This was, as best as I can tell, neither a defamation nor a libel case. This was a claim of tortious interference, which means the defendant intentionally interfered with contract between the plaintiff and a third party (in this case a university who employed the plaintiff).
Generally speaking, reporting news such as this is protected (maybe more so for pro journalists than bloggers). As I understand it the plaintiff had to show that the blogger intended to get him fired when he wrote the article breaking this news. The blogger apparently (foolishly) wrote a second blog article claiming partial credit for getting the guy fired. This is probably what got him into hot water or at least into more of it.
Still, my opinion is that first amendment should protect this particular blogger for this particular story (knowing only sketchy details, this is an uninformed opinion).
If you're a neutral journalist (esp a professional one) who reports (breaks news) on a pedophile as a public interest story, you're very likely to be protected by first amendment rights. But if you report the story with the intent to get the teacher fired, that may run you into the same trouble this blogger got into. How to avoid showing your intent? Keep your story neutral and fact-focused. After your story runs, then journalists would enjoy first amendment rights to write an op-ed on the story stating that "in cases like these, people should be fired" (or you might even demand this specific person gets fired, though that's more rare in op-eds).
See how it works? Imperfect, but designed to have balances for journalistic neutrality and opinion.
We don't in the US have a blanket protection to report anything, but we also have a broad protection on reporters so long as they are just reporting and not trying to influence affairs (though of course many journalists know that's exactly what they're doing when they write certain stories -- but they don't *say that* in their articles).
In this case, I gather, the blogger said in a subsequent blog post that he took credit for getting the guy fired. I still think this verdict stinks, but I'd guess that subsequent public statement got the blogger into more hot water.
This was a civil case not a criminal case. It was a public case (jury trial) not a private case (arbitration, etc). Anyone can call themselves a journalist, but not all claims will be honored in court. That determination seems to be flexible in many ways.
The issue in this case (as best as I can make out) was not journalism and free speech, but "tortious interference" which may have involved the fact that the blogger *intended* to get the guy fired. Journalists are supposed to be neutral - not trying to create an outcome. I still think this verdict smells funny, but the blogger wrote a second article (apparently) that took partial credit for getting the guy fired, and probably that's where his trouble began.
I think pro journalists generally know to avoid such public statements, for this very reason..
Hang on - juries don't just decide facts. They are *instructed in the law* by the judge, and are told to follow it. In their deliberations, they are legally obliged to follow this law and decide the facts. (Aside: It's quite illegal in jurisdictions I'm familiar with for a juror in the jury room to say and then follow through by voting on a statement like "I don't care what the law says, I'm not convicting this guy even if he is guilty" while it is perfectly legal for the same juror to keep his trap shut and just vote "not guilty.")
In this case the claim against the blogger was tortious interference, which roughly means proving not only are the facts as you presented them, but proving the blogger had intent to interfere with a contract between the plaintiff and a third party (in this case an employment agreement with a university). From the limited info in the article, the plaintiff may have gotten over that hurdle, at least partially, by showing that the blogger himself subsequent to the original blog took *partial* credit on a second blog article for getting the guy fired. This could help show intent to interfere with the employment contact. So, while it might be unambiguous free speech to publish or point out public information with no intent to cause harm, if the blogger is shown to have done so because he intended to screw up a legal contract, that may be a different issue.
Regardless of the above legal issues, in my opinion, first amendment protections in a case like this should override a tortious interference claim, but apparently this (I'm sure legally astute) jury of *seven* went the other way. The perils of a jury trial -- I wonder why the defendant didn't ask for a bench trial in this case..
If you want to see a classic example of tortious interference, watch the movie The Insider by Michael Mann. It shows (at least cinematically) how tortious interference claims can be used to stifle first amendment rights even against "big media" companies who have real lawyers.
Seven jurors in this case, not twelve. Also, since this was a civil case (though the article didn't mention it that I noticed) I don't think you always need a unanimous verdict from a civil jury. It's possible only 4 of the 7 voted for the plaintiff.. Not sure what the jury voting percentage rules are for the state in question.
The Up house was designed after a friend of mine's house in Berkeley. He'll kill me if I reveal the location, but the Pixar director had been eying the house for years apparently and through a mutual friend made acquaintance with my friend, the owner. They sent a team from Pixar over to take pictures and measurements and from watching the movie, the animated house is pretty darned similar. So these guys have essentially re-built a house in already standing in Berkeley and floated it. FWIW.
Ok - sorry about that. Context about the American job and the original $200k being in US dollars made me interpret wrongly. Getting the permit to work in the US might be the hardest part then..
The story is about a guy in the US, the thread was about comparisons to people in the US - by context it's pretty clear that this is about US incomes.
