I am not a lawyer, true. I do a fair bit of reading on the subject. If you don't mind, please explain how the judge can evaluate a case and say "this particular case is silly" without knowing and evaluating the facts of the case?
I am aware that judges throw out silly cases, but that's most commonly civil cases. The judges in the states I've lived in (not California, the state in question) generally don't toss criminal charges because that would be a finding of fact, and judges are trained not to do that. They may encourage a prosecutor to drop small charges or encourage a plea bargain (that they do A LOT). But if a prosecutor says that a crime has been committed, and the judge sees that the legislative branch has specified that crime as warranting a trial and punishment, then the court is generally obliged to let it proceed. Petty theft is not something that judges have a lot of discretion about.
For petty theft, there's plenty of punishments that don't involve jail time. Restitution and community service are the most obvious. And the existence of a record is key in the event that future crimes are committed to evaluate fair sentencing then. And let's not forget that a brush with the law for a relatively minor crime can be a big inducement against that behavior for teens, esp. if parents get involved. No, it isn't a panacea, and there are plenty of kids in homes where it would be shrugged off, but it seems surprising to me that it isn't worth pursuing just because of a lack of jail space.
That's a tricky thing to legislate. I don't believe most of these devices are left alone because the company wants to drop customers. But if the devices don't sell well enough, the company goes under, and the service gets discontinued. How do you legislate that a bankrupt company continue to provide services?
I think instead of the 5-year requirement, just make law requiring that any service contract provided to the first buyer must be transferrable to the second buyer, provided the second buyer continues to pay the original service contract (and if the service is a free service, well, that makes it easy for the second buyer to keep paying). I'd need time to consider secondary effects of such a law -- this is an area where it would be easy to have unforseen consequences -- but it feels to me like that would be the minimal legal requirement needed to make the market function as desired by consumers.
Courts? Judges do not decide guilt, so you must be talking about juries. Are you saying your juries find them not guilty unless $1k? How does that happen? Why is your populace so forgiving? Or is it actually prosecutors who will not bring the cases to the court?
I am not a lawyer, but here is how it was explained to me: You can resell it, but right of first sale does not obligate the original company to re-register the device. If they say that registration costs them money (any amount), then unless they are paid again by the new owner, they are not obligated to provide the service. And they do not have to accept payment from the new owner. So I could legally buy a video door bell device from you (company cannot stop that), but the video of my front door would continue to go to your cell phone.
The ultrasonic sensor was claimed to be immune to this kind of spoof. Supposedly they could tell if the print had layers to it (the way human skin does and a 3D print does not). The news here is that the sensor does not do what Samsung claims.
No. In a republic, a large group of people pick a small group of people and tell the small group to tell the large group what to do. The difference is significant.
Unless diet is waaaaay more powerful than previously studied: We found that improvement of diet could potentially prevent one in every five deaths globally. Should be: We found that improvement of diet could potentially DEFER one in every five deaths globally.
Just because we do not have data privacy laws does not mean we cannot. And several boycotts have worked on Google over the years (the revamping of YouTube, for one example), so I see no reason why they would not be effective in the future, were someone to start organizing one. So, to answer your question: yes, I am serious.
Of course it makes sense. Google is big enough to regulate and is subject to US law. If youâ(TM)re a US citizen, that gives some control over what it does with our data â" we could put whatever restraint we want, just as GDRP law did in Europe. The smaller companies often are not US players. Also, Google is boycot-able, and responsive to market pressures. The smaller companies are much harder to target with collective action.
But there are still ways to limit *who* is spying on you, and if we all collectively minimize that list, that makes those few easier to police/regulate.
The problem here is that this sounds to be bigger than Google. The products that Google pulls other companies into partner on tend to have longer life.
Emails can be secure because they don't do anything. The only thing that executes in response to an e-mail should be the receiver (human or application). The e-mail itself as dead as possible specifically to avoid remote exploits and whatnot. Otherwise just opening an e-mail becomes a severe problem.
When you're dealing with a trademark, there's a legal issue involved. Published for-pay articles can face lawsuits for failure to use trademarks according to the grammar specified by the trademark. So if you're someone who makes money off of publishing articles, you kind of have to care, especially for the big brands. Johnson & Johnson is particularly litigious about anyone using "Band-Aid" as an adjective for other things (such as "That patch is just a Band-Aid solution, not a real fix.").
All of the above is why any fact check database like this needs to have transparency, crowd sourcing, error bars, reputation scores, and metamoderation.
If there's no expiration date on the missteps, then the "good kids" can use this to great advantage. It's a great way to build an inflexible caste system (if your goal is to build such a system). Also a good way to convince the bad ones that they might as well *really* be bad because, heck, they've got nothing to lose.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a lawyer, true. I do a fair bit of reading on the subject. If you don't mind, please explain how the judge can evaluate a case and say "this particular case is silly" without knowing and evaluating the facts of the case?
Finding that a case is silly is a finding of fact about the case.
