if you accuse someone of defamation, they can be found guilty even if they can prove their statements were true.
Not really. If you make statements that are technically true but are extremely misleading and would clearly cause someone to have an unjustified negative opinion of the person, then, yes, they can sue for damages.
Certainly, if you make accusations, you need to be able to prove it. That's not inherently a bad thing. The plaintiff still needs to prove damages.
There are serious problems, such as if I write a libellous article for a newspaper, I, the newspaper, the distributor and the shop the newspaper is sold in can all be sued for libel. I consider this to be pretty ludicrous. The other ludicrous point is the sheer value of damages.
There's been an urge to shake this up for at least a decade. It's actually something that's quite important since it has a direct effect on free speech. No progress yet though.
The UK government is expected to be politically neutral apart from that small segment that is directly elected.
I want an officer of the law to enforce the law as it is written and not the law as he thinks it should be written. The restriction only prevents him from making political comments in his capacity as a police officer. Since I can't make political comments in my capacity as a police officer (on account of not being one), I don't see how this is at all unfair.
Yup. And if she got charged $100 (or even $500 or so - they could presumably prove more songs were downloaded but stuck at 24 because they're easiest to prove), I'd not have a lot of sympathy for her, and I suspect many others would feel the same. It's hard to agree with the RIAA when they decide to prosecute a case apparently with the aim of ruining someone's life as a deterrent.
The court has not ruled that anonymity is illegal. The court has simply ruled that should a newspaper have some information that it considers newsworthy, it is entitled to publish.
Personally, I think it was rather reprehensible of a newspaper not to respect confidentiality as a matter of policy but it's their legal right and it's up to the blogger to protect his own anonymity.
So, they can avoid income tax on 99% of their income by being paid in $1000 worth of coins with a total face value of $10. That makes sense.
Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make. If they use them as legal tender, they'll only be able to use the face value. I suppose they might be able to haggle the price of a large purchase down a little but for everyday spending it seems the savings are small.
The 16 bit consoles were clearly miles ahead of the 8 bit machines, but each generation the improvement has been less significant. PS2 games and original XBox games still don't look that bad. The real advantage with the latest generation is higher resolutions. Reflections and shadows are just eye candy.
Now, the question is, why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation? Doubling the number of polygons isn't double the work. A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them. Game worlds may well get larger but games themselves don't need to do so substantially.
And the main point to realise is that budgets will not magically expand to match the cost of developing a game. The budget for a game is the amount that it can be expected to make in terms of sales so that the investors have a decent profit. The game will have to shrink to match that budget.
The BNP is not very likely (by their very nature) to seek to cooperate with other partys either which is PPs goal.
True. Even the parties that have the same nominal goals and the BNP would like to associate with (specifically UKIP but there are others) will want to disassociate themselves from the BNP as much as possible.
Honestly - I have no idea what the BNP voters hope to achieve.
Reduce the price of games. Compete directly with the second hand market. Anyone who wants the newest game right now can buy it at the high price. Anyone willing to wait a couple of months can get it for less. They're going to anyway - someone will complete it in a week and sell it on.
Cars are different though. They're a major investment. Resale value is a significant factor in the purchasing decision, and usually 100% of the sale cost goes into purchasing a new car; usually from the same manufacturer.
Some of this applies to used games but not to such a degree.
This would be an inefficient use of Microsoft's resources. An ATM company is going to sell far fewer units than any but the smallest PC company. Once they've agreed to use embedded Windows, there's virtually no lock-in. The OS will have very little in the way of dedicated banking APIs, so it will be trivial for the company to switch, and they require no additional software, so Microsoft make no sales of other software as a result.
It's most likely an engineer said "let's just stick a Windows PC in there. It's not too expensive, easy to develop for and we can use our development machines to ruin the software directly", and nobody could come up with a compelling reason not to. In my experience people will often pick a platform simply because they need a platform, and it's better to choose a reasonable solution than spend months evaluating the options. Windows may not be the best solution but it's a good enough solution (there's nothing to suggest that this problem was caused by the OS), and it's a known quantity.
It costs a licensing fee. It has more security liability than pretty much any other choice.
As far as I know though, most of this is via the browser and email applications and IIS. XP can be pretty secure if you disable all unneeded services.
In short, I don't buy your arguments at all. Using Windows on an ATM is a sign someone in management somewhere is an incompetent buffoon.
