They need to follow good practices and implement OPT-IN not opt-out.
Page 1 of the form should be simple, standardized, have a brief description, and present standardized options, which are easy for the average person to understand and implement.
Only if "OPT IN" is chosen, should case-specific or lawyer-specified forms or instructions be allowed, such addendums must be attachments.
A return envelope with pre-paid postage should be a requirement.
And have a rule... if 10% of the class object to the settlement, then the settlement is rejected, and suit must proceed for there to be any award.
Lawyers' fees should be capped to a small percentage of any award.
And on any settlement it must be displayed the total amount the company will pay (to all members of the class) as settlement, and the totals of any fees, that were taken out must be shown (including costs and lawyer expenses) which must be shown also
All those that don't opt in to the settlement retain their right to sue, unless they explicitly take action to "apply for their award"
I'm saying, they should have to present every person in the class by mail a form... they can do 3 things...
Option1: Check an 'opt in and agree to this settlement' box, fill out a long form, and submit documentation that they are a class member. If the settlement is approved, they receive that without further paperwork. Their right to sue is only waived if the settlement is actually approved.
Option2: Check an 'opt out' and waive right to sue box. In this case, they consider themselves not harmed by the defendant in regards to the matter before the court.
In this case, they receive some payment from the defendant set by statute as compensation for time wasted reading that mailing, such as $1.
Pickers of option2 waive their right to sue, no matter if the settlement is approved or not. If the settlement rejected, and a new one later proposed, all respondants who chose Option2 must be counted as having picked Option2 in all successive settlements. If the prosecution accidentally sends them an additional form, they get the right to pick Option2 again, to get another $1, or receive the settlement in addition to the $1 received the last time.
If 50% or more of the class opt out with opt2, then the action is barred from going forward, dismissed with prejudice, the settlement is disallowed, and the prosecution has to pay all those $1 fees.
Also, for anyone who picked Option2 the first time accidentally mailed a 'settlement form' a second time, and picked Option2 a second time.
That second time they chose Option2 must count as if an additional member of the class chose Option2, without increasing the total count of members of the class.
Option3:
Check an 'object to settlement box'.
In this case, they object to the settlement; their portion of any settlement is witheld. They retain their right to sue individually.
They also should get a right to change their mind, in case the rest of their class accepts the settlement. The company is required to place into escrow, the amount it would cost to pay them their portion -- the company only gets it back for respondants that don't opt in within 5 years, or respondants that join another class action suit or take individual action.
Sony: we secretly replaced this guy's new PS3 with a DRM-laden brick. Let's see if he finds out...
Nope... he didn't find out.
The PS3 lost its appeal when it stopped coming with hardware PS2 capabilities.
American civil liberties??? What are those?
There are no civil liberties in America... there have never been any civil liberties in America, just ask the supreme court, congress, or el presidente..
That explains the iPad's lack of a CLI... its greatest weakness.. Since everyone knows real computer users utilize the CLI, and only touch GUI if they really have to.
(Mostly for porn watching, since the number of fingers available for manipulating computer input devices are more limited under those circumstances... and touch screen keyboards have a problem of reducing available display area)
Not necessarily.. Hypothetical example: I have no control over my next door neighbor's unsecured WiFi is using channel 6.
I suppose I could go knock on his door and ask him to switch channel selection or change to 802.11a, but that would kind of give away the fact i'm tapping into it.......
The morons are the ones making the browsers - since the current browser architecture requires you to trust ALL CAs that are installed in your browser for ALL possible sites. This issue has been known for years but they refuse to fix it.
Yes... it was a total disaster... fortunately, in the future DNSSEC should make SSL certificates obsolete.
If we can publish digitally signed records in the DNS, which are verifiable with the registrar, it's not too farfetched to say define a signed TXT record which will contain public key information for the web server.
Actually it's checked by default, when you click 'get certificate'
And many times i've found after unchecking the box and going to hit the 'Confirm' button... it rechecks just after hitting confirm, and closes the window with a permanent exception added, despite my attempt to only add a temporary one.... very annoying Firefox...
Except in this case Verizon sporadically decided to change the commitment, after the contract was already in place, in other words, the ETF fee used to not be charged under such circumstances but they revised the contract through (informal) policy change:
"Effective April the 26th, 2010 Early Termination Fees are no longer waived if a consumer moves out of our digital calling area coverage map. This means for customers whom have lost jobs and must relocate, people with immigration status and are liable to leave, or anyone who may otherwise relocate, is now subject to the ETF of $175 or $350, depending on device.
