She had to lie. The jury decides the facts but the judge decides the law. If she stipulates to the facts (yes it was me!) and the judge decides the law (making available counts) then the plaintiff motions for summary judgement (no facts in dispute) and the jury goes home.
But you're right, its a really bad idea to lie to a judge or a jury. They're remarkably good at smelling lies. If you'll lose the case on the truth, you should try hard to settle.
It is my understanding that medical hearings are heard by a competent jury.
Your understanding is wrong. Jury selection for medical malpractice cases favors random folks off the street and tends to specifically exclude folks who have a background in the type of medicine at issue. The lawyers want the jury's entire understanding of the subject matter to be controlled by the combination of their expert witnesses and opposing counsel's expert witnesses (who they've already deposed and know what they'll say).
That's because you're not supposed to interpret the facts based on your own skills. You're supposed to rely on the opposing expert witnesses for that.
RIAA's expert witness reduced the tracking process to, "Defendant admitted to using this cutesy alias here, here and here. This document means that the same name, apparently from the same place also did this unlawful act there."
Defendants's expert witness reduced 802.11 to, "Its like walkie talkies. It could have been anybody in the neighborhood."
The jury listened to both. Then they used common sense and said, "Yeah it theoretically could have been anybody but it was obviously the defendant."
That's what "preponderance of the evidence" means. The jury decides which side is more likely to be right.
spring, reports began surfacing of Verizon routinely disabling copper as it installed its fiber-based FiOS service
Last spring? I had FiOS installed in early to mid 2005 and the installer asked to remove my copper. At the time I hadn't yet cancelled my T1. But for that I've no doubt he'd have removed it.
I don't think geeks directly hold it against female engineers who decide to skip happy hour and don't hang around for the after-hours LAN party. Its their choice, just as its ours to hold and attend those events. The folks who skip those events miss the socialization that results in better teamwork, and that's also their choice. And if anyone wants to initiate other team social events that they like, I'll support them 100%. Heck, I enjoy picnics, camping and all sorts of activities that someone else makes the effort to organize.
But don't tell me I shouldn't hold the weekly quake deathmatch because it might alienate the female engineers. That's a load of crap.
ARP has a local scope, often just within the same building. Your MAC address doesn't leak to a guy on the other side of the world like it does with IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration.
Of course they'll skip "stateless autoconfiguration." Even if it could be upgraded to provide enough information to the client (such as the location of the DNS servers) the fact remains the the autoconfigured IP address is selected by running a reversable algorithm on the MAC address. This means that in every communication you're advertising to the entire network:
1. What manufacturer made your NIC chipset 2. With high probability which NIC chipset is in use 3. With high probability which firmware revision is installed
Add OS fingerprinting to the equation and now you're also advertising with high probability exactly which low level network driver is running on your machine.
I agree completely. Which is why here in Cox territory I pay $150/mo for a "business" cable Internet link. I get static IP addresses, I'm allowed to have servers and I can use as much bandwidth as I can consume. It also uses a different channel (frequency) that the residential cable modems.
You do understand that at the residential level its statistics game, right? They can't double the price and give you double the bandwidth, they can only give you double the 95th percentile peak across all users which turns out to be less than the cutoff bandwidth they've chosen.
Could be any number of things. The leading candidates are: encoding at the content provider, encoding at the cable company, light line noise corrupting data and your decoder box not necessarily in that order.
If you see compression artifacts but no snow then at least you know you're digital along the entire path.
I see both digital interference artifacts and analog interference artifacts.
Then there is both analog and digital in the transmission path to you. Why make the distinction between last mile and not last mile when the whole path affects the quality of what you receive?
Heh, I suppose it helps that I don't actually care about televised sports. I enjoy watching a spirited game of soccer from the stands but I just can't wrap my head around a 60-minute game of football that takes more than 4 hours to televise and play.
But how to know for sure if a channel is digital or analog as received?'
Look at the noise characteristics. Analog and digital respond to noise differently. Digital pixilates and stutters but otherwise displays a perfect picture. Analog ghosts and snows.
