And then the judge *orders* you to keep records in the future if you're going to engage in conduct likely to provide reason for subpoenas, and when you don't, you're hit with a charge of contempt of court/obstruction.
Nice try, though. If your idea worked, don't you think an ISP would have gone ahead and said "We don't keep logs at all! Come warez on our network like crazy!" by now?
*Even if* the sources TS got their information from got it without breaking an NDA, would you argue that there is pretty much no way the first step of the information was in breach of NDA? That there is no *legitimate* way for that information to have exited Apple?
If so, the law pretty clearly implies that *anyone* receiving that information is tainted. Whether or not the person they received it from was under NDA, if the information itself was received in breach of confidentiality agreement, then anyone receiving that information and having any reason to believe (as I think most people do) that the only way for it to exist was for there to have been a breach of NDA *somewhere* would be in violation.
Doesn't matter. It's like receiving stolen goods (actually, the case law seems to work similarly in both circumstances) - if you had reason to believe the goods were stolen, *even if* you had nothing to do with the theft, it's a crime. Similarly, if you had reason to believe the information was received in breach of contract, you are committing the crime of "receiving stolen information".
The contract is not binding on the journalist; the law is.
Let's assume that it wasn't the magazine's source.
Then not only is the magazine liable (yes, you are liable if you should have known or guessed that the information is protected as a trade secret), but the person upstream of them is liable. As is the original source. Everyone in the chain between the original source and the magazine is liable.
Receiving trade secret information functions nearly exactly like receiving stolen goods - if you get some, even if you did so in good faith, you are at fault. Doesn't matter how far down the chain you are, you remain at fault.
I have no idea what exemption you refer to, as there is *no* blanket exemption for whistleblowers who are acting in the interest of public safety.
That said, I was not speaking of the specific exemption you appear to be thinking of, just of the general term for that class of exemption in the public mind.
There is an exemption in the law for information that is in the public interest; as such, the whole conviction/pardon thing would be ignoring the law, not following it.
In other words, the papers did NOT break the law, since they fell under what is commonly called a "whistleblower" exemption.
eMule has many things, true, but fails in the "I want it now" category so important to me when it comes to music. Fails completely.
BitTorrent is too much of a pain to find things to be worthwhile for music, honestly. I don't *want* to have to hunt around on different tracker sites. I like having that central network, from the perspective of getting the things I want.
And I have never, ever donated, and never had download priority problems.
Mine run $200 a year for a CPA with experience in self-employed contract businesses (he handles a ton of actors/theatre types, so he's fine with people with lots of strange expenses to deduct, which is good when you have a sideline photography/design business to deal with as well as a day job).
Most of the DNA doesn't matter, as most of it doesn't code for the blood type. In that sense, the DNA is totally unimportant; all that matters for a blood transfusion is that the type and factor are correct.
Stem cells may or may not differ, I don't know (I suspect they will, at least insomuch as organ transplants often have severe rejection issues), but your argument is misleading for blood transfusions.
No, it was pretty funny. More that he completely got away with doing so than that it happened. Who else in American politics, except for maybe Ted Kennedy and George Bush, could get away with something like that scott free?
The law states that "acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means" is criminal. I paraphrased slightly, as there are several other subsections that are less applicable; if you don't believe me when I say this is criminal, look up the damn law yourself. Google it. It'll take all of 2 minutes.
TS is more than aware that Apple considers all upcoming release info, prior to public release, to be a trade secret. As such, when given that sort of info, they are *obligated* under the law to either refuse the information, or if this is not possible (i.e. an anonymous voicemail) to not act on said information.
Further, if TS actually had anonymous info on it, they should be perfectly willing to allow a third-party escrow investigator to go through their files. If they can't give up the ID anyway, why not let Apple look bad in court by letting someone else rummage and provide a sworn statement that no, no such info exists in their files? Their actions seem to implicate them; yes, this is the old "if you're really innocent, you have nothing to hide" routine, but at the same time, there are ways to not let Apple pry into your corporate data while still proving yourself innocent. If this goes to trial, all of that is going to come out in discovery anyway, and Apple will get exactly what it wants - since they don't really care about winning the case so long as they get the names they need. So why fight?
But yes, people are culpable if they act based on information they had reason to suspect was an illegal disclosure of a trade secret.
"Got Dirt? Anonymous Voice Mail or Anonymous E-mail."
That's probably close enough to incitement if someone under an NDA chose to use those methods in a court of law.
Further, it is STILL illegal if ThinkSecret had any inkling the information was provided in breach of NDA. UTSA provides that "acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means" is also a crime. You think Nick didn't have reason to believe that the information he was given was in breach of NDA? I doubt it.
ID is all about how to make something look good, while remaining functional. I leave it to graphic designers to remove all utility from their products.;)
But the ID curricula I've been exposed to remain more about coating reasonable functionality with form, rather than about the absolute maximization of functionality which I associate with ergonomics. Either curriculum will help significantly in UI design, though, and both of them will give huge benefits. Graphic design I'm less sold on as helping in UI, but mostly because my university really aimed it more at print/non-interactive media; this was partly because we had a specific degree for interactive media/technology art studies, and partly because the profs for graphic design were older, and were most experienced with flat media.