Re:Keeping big buffers but managing them better
on
Got (Buffer) Bloat?
·
· Score: 1
You may be right about some of your points, but (if I understand your point) you're wrong about the QoS and net neutral stuff. FCC has never indicated that net neutrality regulations will impinge on "reasonable network management" practices. If folks need to route certain kinds of packets or manage certain kinds of buffers in specific ways to get performant networks, that's just great as far they're concerned (or anyone else with a legislative/regulatory angle I've ever read about or talked with).
I corresponded with some FCC staff about this bufferbloat issue specifically, and they are interested in it and definitely talking with the tel/cable cos about how to fix this. Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent these companies from taking unfair advantage of their position as network providers, not about making them worse network providers.
This is an important point - and one most people are confused about. I'd like to add a nuance: my understanding is TX buffers are OK IF the router is very smarting about its queuing algorithm within the buffer, so that it drops packets early for any given sender so that the senders don't mistake a large buffer for a large pipe and overspeed the transmission. I believe Gettys &c just released (this article) is such a router/buffer queuing algorithm - smart enough to be effectively utilized with large buffered routers.
You should definitely submit your paper to the conference. If it's selected, you can decide if you can go to read. In fact, if you're inclined to get the credit for having it read, you can accept the lecture spot and cancel it later, and you'll still get the paper printed into the conference journal. You could even have a friend who is attending read in your place, saving you the expense of going.
But getting a journal credit and a conference credit is key if you're going in academics and it helps on any CV/resume, so try to accomplish that and don't worry about whether to go physically so much.
As others have pointed out, being physically there comes down to whether there are people at the conference that you want to meet, or if there will be people at the conference who you think will want to meet you after you read your paper..
Median household income is $44k in the US. At the $44k income level there are about 1.4 wage earners per household. That equates to ~$31,400/earner on the median. You're making about 51% of the median income per earner.
Good points. To add to this, if you let folks type free text and pass that back to sql then you are at risk. As you say if the number of ways to do this is small, the areas you have to secure are small, but it's not about passing sql back and forth, it's about accepting characters from users that eventually appear in a sql statement, something a lot of apps need to do. Parameterizing your queries is smart but it's not foolproof (of course you are not suggesting it is foolproof, I'm just trying to add some detail to the vulnerability).
According to this benchmark V8 is 4x slower than C/C++. From my perspective that's "somewhere close" to C's performance. Compared to the 10x+ bench for most scripting languages including other Javascript implementations, it's pretty darn respectable. And if they just improved it by another 60% for many applications, that's a big deal..
Did you just call the whole body of Shakespeare's work "schlock?" Just checking to be sure that's what you meant.
IMO, just b/c something is popular doesn't mean it's "shlocky" (schlock means crude or inferior). Shakespeare's remarkable use of the English language has rarely been equaled since, and I'm far from alone in this opinion.. The fact that he could create high uses of the language and still make his works accessible and popular simply reinforces the notion that his work was not schlocky. But certainly many popular works then and since *are* schlocky (among them the tv shows you mentioned).
If by "story" you mean the name of the story and the name of the characters, then copyright and trademark do protect the owner. If you want to retell the same story using a different title and new names of characters/locations, and w/new prose etc, you're free to do so. "Wind done gone" for example got into some trouble b/c it was clearly re-using the same story title and many character names, though arguably it was satire and so protected from infringement.
So Shakespeare's copying of the ancients, as best I understand it, was re-using characters and plots that appear in multiple previous authors' works. This kind of re-use of common culture is still permitted today. It's direct re-use of specific creations by orgs/individuals that is prohibited.
All good points. To add a concern: I don't know the laws in these countries, but perhaps even possessing crypto tools is illegal? I'd check into that before using this stuff in country.
Up until recently BB was defined as 756k. There's been a move to redefine as 3mbps or 5mbps but as far as I know FCC hasn't pulled the trigger on this.
And it's not just Montana that doesn't get BB wired or wireless. My folks live not 8 miles from a town of 8,000 people (and in a community of at least 40 homes) and can't get cell service (even analog) let along 3g. And no DSL/Cable either.
I'm afraid it'll never happen, but I would also love to see this. I would have never thought Music would become DRM free, so I'll happily be wrong on this one too. I love buying used books - it just feels right.
Does anyone know if you can sell an MP3 to a third party originally bought from Amazon or Apple? I mean legally. So someone buys it from you and you delete your copy? Is that legal today under either company's terms of service and/or copyright license for the music?
Slashdot Mirror
This was, as best as I can tell, neither a defamation nor a libel case. This was a claim of tortious interference, which means the defendant intentionally interfered with contract between the plaintiff and a third party (in this case a university who employed the plaintiff).