If you're not getting enough noise to tell the difference then smile and be happy because you have a better cable TV signal than most of the rest of us.
Fair enough. I interpreted the poster's question to mean, "What can we unilaterally require?" not "What are the available stances for negotiation?" I do acknowledge that "legal recourse" is about 90% the latter.
I was in a similar situation about a decade ago. I built a game web site which included a number of pre-web walkthroughs and similar documents from various authors converted to html. I later sold the site to the company which actually made the games, carefully indicating that to the extent I profferred copyrights I was only transferring my own original works of authorship.
Of the complainers at the time, only two had actually authored anything on the site and those two ultimately decided not to ask that their documents be removed. The folks who complained the loudest and longest hadn't authored any part of the site. They had, however, recommended it far and wide and felt cheated that it had been sold without a discussion which included them.
Folks tend to have a remarkably expansive sense of entitlement.
Correct. Which brings us back around to the original poster's question: How can the contributors stop Wikia from serving Ads over the content that they wrote and posted on what are now Wikia servers?
The answer is: they can't have it both ways. They can stop Wikia from using the content, or not. Any other outcome requires Wikia's participation and approval.
That's not true at all. You can condition the license under which they may use your work.
Only if they express acceptance of your profferred license. That decision is entirely within their control. The only thing you control is whether or not they're permitted to use your works. As I said.
I you can cite an appellate case where the terms a license were held to be binding and enforceable despite the defendant's explicit rejection of the full license, I'll read the decision with great interest.
Can someone explain to me the difference between a $50 OpenWRT router and a $2k Cisco one?
Answer #1: The latter one can be installed and operated by mere mortals, or at least folks reasonably close to such.
Answer #2: The latter operates effectively within the scope of your existing monitoring and management processes while the former does not.
Answer #3: The latter is targeted at and marketed to companies (not individuals) where Answers 1 and 2 are much more important that the initial acquisition cost.
Understand up front that you can't have it both ways. You may either refuse the use of your work or not. They may show ads or collect the works into a compendium or do whatever they want. This is not within your control. The only thing within your control is whether or not they use the particular works you provided.
To that extent, you may remove -YOUR- works if you still have the power or demand their removal via a DMCA takedown if you've been shut out. You may also sue, however without a registered copyright and with only miniscule commercial value the damages you might recover will not be sufficient to pay your legal bill.
Give each installed copy a registration number and deny updates with a message about "Your copy has a registration problem. See your system administrator or vendor for assistance." Also provide a "update attempt history" button which shows a log of date/time/ip addresses which have attempted updates. Let them know you're watching. Otherwise leave it fully functional with whatever updates have already been installed.
Nothing you can do will stop folks from pirating your software if that is their intention. A mild message like the above will help keep the honest people honest without causing nasty headaches.
there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,'
I question it. For one thing, computers are already more intelligent and have been for some time. What they lack is creativity. They're idiot savants capable of astounding feats of calculation yet incapable of drawing simple inferences.
We may not quite understand how creative genius works but we have learned that there is a fine line between genius and paranoid delusion. Even the folks we label "brilliant" instead of "crazy" tend to have downright wacky ideas outside the scope of their expertise. Intelligence for a computer is thus not a barrier to be broken but rather a line to be skirted.
Further, creativity may turn out to be an irreducible exponential algorithm. It sure smells like it so far. If it is then computers will have a slow time catching up with us even after we figure out how to build an effective general inference engine. And if they do ever catch up, their growth from there is likely to be just as slow. That's the character of exponential algorithms.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can swap out an unused page of code or data to provide more room for disk cache, why not do it?
Because your idea of "unused" and Linux's idea of "unused" don't always match up well.
The sides don't agree or they wouldn't be there. Its an adversarial system by design.
She had to lie. The jury decides the facts but the judge decides the law. If she stipulates to the facts (yes it was me!) and the judge decides the law (making available counts) then the plaintiff motions for summary judgement (no facts in dispute) and the jury goes home.