I'd have thought Linux would be cheaper, but for all we know, they did a thorough analysis, discovered there were suitable savings to be made through use of Windows. Speculating that it's cheaper with so little information is pointless.
There's no indication of how the malware is installed. I suspect this requires physical access, in which case the OS chosen makes no difference at all.
What they're doing irritates me. They make their money while providing no benefit to anyone, and simply increase costs. But ultimately the same can be said for currency speculators. What they're doing is legal. Stealing from them isn't.
Ultimately it comes down to "why not?" ATMs need an OS. The cost of a Windows XP licence is trivial compared with that of the hardware and custom software development. Might as well go for one that has lots of development tools for which the software can be run on a normal desktop computer. It's easier to develop for windows that to develop for a custom devkit.
It comes down to whether they were PCI compliant or not. Simplifying hugely, if a security requirement is "All doors have locks", and the doors do have locks then you can tick that box and gain the certification. If the doors are left unlocked, then that's a process outside of the certification and so you're not responsible.
If you ignored a door and figured most of the doors having locks was good enough then you are responsible.
So, yes you're right. It's just that it's possible they were certified as compliant when they weren't.
But you cannot sue me for the impact that virus had.
Sorry, but why not? This is exactly the sort of problem that you were paid to prevent. The company proceeded with the understanding that this would not happen as a direct result of your actions. They paid you to take responsibility for their compliance. If you fail to ensure that the system was compliant then it's your responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but they still got close to a million votes. 2% of the electorate may not be huge but it's not totally insignificant either.
if you accuse someone of defamation, they can be found guilty even if they can prove their statements were true.
Not really. If you make statements that are technically true but are extremely misleading and would clearly cause someone to have an unjustified negative opinion of the person, then, yes, they can sue for damages.
Certainly, if you make accusations, you need to be able to prove it. That's not inherently a bad thing. The plaintiff still needs to prove damages.
There are serious problems, such as if I write a libellous article for a newspaper, I, the newspaper, the distributor and the shop the newspaper is sold in can all be sued for libel. I consider this to be pretty ludicrous. The other ludicrous point is the sheer value of damages.
There's been an urge to shake this up for at least a decade. It's actually something that's quite important since it has a direct effect on free speech. No progress yet though.
The UK government is expected to be politically neutral apart from that small segment that is directly elected.
I want an officer of the law to enforce the law as it is written and not the law as he thinks it should be written. The restriction only prevents him from making political comments in his capacity as a police officer. Since I can't make political comments in my capacity as a police officer (on account of not being one), I don't see how this is at all unfair.
The point is that if you do find out the journalist's sources, you have the right to publish their names.
Yup. And if she got charged $100 (or even $500 or so - they could presumably prove more songs were downloaded but stuck at 24 because they're easiest to prove), I'd not have a lot of sympathy for her, and I suspect many others would feel the same. It's hard to agree with the RIAA when they decide to prosecute a case apparently with the aim of ruining someone's life as a deterrent.
The court has not ruled that anonymity is illegal. The court has simply ruled that should a newspaper have some information that it considers newsworthy, it is entitled to publish.
Personally, I think it was rather reprehensible of a newspaper not to respect confidentiality as a matter of policy but it's their legal right and it's up to the blogger to protect his own anonymity.
Statutory damages aren't intended as punitive damages though.
So, they can avoid income tax on 99% of their income by being paid in $1000 worth of coins with a total face value of $10. That makes sense.
Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make. If they use them as legal tender, they'll only be able to use the face value. I suppose they might be able to haggle the price of a large purchase down a little but for everyday spending it seems the savings are small.
The 16 bit consoles were clearly miles ahead of the 8 bit machines, but each generation the improvement has been less significant. PS2 games and original XBox games still don't look that bad. The real advantage with the latest generation is higher resolutions. Reflections and shadows are just eye candy.
Now, the question is, why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation? Doubling the number of polygons isn't double the work. A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them. Game worlds may well get larger but games themselves don't need to do so substantially.
And the main point to realise is that budgets will not magically expand to match the cost of developing a game. The budget for a game is the amount that it can be expected to make in terms of sales so that the investors have a decent profit. The game will have to shrink to match that budget.
If you're using an FTP client, you have to explicitly know the commands for how to work it.