Generally speaking, reporting news such as this is protected (maybe more so for pro journalists than bloggers). As I understand it the plaintiff had to show that the blogger intended to get him fired when he wrote the article breaking this news. The blogger apparently (foolishly) wrote a second blog article claiming partial credit for getting the guy fired. This is probably what got him into hot water or at least into more of it.
Still, my opinion is that first amendment should protect this particular blogger for this particular story (knowing only sketchy details, this is an uninformed opinion).
If you're a neutral journalist (esp a professional one) who reports (breaks news) on a pedophile as a public interest story, you're very likely to be protected by first amendment rights. But if you report the story with the intent to get the teacher fired, that may run you into the same trouble this blogger got into. How to avoid showing your intent? Keep your story neutral and fact-focused. After your story runs, then journalists would enjoy first amendment rights to write an op-ed on the story stating that "in cases like these, people should be fired" (or you might even demand this specific person gets fired, though that's more rare in op-eds).
See how it works? Imperfect, but designed to have balances for journalistic neutrality and opinion.
We don't in the US have a blanket protection to report anything, but we also have a broad protection on reporters so long as they are just reporting and not trying to influence affairs (though of course many journalists know that's exactly what they're doing when they write certain stories -- but they don't *say that* in their articles).
In this case, I gather, the blogger said in a subsequent blog post that he took credit for getting the guy fired. I still think this verdict stinks, but I'd guess that subsequent public statement got the blogger into more hot water.
This was a civil case not a criminal case. It was a public case (jury trial) not a private case (arbitration, etc). Anyone can call themselves a journalist, but not all claims will be honored in court. That determination seems to be flexible in many ways.
The issue in this case (as best as I can make out) was not journalism and free speech, but "tortious interference" which may have involved the fact that the blogger *intended* to get the guy fired. Journalists are supposed to be neutral - not trying to create an outcome. I still think this verdict smells funny, but the blogger wrote a second article (apparently) that took partial credit for getting the guy fired, and probably that's where his trouble began.
I think pro journalists generally know to avoid such public statements, for this very reason..
Hang on - juries don't just decide facts. They are *instructed in the law* by the judge, and are told to follow it. In their deliberations, they are legally obliged to follow this law and decide the facts. (Aside: It's quite illegal in jurisdictions I'm familiar with for a juror in the jury room to say and then follow through by voting on a statement like "I don't care what the law says, I'm not convicting this guy even if he is guilty" while it is perfectly legal for the same juror to keep his trap shut and just vote "not guilty.")
In this case the claim against the blogger was tortious interference, which roughly means proving not only are the facts as you presented them, but proving the blogger had intent to interfere with a contract between the plaintiff and a third party (in this case an employment agreement with a university). From the limited info in the article, the plaintiff may have gotten over that hurdle, at least partially, by showing that the blogger himself subsequent to the original blog took *partial* credit on a second blog article for getting the guy fired. This could help show intent to interfere with the employment contact. So, while it might be unambiguous free speech to publish or point out public information with no intent to cause harm, if the blogger is shown to have done so because he intended to screw up a legal contract, that may be a different issue.
Regardless of the above legal issues, in my opinion, first amendment protections in a case like this should override a tortious interference claim, but apparently this (I'm sure legally astute) jury of *seven* went the other way. The perils of a jury trial -- I wonder why the defendant didn't ask for a bench trial in this case..
If you want to see a classic example of tortious interference, watch the movie The Insider by Michael Mann. It shows (at least cinematically) how tortious interference claims can be used to stifle first amendment rights even against "big media" companies who have real lawyers.
Seven jurors in this case, not twelve. Also, since this was a civil case (though the article didn't mention it that I noticed) I don't think you always need a unanimous verdict from a civil jury. It's possible only 4 of the 7 voted for the plaintiff.. Not sure what the jury voting percentage rules are for the state in question.
Apparently dual-booting not running on top of Win.. Was a bad summary. Read this article for example: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/13/hp-picks-up-phoenixs-hyperspace-hypercore-and-flip-instant-on/
The Up house was designed after a friend of mine's house in Berkeley. He'll kill me if I reveal the location, but the Pixar director had been eying the house for years apparently and through a mutual friend made acquaintance with my friend, the owner. They sent a team from Pixar over to take pictures and measurements and from watching the movie, the animated house is pretty darned similar. So these guys have essentially re-built a house in already standing in Berkeley and floated it. FWIW.
Close - Late 70's: http://oldcomputers.net/appleii.html
Ok - sorry about that. Context about the American job and the original $200k being in US dollars made me interpret wrongly. Getting the permit to work in the US might be the hardest part then..
The story is about a guy in the US, the thread was about comparisons to people in the US - by context it's pretty clear that this is about US incomes.