Verizon's reply: "This was an old policy that needed updating, a leftover from before our network covered over 300 million out of the 305 million or so people in the U.S.
"There are two issues here. First, very few customers actually move out of a service area today. Second, if a customer buys a device from us at a deep discount in return for a two-year contract, and then decides to cancel service because he or she moves outside of that coverage area (likely out of the country, given the breadth of our coverage area), then the ETF helps us recoup our losses associated with the customer's early cancellation. This policy change was made in April and applies to very few people. We also have other ways of handling exceptions such as military -- Verizon Wireless waives the ETF for deployed military personnel."
Hm.. if soldiers normally post blogs and status updates... a sudden lack of posting by many soldiers could in itself suggest something is afoot.
Maybe a smart military would exploit the blogs/FB pages of its soldiers, to sometimes have fake updates generated that would give an enemy the wrong idea....
e.g. Maybe the enemy should think there is an invasion that is going to happen, when nothing is happening, other than a surveillance of their response, OR a completely different attack is happening, that they would become more vulnerable to in preparing to what the FB updates suggested was happening
Slashdot Mirror
And TeX is a language interpreter, which is explicitly banned
What? Since when do courts set public policy?
They do not. Their job is only to make judgements based on the text and context of the law.
It's bad public policy to let the RIAA engage in massive volumes of lawsuits targetting file sharers.
They need to follow good practices and implement OPT-IN not opt-out. Page 1 of the form should be simple, standardized, have a brief description, and present standardized options, which are easy for the average person to understand and implement.
Only if "OPT IN" is chosen, should case-specific or lawyer-specified forms or instructions be allowed, such addendums must be attachments. A return envelope with pre-paid postage should be a requirement.
And have a rule... if 10% of the class object to the settlement, then the settlement is rejected, and suit must proceed for there to be any award.
Lawyers' fees should be capped to a small percentage of any award. And on any settlement it must be displayed the total amount the company will pay (to all members of the class) as settlement, and the totals of any fees, that were taken out must be shown (including costs and lawyer expenses) which must be shown also
All those that don't opt in to the settlement retain their right to sue, unless they explicitly take action to "apply for their award"
I'm saying, they should have to present every person in the class by mail a form... they can do 3 things...
Option1: Check an 'opt in and agree to this settlement' box, fill out a long form, and submit documentation that they are a class member. If the settlement is approved, they receive that without further paperwork. Their right to sue is only waived if the settlement is actually approved.
Option2: Check an 'opt out' and waive right to sue box. In this case, they consider themselves not harmed by the defendant in regards to the matter before the court. In this case, they receive some payment from the defendant set by statute as compensation for time wasted reading that mailing, such as $1.
Pickers of option2 waive their right to sue, no matter if the settlement is approved or not. If the settlement rejected, and a new one later proposed, all respondants who chose Option2 must be counted as having picked Option2 in all successive settlements. If the prosecution accidentally sends them an additional form, they get the right to pick Option2 again, to get another $1, or receive the settlement in addition to the $1 received the last time.
If 50% or more of the class opt out with opt2, then the action is barred from going forward, dismissed with prejudice, the settlement is disallowed, and the prosecution has to pay all those $1 fees.
Also, for anyone who picked Option2 the first time accidentally mailed a 'settlement form' a second time, and picked Option2 a second time. That second time they chose Option2 must count as if an additional member of the class chose Option2, without increasing the total count of members of the class.
Option3: Check an 'object to settlement box'. In this case, they object to the settlement; their portion of any settlement is witheld. They retain their right to sue individually. They also should get a right to change their mind, in case the rest of their class accepts the settlement. The company is required to place into escrow, the amount it would cost to pay them their portion -- the company only gets it back for respondants that don't opt in within 5 years, or respondants that join another class action suit or take individual action.
If they go through all the trouble they must intend to....
I seriously doubt he will actually have any affect.
Sony: we secretly replaced this guy's new PS3 with a DRM-laden brick. Let's see if he finds out...
Nope... he didn't find out.
The PS3 lost its appeal when it stopped coming with hardware PS2 capabilities.
American civil liberties??? What are those?
There are no civil liberties in America... there have never been any civil liberties in America, just ask the supreme court, congress, or el presidente..
The title of a presentation at a TeX conference.
What that would be? Well, it must be TeX related, of course.
It's an announcement.
