And this person said that this happens all the time, and that if I don't believe that then I'm calling cops liars. I rest my case.
Call them liars and let's see what happens.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly are you expecting to happen if I claim that cops in Michigan lie? Are the Michigan cops and their internet tough guy friends going to come and get me?
It's no more difficult for me to look up Michigan law than it is for you to look it up, I'm trying to make a point that instead of just asserting what a law is, it really helps your cred if you can back up your claim (with the actual law I mean, not stories about what you saw or heard from someone else).
Michigan certainly does NOT have two-party consent. Only one person need be aware of the recording
Can you provide any evidence of that claim?
I mean.. [citation needed]
I trust this "Lumpy" as much as the next guy, I suppose, but if I tell a judge that I heard it from Lumpy and Khyber I don't think he's really going to care.
Note that doesn't mean I think the features in question are good or bad - but really, I'm not going to put much stock into anything anyone wrote up after at most a few minutes of use.
His central point was that he couldn't find a single site that was flagged as a phishing site. He even bolded that for you. If you can disprove that, go ahead and post a comment to his blog, he doesn't have any comments yet of people offering sites that do actually get flagged.
If you click on the graphs to go to the xpnet.com site, you'll see that it is reporting 10,270 active clients. That number was last updated 2 days ago, apparently.
If you're worried about the small sample size, perhaps you can contact the exo performance network and see what data their software transmits and whether or not it would be useful to install on your 1000 client machines. If there's no personally-identifiable information sent back, and if the software is not responsible for crashing clients or disrupting work, it would definitely help the accuracy of the statistics.
Pay attention, they aren't tracking sales data. They're tracking actual usage data as reported by their actual reporting tool, installed on actual computers by actual users. The sample size is only just over 10k machines, but even so, it's actual usage data, not sales data.
Yeah, you're right, it's ridiculous to assume that someone would want to play an audio device through a decent set of speakers. People should use their iPod Shuffle for when they are jogging, working out, etc. For home stereo playback, you should use your iPod Classic. For car stereo playback, it would make the most sense to use your iPod Nano. And, of course, for video playback you should be using your iPod Touch. And obviously your iPhone is used to browse the web.
If you use any of these devices for any activities that have not been explicitly sanctioned by Apple, you are subject to immediate disconnection. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, and for assisting us in our goal to improve our bottom line.
Not only will they sound like crap, but you won't be able to control playback (controls are now only on the headphones). That sort of puts a damper on things if you were expecting to use a line out to plug this into a car or home stereo. The only button on the device itself is the on/off switch.
Am I the only person that went to the CWM page and slid the "Please Select Your Location" bar up and down for about 5 minutes?
Dude, there's only 10 items in the list, and they're alphabetized. Did you read each one for 30 seconds to see if it said "United States"? If you click on "Can't Find Your Location" you go to the regular Nokia store where there's another location dropdown with more options, but still no US. It also has a section titled "Available In These Countries", still no US. There's also a box to enter your email to get notified when the store becomes available in another country (the US is listed in that box).
So yeah, there's no US support. They don't bother to explain why.
I'm sort of the same, except it's about data prices. If I can stream for a very low price (with enough throughput that the music doesn't skip), I would prefer that. If the carrier is going to charge more for the throughput than what I think it's worth, I'm happy to load up my own files. As it is I end up streaming most music that I listen to at home and work, Pandora works just fine for that.
What do you mean add up the speeds? If I have a max of 10MB on my line, and my neighbor has a max of 5MB, do we assume that the average speed is 7.5MB, even though the ISP might only have 12MB total and is just overselling? Can't an ISP add 10 new lines and give them all the same nominal speed, even though they have the same network behind it all?
I guess I'm confused about the phrase "add up all the speeds", how many speeds are there in Arizona to add up?
They spent 6 years trying before giving up. Their competitors submitted arguments that the v-twin sound from several different styles of engines all sounded the same, HD eventually withdrew their application.
Slashdot Mirror
I read that part, I was just under the assumption that the law is actually what's written down in the books, not whatever the courts decide to do. The actual statute clearly states that a person who records a private conversation without the consent of all parties, regardless of whether or not they are a participant, has committed a felony. I don't know how things work in Michigan though, so I could be wrong, maybe the courts have free reign to declare what is and is not legal. It was my understanding that is supposed to be the job of the legislators, not the judges.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law [citmedialaw.org] since you're too lazy to attempt to debunk me, like a typical 7-digit slashdotter.
Scroll up, I already debunked you replying to someone else (using your same source, no less).
Feel free to click the link in that article also and follow it to the mi.gov site, where you'll read this:
750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation.
Sec. 539c.
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto ... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Remember, I'm the guy that kicked EA's ass over the Spore DRM issue.
Why would I remember that? I don't know who you are. I remember a lot of people writing negative reviews for Spore on Amazon, if all of those reviewers were you, then congratulations.
Back to reality though, how does it feel that Wikipedia is right about this, and you're wrong?
Also, just because I want to see what happens, Michigan cops are liars.
WRONG. Michigan requires only ONE party to know it's being taped.
That's not what this says:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law
Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." This looks like an "all party consent" law, but one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. The Michigan Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this question, so it is not clear whether you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to it. But, if you plan on recording a conversation to which you are not a party, you must get the consent of all parties to that conversation.