But you're right, its a really bad idea to lie to a judge or a jury. They're remarkably good at smelling lies. If you'll lose the case on the truth, you should try hard to settle.
It is my understanding that medical hearings are heard by a competent jury.
Your understanding is wrong. Jury selection for medical malpractice cases favors random folks off the street and tends to specifically exclude folks who have a background in the type of medicine at issue. The lawyers want the jury's entire understanding of the subject matter to be controlled by the combination of their expert witnesses and opposing counsel's expert witnesses (who they've already deposed and know what they'll say).
That's because you're not supposed to interpret the facts based on your own skills. You're supposed to rely on the opposing expert witnesses for that.
RIAA's expert witness reduced the tracking process to, "Defendant admitted to using this cutesy alias here, here and here. This document means that the same name, apparently from the same place also did this unlawful act there."
Defendants's expert witness reduced 802.11 to, "Its like walkie talkies. It could have been anybody in the neighborhood."
The jury listened to both. Then they used common sense and said, "Yeah it theoretically could have been anybody but it was obviously the defendant."
That's what "preponderance of the evidence" means. The jury decides which side is more likely to be right.
spring, reports began surfacing of Verizon routinely disabling copper as it installed its fiber-based FiOS service
Last spring? I had FiOS installed in early to mid 2005 and the installer asked to remove my copper. At the time I hadn't yet cancelled my T1. But for that I've no doubt he'd have removed it.
1. Get a T1. Expensive but it works and the telco will install the necessary repeaters to get it to you.
2. Cut a deal with the guy at the top of the hill and run some wire down the street.
I don't think geeks directly hold it against female engineers who decide to skip happy hour and don't hang around for the after-hours LAN party. Its their choice, just as its ours to hold and attend those events. The folks who skip those events miss the socialization that results in better teamwork, and that's also their choice. And if anyone wants to initiate other team social events that they like, I'll support them 100%. Heck, I enjoy picnics, camping and all sorts of activities that someone else makes the effort to organize.
But don't tell me I shouldn't hold the weekly quake deathmatch because it might alienate the female engineers. That's a load of crap.
ARP has a local scope, often just within the same building. Your MAC address doesn't leak to a guy on the other side of the world like it does with IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration.
Of course they'll skip "stateless autoconfiguration." Even if it could be upgraded to provide enough information to the client (such as the location of the DNS servers) the fact remains the the autoconfigured IP address is selected by running a reversable algorithm on the MAC address. This means that in every communication you're advertising to the entire network:
1. What manufacturer made your NIC chipset
2. With high probability which NIC chipset is in use
3. With high probability which firmware revision is installed
Add OS fingerprinting to the equation and now you're also advertising with high probability exactly which low level network driver is running on your machine.
Its a security nightmare.
If I'm willing to pay for more, GIVE ME MORE.
I agree completely. Which is why here in Cox territory I pay $150/mo for a "business" cable Internet link. I get static IP addresses, I'm allowed to have servers and I can use as much bandwidth as I can consume. It also uses a different channel (frequency) that the residential cable modems.
You do understand that at the residential level its statistics game, right? They can't double the price and give you double the bandwidth, they can only give you double the 95th percentile peak across all users which turns out to be less than the cutoff bandwidth they've chosen.
30k songs @ 6 megs / mp3 = 180 gigs
250k pictures @ 1 meg/jpg = 250 gigs
13M emails @ 20k/email = 260 gigs
180 gigs / 4.3 gigs per dvd = 42 DVD movies
So that's quite a bit of data for thirty bucks a month.
Could be any number of things. The leading candidates are: encoding at the content provider, encoding at the cable company, light line noise corrupting data and your decoder box not necessarily in that order.
If you see compression artifacts but no snow then at least you know you're digital along the entire path.
I see both digital interference artifacts and analog interference artifacts.
Then there is both analog and digital in the transmission path to you. Why make the distinction between last mile and not last mile when the whole path affects the quality of what you receive?
Heh, I suppose it helps that I don't actually care about televised sports. I enjoy watching a spirited game of soccer from the stands but I just can't wrap my head around a 60-minute game of football that takes more than 4 hours to televise and play.