You may be right about some of your points, but (if I understand your point) you're wrong about the QoS and net neutral stuff. FCC has never indicated that net neutrality regulations will impinge on "reasonable network management" practices. If folks need to route certain kinds of packets or manage certain kinds of buffers in specific ways to get performant networks, that's just great as far they're concerned (or anyone else with a legislative/regulatory angle I've ever read about or talked with).
I corresponded with some FCC staff about this bufferbloat issue specifically, and they are interested in it and definitely talking with the tel/cable cos about how to fix this. Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent these companies from taking unfair advantage of their position as network providers, not about making them worse network providers.
This is an important point - and one most people are confused about. I'd like to add a nuance: my understanding is TX buffers are OK IF the router is very smarting about its queuing algorithm within the buffer, so that it drops packets early for any given sender so that the senders don't mistake a large buffer for a large pipe and overspeed the transmission. I believe Gettys &c just released (this article) is such a router/buffer queuing algorithm - smart enough to be effectively utilized with large buffered routers.
You should definitely submit your paper to the conference. If it's selected, you can decide if you can go to read. In fact, if you're inclined to get the credit for having it read, you can accept the lecture spot and cancel it later, and you'll still get the paper printed into the conference journal. You could even have a friend who is attending read in your place, saving you the expense of going.
But getting a journal credit and a conference credit is key if you're going in academics and it helps on any CV/resume, so try to accomplish that and don't worry about whether to go physically so much.
As others have pointed out, being physically there comes down to whether there are people at the conference that you want to meet, or if there will be people at the conference who you think will want to meet you after you read your paper..
No, you're not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Median_income and the chart here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Household_income_in_the_U.S.
Median household income is $44k in the US. At the $44k income level there are about 1.4 wage earners per household. That equates to ~$31,400/earner on the median. You're making about 51% of the median income per earner.
Good points. To add to this, if you let folks type free text and pass that back to sql then you are at risk. As you say if the number of ways to do this is small, the areas you have to secure are small, but it's not about passing sql back and forth, it's about accepting characters from users that eventually appear in a sql statement, something a lot of apps need to do. Parameterizing your queries is smart but it's not foolproof (of course you are not suggesting it is foolproof, I'm just trying to add some detail to the vulnerability).
Yeah - and LuaJIT is mindboggling for a scripted language (admittedly JIT'ed like Java).. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
According to this benchmark V8 is 4x slower than C/C++. From my perspective that's "somewhere close" to C's performance. Compared to the 10x+ bench for most scripting languages including other Javascript implementations, it's pretty darn respectable. And if they just improved it by another 60% for many applications, that's a big deal..
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
Javascript V8 (v9 presumably) according to this benchmark is 4x slower than C. Not bad at all, IMO.
Geohot says he's got enough money for now, so he pulled the link: http://geohotgotsued.blogspot.com/
Did you just call the whole body of Shakespeare's work "schlock?" Just checking to be sure that's what you meant.
IMO, just b/c something is popular doesn't mean it's "shlocky" (schlock means crude or inferior). Shakespeare's remarkable use of the English language has rarely been equaled since, and I'm far from alone in this opinion.. The fact that he could create high uses of the language and still make his works accessible and popular simply reinforces the notion that his work was not schlocky. But certainly many popular works then and since *are* schlocky (among them the tv shows you mentioned).
If by "story" you mean the name of the story and the name of the characters, then copyright and trademark do protect the owner. If you want to retell the same story using a different title and new names of characters/locations, and w/new prose etc, you're free to do so. "Wind done gone" for example got into some trouble b/c it was clearly re-using the same story title and many character names, though arguably it was satire and so protected from infringement.
So Shakespeare's copying of the ancients, as best I understand it, was re-using characters and plots that appear in multiple previous authors' works. This kind of re-use of common culture is still permitted today. It's direct re-use of specific creations by orgs/individuals that is prohibited.
All good points. To add a concern: I don't know the laws in these countries, but perhaps even possessing crypto tools is illegal? I'd check into that before using this stuff in country.
Up until recently BB was defined as 756k. There's been a move to redefine as 3mbps or 5mbps but as far as I know FCC hasn't pulled the trigger on this.
And it's not just Montana that doesn't get BB wired or wireless. My folks live not 8 miles from a town of 8,000 people (and in a community of at least 40 homes) and can't get cell service (even analog) let along 3g. And no DSL/Cable either.
I'm afraid it'll never happen, but I would also love to see this. I would have never thought Music would become DRM free, so I'll happily be wrong on this one too. I love buying used books - it just feels right.
Does anyone know if you can sell an MP3 to a third party originally bought from Amazon or Apple? I mean legally. So someone buys it from you and you delete your copy? Is that legal today under either company's terms of service and/or copyright license for the music?
http://xkcd.com/644/