Also, from the horse's mouth:
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539c
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto ... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Great, more anecdotal evidence. Exactly what I was looking for.
See judge, I know this guy online.. well not "know", but I was talking to him. Well not "talking", and it might have not been a guy, but we were communicating. And this person said that this happens all the time, and that if I don't believe that then I'm calling cops liars. I rest my case.
Call them liars and let's see what happens.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly are you expecting to happen if I claim that cops in Michigan lie? Are the Michigan cops and their internet tough guy friends going to come and get me?
It's no more difficult for me to look up Michigan law than it is for you to look it up, I'm trying to make a point that instead of just asserting what a law is, it really helps your cred if you can back up your claim (with the actual law I mean, not stories about what you saw or heard from someone else).
I think the "criteria for speedy deletion" pointing to your comment is probably going to change that.
Michigan certainly does NOT have two-party consent. Only one person need be aware of the recording
Can you provide any evidence of that claim?
I mean.. [citation needed]
I trust this "Lumpy" as much as the next guy, I suppose, but if I tell a judge that I heard it from Lumpy and Khyber I don't think he's really going to care.
Note that doesn't mean I think the features in question are good or bad - but really, I'm not going to put much stock into anything anyone wrote up after at most a few minutes of use.
His central point was that he couldn't find a single site that was flagged as a phishing site. He even bolded that for you. If you can disprove that, go ahead and post a comment to his blog, he doesn't have any comments yet of people offering sites that do actually get flagged.
If you click on the graphs to go to the xpnet.com site, you'll see that it is reporting 10,270 active clients. That number was last updated 2 days ago, apparently.
If you're worried about the small sample size, perhaps you can contact the exo performance network and see what data their software transmits and whether or not it would be useful to install on your 1000 client machines. If there's no personally-identifiable information sent back, and if the software is not responsible for crashing clients or disrupting work, it would definitely help the accuracy of the statistics.
Pay attention, they aren't tracking sales data. They're tracking actual usage data as reported by their actual reporting tool, installed on actual computers by actual users. The sample size is only just over 10k machines, but even so, it's actual usage data, not sales data.
What you are doing is supposed to be science not PR.
You think hubblesite.org is about science instead of PR, huh? NASA depends on good PR in order to survive.
I don't own a shuffle, I'm just saying it's not exactly a stretch to imagine someone wanting to plug an audio player into a stereo.
Yeah, you're right, it's ridiculous to assume that someone would want to play an audio device through a decent set of speakers. People should use their iPod Shuffle for when they are jogging, working out, etc. For home stereo playback, you should use your iPod Classic. For car stereo playback, it would make the most sense to use your iPod Nano. And, of course, for video playback you should be using your iPod Touch. And obviously your iPhone is used to browse the web.
If you use any of these devices for any activities that have not been explicitly sanctioned by Apple, you are subject to immediate disconnection. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, and for assisting us in our goal to improve our bottom line.
Not only will they sound like crap, but you won't be able to control playback (controls are now only on the headphones). That sort of puts a damper on things if you were expecting to use a line out to plug this into a car or home stereo. The only button on the device itself is the on/off switch.
I agree.
is there any less way to be prepared
"any less way"? How about "any way to be less prepared"? Or is that what you learned in ungrammar school?
I got it, so this is an average of speed tests performed by users. That makes more sense. Sorry, my Asperger's is flaring up.
Now I feel screwed, I'm in Arizona. The place I work at has only a T1.
Am I the only person that went to the CWM page and slid the "Please Select Your Location" bar up and down for about 5 minutes?
Dude, there's only 10 items in the list, and they're alphabetized. Did you read each one for 30 seconds to see if it said "United States"? If you click on "Can't Find Your Location" you go to the regular Nokia store where there's another location dropdown with more options, but still no US. It also has a section titled "Available In These Countries", still no US. There's also a box to enter your email to get notified when the store becomes available in another country (the US is listed in that box).
So yeah, there's no US support. They don't bother to explain why.
I'm sort of the same, except it's about data prices. If I can stream for a very low price (with enough throughput that the music doesn't skip), I would prefer that. If the carrier is going to charge more for the throughput than what I think it's worth, I'm happy to load up my own files. As it is I end up streaming most music that I listen to at home and work, Pandora works just fine for that.
What do you mean add up the speeds? If I have a max of 10MB on my line, and my neighbor has a max of 5MB, do we assume that the average speed is 7.5MB, even though the ISP might only have 12MB total and is just overselling? Can't an ISP add 10 new lines and give them all the same nominal speed, even though they have the same network behind it all?
I guess I'm confused about the phrase "add up all the speeds", how many speeds are there in Arizona to add up?
I'd like to award you with a special naive idealism star, congratulations.
Get a long-range wifi antenna, find a long-distance neighbor to split the ISP bill with, and stop your bitching.
Or, wait for some phone company to do it for you. Your choice.
What do those numbers mean? What do you mean that the Russian Federation and Arizona get 7 Mbps?
He doesn't deserve to sit in jail until someone gets around to changing the passwords.
They spent 6 years trying before giving up. Their competitors submitted arguments that the v-twin sound from several different styles of engines all sounded the same, HD eventually withdrew their application.