But when the title "an earth shattering announcement" is used, it is probably a bit of humor, and meant as the exact opposite.
I suppose we shall see, when the proceedings are published, eh?
The real slim shady
This is like saying you're a physicist who has never heard of Einstein, or a biologist who never heard of James D. Watson.
That's kind of presumptuous don't you think?
Especially when P=NP :-)
For visual voicemail, not dial-in voicemail.
However, just because you set a voicemail password, doesn't mean you have enabled it.
Yeah.. that's right, you gotta dial in and establish the password first.
(That doesn't turn prompting on)
You have to go into the menus and enable a different special option for it to actually ever ask for the password when you dial-in from your number.
That explains the iPad's lack of a CLI... its greatest weakness.. Since everyone knows real computer users utilize the CLI, and only touch GUI if they really have to.
(Mostly for porn watching, since the number of fingers available for manipulating computer input devices are more limited under those circumstances... and touch screen keyboards have a problem of reducing available display area)
Or they could just run Cisco IOS on it and advertise it as such.... The first ever touch-screen tablet with a built-in iOS-based router :)
Forking Firefox is a tall order.
There are a lot of things they do just right, and maintaining the software takes a lot of development effort.
Firefox is also really not modular enough that it's possible to maintain a fork of just the SSL portion.
Perhaps someone could convince the FF developers to remove all Encryption and SSL functionality from the core browser, and make them addons?
Surely this would make international distribution of FF easier.. since only the crypto addon would be subject to the export rules.
The users who need SSL would then have a choice between the various secure browsing addons.
There'd be one version of the addon for really paranoid users who insist on making things really hard.
And there'd be another version for everyone who wants to be able to very easily make temporary exceptions to the rules
Not necessarily.. Hypothetical example: I have no control over my next door neighbor's unsecured WiFi is using channel 6.
I suppose I could go knock on his door and ask him to switch channel selection or change to 802.11a, but that would kind of give away the fact i'm tapping into it.......
If you're talking about browsers, you have to remove/disable the other CAs from your users browsers/OSes.
Or have your CA revoke all the other CA's certificates, by publishing the serial numbers of all the other CA certificates in your CRL.
(Yes, a CA can revoke other CA's certificates, by using the ARL section)
Imagine if your neighbor tried that with TV...
<PersonA> Your interfering with my television during prime time..
<Neighbor> Pls Nevermind the interference.
<PersonA> But I want to watch Fox news and you're completely scrambling it.....
<Neighbor> Feh. Then go watch CNN instead, it's on a different channel and will probably work. Problem solved.
The morons are the ones making the browsers - since the current browser architecture requires you to trust ALL CAs that are installed in your browser for ALL possible sites. This issue has been known for years but they refuse to fix it.
Yet another use case for DNSSEC. :)
Yes... it was a total disaster... fortunately, in the future DNSSEC should make SSL certificates obsolete.
If we can publish digitally signed records in the DNS, which are verifiable with the registrar, it's not too farfetched to say define a signed TXT record which will contain public key information for the web server.
Actually it's checked by default, when you click 'get certificate'
And many times i've found after unchecking the box and going to hit the 'Confirm' button... it rechecks just after hitting confirm, and closes the window with a permanent exception added, despite my attempt to only add a temporary one.... very annoying Firefox...
I'm afraid if you want to be safe, you'll have to ask the instructor ahead of time and point it out.
They will have to make some sort of accomadation for you.
Perhaps by asking you to recite the formulas with your eyes closed to prove you know the equations.
Or (I suppose) you will be wearing long sleeves on test day and not be allowed to look at your own arm, until you are done testing.
More likely it's charged off. Trying to collect a debt of $1.50 is just not profitable...
Except in this case Verizon sporadically decided to change the commitment, after the contract was already in place, in other words, the ETF fee used to not be charged under such circumstances but they revised the contract through (informal) policy change:
Hm.. if soldiers normally post blogs and status updates... a sudden lack of posting by many soldiers could in itself suggest something is afoot.
Maybe a smart military would exploit the blogs/FB pages of its soldiers, to sometimes have fake updates generated that would give an enemy the wrong idea....
e.g. Maybe the enemy should think there is an invasion that is going to happen, when nothing is happening, other than a surveillance of their response, OR a completely different attack is happening, that they would become more vulnerable to in preparing to what the FB updates suggested was happening
Because the ICANN board is chosen by domain registrars who stand the most to gain by introduction of a new TLD.