A digital audio signal is still an audio signal, honestly. Even if it wasn't, the iPod *does* accept audio signals for recording and storage (the voice recorder add-ons).
However; my statement regarding digital audio signals should be construed to apply solely to real-time digital audio over such mediums as SPDIF (coaxial or optical, either way), ADAT-O, TDIF, AES/EBU, and similar. A audio data file is not a digital audio signal; it is a digital audio signal that has already been received and processed. By patenting the receiving portion, I think AAD has pretty much eliminated applying it to signals that are already received and recorded, limiting themselves solely to real-time recording (streams would seem to be a grey area here).
All that said, I think the patent is bullshit, and next time I'm in Lake Forest I might feel the need to throw something at their offices.
If you're going to do GUI design, probably the two best things to study are ergonomics and industrial design. One tells you how to make a good interface, and the other tells you how to make it look good.
Your problem is you think digital requires uniform arrangements, whereas all it requires is discrete (not discreet - discreet means something that is kept in confidence, discrete means something that is discontinuous) information.
Film is discrete information - it may require a non-uniform sampling pattern, but this is doable, either via non-uniform sampling methods, or by increasing the resolution of a uniform sampling method to the point where all domain boundaries fall on the sampling grid. As to grain quantization, I'm not familiar enough with the physics/chemistry of film to say, but I suspect that there is, in fact, a fundamental quantization *somewhere*, although probably far below perceptual levels.
Get out of the mindset that sampling needs to be uniform - it's certainly more convenient, but non-uniform sampling is a neat trick sometimes (I'm using it right now, to provide a constant method of detecting a certain feature within a time-varying periodic signal - it works).
Slashdot Mirror
That works.
Once.
And then the judge *orders* you to keep records in the future if you're going to engage in conduct likely to provide reason for subpoenas, and when you don't, you're hit with a charge of contempt of court/obstruction.
Nice try, though. If your idea worked, don't you think an ISP would have gone ahead and said "We don't keep logs at all! Come warez on our network like crazy!" by now?
I believe I said this somewhere else, but.
*Even if* the sources TS got their information from got it without breaking an NDA, would you argue that there is pretty much no way the first step of the information was in breach of NDA? That there is no *legitimate* way for that information to have exited Apple?
If so, the law pretty clearly implies that *anyone* receiving that information is tainted. Whether or not the person they received it from was under NDA, if the information itself was received in breach of confidentiality agreement, then anyone receiving that information and having any reason to believe (as I think most people do) that the only way for it to exist was for there to have been a breach of NDA *somewhere* would be in violation.
Doesn't matter. It's like receiving stolen goods (actually, the case law seems to work similarly in both circumstances) - if you had reason to believe the goods were stolen, *even if* you had nothing to do with the theft, it's a crime. Similarly, if you had reason to believe the information was received in breach of contract, you are committing the crime of "receiving stolen information".
The contract is not binding on the journalist; the law is.
Let's assume that it wasn't the magazine's source.
Then not only is the magazine liable (yes, you are liable if you should have known or guessed that the information is protected as a trade secret), but the person upstream of them is liable. As is the original source. Everyone in the chain between the original source and the magazine is liable.
Receiving trade secret information functions nearly exactly like receiving stolen goods - if you get some, even if you did so in good faith, you are at fault. Doesn't matter how far down the chain you are, you remain at fault.
I have no idea what exemption you refer to, as there is *no* blanket exemption for whistleblowers who are acting in the interest of public safety.
That said, I was not speaking of the specific exemption you appear to be thinking of, just of the general term for that class of exemption in the public mind.
Let's just be clear about one thing:
10 dB is *perceived* as roughly twice as loud. It's significantly more than twice as much acoustic energy.
There is an exemption in the law for information that is in the public interest; as such, the whole conviction/pardon thing would be ignoring the law, not following it.
In other words, the papers did NOT break the law, since they fell under what is commonly called a "whistleblower" exemption.
I suspect what you actually did was put a "lien" on his property.
If you had put a "lean" on him, you'd probably have some ugly Mafia mug showing up at his doorstep every day until he paid.
I thought the 80s was the "me generation"?
Oh, wait, I got it. Everyone's an asshole to the people 20-30 years younger than them. Without fail.
I can't wait for it to be my turn to smack down the "naughty oughties".
eMule has many things, true, but fails in the "I want it now" category so important to me when it comes to music. Fails completely.
BitTorrent is too much of a pain to find things to be worthwhile for music, honestly. I don't *want* to have to hunt around on different tracker sites. I like having that central network, from the perspective of getting the things I want.
And I have never, ever donated, and never had download priority problems.