I transitioned from Cable to Netflix. Now I get my shows a season late but I watch them when *I* feel like it and I save at least $30 per month.
But how to know for sure if a channel is digital or analog as received?'
Look at the noise characteristics. Analog and digital respond to noise differently. Digital pixilates and stutters but otherwise displays a perfect picture. Analog ghosts and snows.
If you're not getting enough noise to tell the difference then smile and be happy because you have a better cable TV signal than most of the rest of us.
Fair enough. I interpreted the poster's question to mean, "What can we unilaterally require?" not "What are the available stances for negotiation?" I do acknowledge that "legal recourse" is about 90% the latter.
I was in a similar situation about a decade ago. I built a game web site which included a number of pre-web walkthroughs and similar documents from various authors converted to html. I later sold the site to the company which actually made the games, carefully indicating that to the extent I profferred copyrights I was only transferring my own original works of authorship.
Of the complainers at the time, only two had actually authored anything on the site and those two ultimately decided not to ask that their documents be removed. The folks who complained the loudest and longest hadn't authored any part of the site. They had, however, recommended it far and wide and felt cheated that it had been sold without a discussion which included them.
Folks tend to have a remarkably expansive sense of entitlement.
Correct. Which brings us back around to the original poster's question: How can the contributors stop Wikia from serving Ads over the content that they wrote and posted on what are now Wikia servers?
The answer is: they can't have it both ways. They can stop Wikia from using the content, or not. Any other outcome requires Wikia's participation and approval.
That's not true at all. You can condition the license under which they may use your work.
Only if they express acceptance of your profferred license. That decision is entirely within their control. The only thing you control is whether or not they're permitted to use your works. As I said.
I you can cite an appellate case where the terms a license were held to be binding and enforceable despite the defendant's explicit rejection of the full license, I'll read the decision with great interest.
Can someone explain to me the difference between a $50 OpenWRT router and a $2k Cisco one?
Answer #1: The latter one can be installed and operated by mere mortals, or at least folks reasonably close to such.
Answer #2: The latter operates effectively within the scope of your existing monitoring and management processes while the former does not.
Answer #3: The latter is targeted at and marketed to companies (not individuals) where Answers 1 and 2 are much more important that the initial acquisition cost.
Understand up front that you can't have it both ways. You may either refuse the use of your work or not. They may show ads or collect the works into a compendium or do whatever they want. This is not within your control. The only thing within your control is whether or not they use the particular works you provided.
To that extent, you may remove -YOUR- works if you still have the power or demand their removal via a DMCA takedown if you've been shut out. You may also sue, however without a registered copyright and with only miniscule commercial value the damages you might recover will not be sufficient to pay your legal bill.
Isn't that what Microsoft said before they made the MS Mouse and the XBox?
Give each installed copy a registration number and deny updates with a message about "Your copy has a registration problem. See your system administrator or vendor for assistance." Also provide a "update attempt history" button which shows a log of date/time/ip addresses which have attempted updates. Let them know you're watching. Otherwise leave it fully functional with whatever updates have already been installed.
Nothing you can do will stop folks from pirating your software if that is their intention. A mild message like the above will help keep the honest people honest without causing nasty headaches.
there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,'
I question it. For one thing, computers are already more intelligent and have been for some time. What they lack is creativity. They're idiot savants capable of astounding feats of calculation yet incapable of drawing simple inferences.
We may not quite understand how creative genius works but we have learned that there is a fine line between genius and paranoid delusion. Even the folks we label "brilliant" instead of "crazy" tend to have downright wacky ideas outside the scope of their expertise. Intelligence for a computer is thus not a barrier to be broken but rather a line to be skirted.
Further, creativity may turn out to be an irreducible exponential algorithm. It sure smells like it so far. If it is then computers will have a slow time catching up with us even after we figure out how to build an effective general inference engine. And if they do ever catch up, their growth from there is likely to be just as slow. That's the character of exponential algorithms.