Well, the command line client responds to "help". The graphical client in file explorer works the same way as Windows.
Finally, what do you FTP to? ftp.mozilla.com? mozilla.com? firefox.com? ftp.firefox.com? Guess how many of those actually work?
True. That is a little harder.
Most people who are confident on how to reinstall an OS will probably be comfortable with using FTP.
That's assuming the PC manufacturer doesn't include a CD with the browser on it.
A person we can't work out exactly whether we're watching or not but can make a reasonable judgement about how much they're watching?
Of course I'm emotionally invested! The whole point of filmmakers is to promote emotional investment, and Pixar do this well! What do you expect?
The BNP is not very likely (by their very nature) to seek to cooperate with other partys either which is PPs goal.
True. Even the parties that have the same nominal goals and the BNP would like to associate with (specifically UKIP but there are others) will want to disassociate themselves from the BNP as much as possible.
Honestly - I have no idea what the BNP voters hope to achieve.
DVDs plummet in price after a few months.
Reduce the price of games. Compete directly with the second hand market. Anyone who wants the newest game right now can buy it at the high price. Anyone willing to wait a couple of months can get it for less. They're going to anyway - someone will complete it in a week and sell it on.
Cars are different though. They're a major investment. Resale value is a significant factor in the purchasing decision, and usually 100% of the sale cost goes into purchasing a new car; usually from the same manufacturer.
Some of this applies to used games but not to such a degree.
This would be an inefficient use of Microsoft's resources. An ATM company is going to sell far fewer units than any but the smallest PC company. Once they've agreed to use embedded Windows, there's virtually no lock-in. The OS will have very little in the way of dedicated banking APIs, so it will be trivial for the company to switch, and they require no additional software, so Microsoft make no sales of other software as a result.
It's most likely an engineer said "let's just stick a Windows PC in there. It's not too expensive, easy to develop for and we can use our development machines to ruin the software directly", and nobody could come up with a compelling reason not to. In my experience people will often pick a platform simply because they need a platform, and it's better to choose a reasonable solution than spend months evaluating the options. Windows may not be the best solution but it's a good enough solution (there's nothing to suggest that this problem was caused by the OS), and it's a known quantity.
Bad Linux programmers are more expensive than bad Windows programmers.
The problem, if anything, is the programmers. Not the platform they're developing for.
It costs a licensing fee. It has more security liability than pretty much any other choice.
As far as I know though, most of this is via the browser and email applications and IIS. XP can be pretty secure if you disable all unneeded services.
In short, I don't buy your arguments at all. Using Windows on an ATM is a sign someone in management somewhere is an incompetent buffoon.
I'd have thought Linux would be cheaper, but for all we know, they did a thorough analysis, discovered there were suitable savings to be made through use of Windows. Speculating that it's cheaper with so little information is pointless.
There's no indication of how the malware is installed. I suspect this requires physical access, in which case the OS chosen makes no difference at all.
These are speculators rather than squatters.
What they're doing irritates me. They make their money while providing no benefit to anyone, and simply increase costs. But ultimately the same can be said for currency speculators. What they're doing is legal. Stealing from them isn't.
Ultimately it comes down to "why not?" ATMs need an OS. The cost of a Windows XP licence is trivial compared with that of the hardware and custom software development. Might as well go for one that has lots of development tools for which the software can be run on a normal desktop computer. It's easier to develop for windows that to develop for a custom devkit.
He GAVE you the information voluntarily. Take the website he offered.
He gave the information on the understanding payment was due.
Sounds like theft to me.
He laughed at me and said he got that much profit a year out of letting the domain just sit and serve ads.
That was possibly a lie...
It comes down to whether they were PCI compliant or not. Simplifying hugely, if a security requirement is "All doors have locks", and the doors do have locks then you can tick that box and gain the certification. If the doors are left unlocked, then that's a process outside of the certification and so you're not responsible.
If you ignored a door and figured most of the doors having locks was good enough then you are responsible.
So, yes you're right. It's just that it's possible they were certified as compliant when they weren't.
But you cannot sue me for the impact that virus had.
Sorry, but why not? This is exactly the sort of problem that you were paid to prevent. The company proceeded with the understanding that this would not happen as a direct result of your actions. They paid you to take responsibility for their compliance. If you fail to ensure that the system was compliant then it's your responsibility.