Mine run $200 a year for a CPA with experience in self-employed contract businesses (he handles a ton of actors/theatre types, so he's fine with people with lots of strange expenses to deduct, which is good when you have a sideline photography/design business to deal with as well as a day job).
And yet, I can actually find and download the music I want on Soulseek. Not so much so with the other networks.
Most of the DNA doesn't matter, as most of it doesn't code for the blood type. In that sense, the DNA is totally unimportant; all that matters for a blood transfusion is that the type and factor are correct.
Stem cells may or may not differ, I don't know (I suspect they will, at least insomuch as organ transplants often have severe rejection issues), but your argument is misleading for blood transfusions.
So, he's retiring then?
No, it was pretty funny. More that he completely got away with doing so than that it happened. Who else in American politics, except for maybe Ted Kennedy and George Bush, could get away with something like that scott free?
The law states that "acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means" is criminal. I paraphrased slightly, as there are several other subsections that are less applicable; if you don't believe me when I say this is criminal, look up the damn law yourself. Google it. It'll take all of 2 minutes.
TS is more than aware that Apple considers all upcoming release info, prior to public release, to be a trade secret. As such, when given that sort of info, they are *obligated* under the law to either refuse the information, or if this is not possible (i.e. an anonymous voicemail) to not act on said information.
Further, if TS actually had anonymous info on it, they should be perfectly willing to allow a third-party escrow investigator to go through their files. If they can't give up the ID anyway, why not let Apple look bad in court by letting someone else rummage and provide a sworn statement that no, no such info exists in their files? Their actions seem to implicate them; yes, this is the old "if you're really innocent, you have nothing to hide" routine, but at the same time, there are ways to not let Apple pry into your corporate data while still proving yourself innocent. If this goes to trial, all of that is going to come out in discovery anyway, and Apple will get exactly what it wants - since they don't really care about winning the case so long as they get the names they need. So why fight?
But yes, people are culpable if they act based on information they had reason to suspect was an illegal disclosure of a trade secret.
Look at ThinkSecret's website.
"Got Dirt? Anonymous Voice Mail or Anonymous E-mail."
That's probably close enough to incitement if someone under an NDA chose to use those methods in a court of law.
Further, it is STILL illegal if ThinkSecret had any inkling the information was provided in breach of NDA. UTSA provides that "acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means" is also a crime. You think Nick didn't have reason to believe that the information he was given was in breach of NDA? I doubt it.
That study did not take into account "editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor," which is where some slant in the media comes from.
-some
+most
Inciting someone else to break an NDA/disclose trade secrets is, in fact, illegal.
ID is all about how to make something look good, while remaining functional. I leave it to graphic designers to remove all utility from their products. ;)
But the ID curricula I've been exposed to remain more about coating reasonable functionality with form, rather than about the absolute maximization of functionality which I associate with ergonomics. Either curriculum will help significantly in UI design, though, and both of them will give huge benefits. Graphic design I'm less sold on as helping in UI, but mostly because my university really aimed it more at print/non-interactive media; this was partly because we had a specific degree for interactive media/technology art studies, and partly because the profs for graphic design were older, and were most experienced with flat media.
Having seen the courseload for a psych student, taking a general psych major is *not* going to do very well at preparing you for doing UI design.
A digital audio signal is still an audio signal, honestly. Even if it wasn't, the iPod *does* accept audio signals for recording and storage (the voice recorder add-ons).
However; my statement regarding digital audio signals should be construed to apply solely to real-time digital audio over such mediums as SPDIF (coaxial or optical, either way), ADAT-O, TDIF, AES/EBU, and similar. A audio data file is not a digital audio signal; it is a digital audio signal that has already been received and processed. By patenting the receiving portion, I think AAD has pretty much eliminated applying it to signals that are already received and recorded, limiting themselves solely to real-time recording (streams would seem to be a grey area here).
All that said, I think the patent is bullshit, and next time I'm in Lake Forest I might feel the need to throw something at their offices.
Not psychology, either.
If you're going to do GUI design, probably the two best things to study are ergonomics and industrial design. One tells you how to make a good interface, and the other tells you how to make it look good.
Oh, we only got waist-high snow once this year. That's not so bad.
The traffic, on other hand, is that bad.
Your problem is you think digital requires uniform arrangements, whereas all it requires is discrete (not discreet - discreet means something that is kept in confidence, discrete means something that is discontinuous) information.
Film is discrete information - it may require a non-uniform sampling pattern, but this is doable, either via non-uniform sampling methods, or by increasing the resolution of a uniform sampling method to the point where all domain boundaries fall on the sampling grid. As to grain quantization, I'm not familiar enough with the physics/chemistry of film to say, but I suspect that there is, in fact, a fundamental quantization *somewhere*, although probably far below perceptual levels.
Get out of the mindset that sampling needs to be uniform - it's certainly more convenient, but non-uniform sampling is a neat trick sometimes (I'm using it right now, to provide a constant method of detecting a certain feature within a time-varying periodic signal - it works).