I am aware that judges throw out silly cases, but that's most commonly civil cases. The judges in the states I've lived in (not California, the state in question) generally don't toss criminal charges because that would be a finding of fact, and judges are trained not to do that. They may encourage a prosecutor to drop small charges or encourage a plea bargain (that they do A LOT). But if a prosecutor says that a crime has been committed, and the judge sees that the legislative branch has specified that crime as warranting a trial and punishment, then the court is generally obliged to let it proceed. Petty theft is not something that judges have a lot of discretion about.
For petty theft, there's plenty of punishments that don't involve jail time. Restitution and community service are the most obvious. And the existence of a record is key in the event that future crimes are committed to evaluate fair sentencing then. And let's not forget that a brush with the law for a relatively minor crime can be a big inducement against that behavior for teens, esp. if parents get involved. No, it isn't a panacea, and there are plenty of kids in homes where it would be shrugged off, but it seems surprising to me that it isn't worth pursuing just because of a lack of jail space.
That's a tricky thing to legislate. I don't believe most of these devices are left alone because the company wants to drop customers. But if the devices don't sell well enough, the company goes under, and the service gets discontinued. How do you legislate that a bankrupt company continue to provide services?
I think instead of the 5-year requirement, just make law requiring that any service contract provided to the first buyer must be transferrable to the second buyer, provided the second buyer continues to pay the original service contract (and if the service is a free service, well, that makes it easy for the second buyer to keep paying). I'd need time to consider secondary effects of such a law -- this is an area where it would be easy to have unforseen consequences -- but it feels to me like that would be the minimal legal requirement needed to make the market function as desired by consumers.
Courts? Judges do not decide guilt, so you must be talking about juries. Are you saying your juries find them not guilty unless $1k? How does that happen? Why is your populace so forgiving? Or is it actually prosecutors who will not bring the cases to the court?
I am not a lawyer, but here is how it was explained to me: You can resell it, but right of first sale does not obligate the original company to re-register the device. If they say that registration costs them money (any amount), then unless they are paid again by the new owner, they are not obligated to provide the service. And they do not have to accept payment from the new owner. So I could legally buy a video door bell device from you (company cannot stop that), but the video of my front door would continue to go to your cell phone.
Infect them with leprosy. Theyâ(TM)ll think the cutting was natural. You just have to intercept their trash bags when they leave them at the curb. :-)
The ultrasonic sensor was claimed to be immune to this kind of spoof. Supposedly they could tell if the print had layers to it (the way human skin does and a 3D print does not). The news here is that the sensor does not do what Samsung claims.
I am not an anonymous coward. Slashdot lets me turn off ads.
No. In a republic, a large group of people pick a small group of people and tell the small group to tell the large group what to do. The difference is significant.
Unless diet is waaaaay more powerful than previously studied:
We found that improvement of diet could potentially prevent one in every five deaths globally.
Should be:
We found that improvement of diet could potentially DEFER one in every five deaths globally.
Just because we do not have data privacy laws does not mean we cannot. And several boycotts have worked on Google over the years (the revamping of YouTube, for one example), so I see no reason why they would not be effective in the future, were someone to start organizing one. So, to answer your question: yes, I am serious.
Of course it makes sense. Google is big enough to regulate and is subject to US law. If youâ(TM)re a US citizen, that gives some control over what it does with our data â" we could put whatever restraint we want, just as GDRP law did in Europe. The smaller companies often are not US players. Also, Google is boycot-able, and responsive to market pressures. The smaller companies are much harder to target with collective action.
But there are still ways to limit *who* is spying on you, and if we all collectively minimize that list, that makes those few easier to police/regulate.
The problem here is that this sounds to be bigger than Google. The products that Google pulls other companies into partner on tend to have longer life.
Rendering is not active content. Rendering is not fillable forms. Rendering is not live interaction.
Google apparently theorizes that humans are just buyerbots running in a RM.
Emails can be secure because they don't do anything. The only thing that executes in response to an e-mail should be the receiver (human or application). The e-mail itself as dead as possible specifically to avoid remote exploits and whatnot. Otherwise just opening an e-mail becomes a severe problem.
This is not a feature that I want!
When you're dealing with a trademark, there's a legal issue involved. Published for-pay articles can face lawsuits for failure to use trademarks according to the grammar specified by the trademark. So if you're someone who makes money off of publishing articles, you kind of have to care, especially for the big brands. Johnson & Johnson is particularly litigious about anyone using "Band-Aid" as an adjective for other things (such as "That patch is just a Band-Aid solution, not a real fix.").
It had to exempt them. Political speech is the most heavily protected class of speech under the First Amendment.
The whole point of this is that you aren't sharing data.
It's full source code, not compiled executables, so you can check it for behavior you don't like.
All of the above is why any fact check database like this needs to have transparency, crowd sourcing, error bars, reputation scores, and metamoderation.
If there's no expiration date on the missteps, then the "good kids" can use this to great advantage. It's a great way to build an inflexible caste system (if your goal is to build such a system). Also a good way to convince the bad ones that they might as well *really* be bad because, heck, they've got nothing to lose.