This does require physical access to a machine. If you want to access the machine, you can reboot using a USB stick and access the hard disk that way, or even just open the machine and take the drive, then modify the contents to your heart's content before putting it back
It's not really for Africa. At least not the poorest parts. Take slightly less poor contires.
India has roads, medicine, sanitation, water, and good farming techniques. They need to improve their industrial techniques especially in areas such as software development and information technology. Same goes for Brazil, Mexico, and that covers about 20% of the world.
The points system is a key difference but then, nobody ever got killed through copyright infringement. Personally, I'm a proponent of something more akin to parking tickets for copyright infringement. A fine large enough to make people think twice before infringing, but small enough that if anyone is caught they get no public sympathy.
But you've suffered tangible harm because of spam. You had to abandon your email accounts.
This had nothing to do with the speech itself. It's not about what you write or whether people are offended by what you write. It's about the damage done by the process of delivery. The harm would have been exactly the same if it were political, religious, or lines from Shakespeare.
The speech doesn't cause harm. The mechanism of delivery causes harm. I no more support Spam as freedom of speech than I support graffiti on other peoples property.
If I write "Bush sucks" on a piece of paper, that's freedom of speech. If I write it on someone's forehead, the free speech justification isn't going to protect me against criminal damage. If I write it on their car (because no analogy is complete without using a car), I can still be charged with criminal damage. In some places, I might even get hit with a local fire ordinance fine for flag burning. I can't hack into a computer and print stuff on someone else's printer, I can't cut a TV cable and insert my own television broadcasts, I can't steal a copy of Harry Potter and burn it to protest about the advocacy of witchcraft, I can't stick a loudhailer up to someone's front door and yell political slogans.
Spam is a nuisance. It costs society a lot in monetary terms and causes considerable annoyance to a lot of people - this can be measured by the resources that some people will put into stopping spam over and above the cost of simply deleting it.
1: These are leaked documents. Any bank has major issues with leaks. 2: They suggest that the bank is involved in money laundering or tax evasions. 3: Many of the names leaked are apparently quite important.
So there's not really a need for a lot of effort. Any one of these three reasons is enough.
I think so. It seems that the legal system is designed with an assumption that being dragged away from your normal life to sit in a courtroom to answer probing questions is of minimal inconvenience.
I see it as more of a big chunky PDA than a small portable PC. The non-windows OS, the solid state storage, and the crappy screen really make it useless as a replacement for a desktop, but its portability and (presumable) ruggedness make it great for carrying around and then copying files to a main PC
I'm really not sure what their point is there. If I send a word document to the bank then I expect them to keep it in their records, and keep it confidential.
And this release from wikileaks seems to alternate between arrogant and whiny thus damaging its case in the court of public opinion.
Statement 1 is clearly a lie. The second statement is technically true. Saying "our organisation denies xyz" is closer to the second statement. You may disagree, of course, and that's fair enough, but I suspect this is why they phrased it the way they did.
They didn't say the material is not authentic. Just that they deny that it is authentic. Slight, subtle difference. Assuming it is authentic, the first is a direct lie whereas the second is an honest statement referring to a second statement that may or may not be true.
It's quite right that private banking information should remain private. It's also quite correct that JB should take great pains to avoid confirming that the data is genuine. As such, whether the data is legitimate or forged, they should behave in exactly the same way.
And that's about it for my sympathy. JB could have asked wikileaks to take down specific pages (wikileaks most likely would not have done but it's a matter of courtesy). They could have specified a jurisdiction for their demands, or given a reason that they could not specify a jurisdiction. By demanding the wiping of the DNS records, they have advertised the existence of the leak and even made the mainstream press in at least one country.
It's not his job to determine the legal strength of the argument. Only to find the person downloading materials.
Now, if you have logs that show a file was downloaded and the indicated IP address was assigned to a specific computer at a given time, you would assume that you downloaded from that computer. You can probably be reasonably sure you've got the right person. False positives are probably lower than 5% or so. For most of us in our day to day life, this level of false positive is fine for making decisions. People do it all the time.
The fact that this is not sufficient for a court is up to people who know about evidence - i.e. lawyers - to deal with. The RIAA should have asked him the questions that he was asked in cross examination.
Look - many free software developers are people with enough money why simply want to create something for their own purpose, but are happy for others to use it. Red Hat et al. help more people to use the software. Nobody is being exploited. Nobody expects or wants to make money from free software. They wouldn't make money from proprietary software either.
Most of them are actually people who use customised free software for a specific customer.
Granted, this is about Australian law, but American law isn't substantially different. Microsoft want to swallow up Yahoo. The company would no longer exist. It's relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
This does require physical access to a machine. If you want to access the machine, you can reboot using a USB stick and access the hard disk that way, or even just open the machine and take the drive, then modify the contents to your heart's content before putting it back
He has another defence - That the harm caused by the post was negligible.
It's not really for Africa. At least not the poorest parts. Take slightly less poor contires.
India has roads, medicine, sanitation, water, and good farming techniques. They need to improve their industrial techniques especially in areas such as software development and information technology. Same goes for Brazil, Mexico, and that covers about 20% of the world.
It's a decent enough analogy.
The points system is a key difference but then, nobody ever got killed through copyright infringement. Personally, I'm a proponent of something more akin to parking tickets for copyright infringement. A fine large enough to make people think twice before infringing, but small enough that if anyone is caught they get no public sympathy.
It's also an elegant system. It will work faster as the CPU gets hotter.
But you've suffered tangible harm because of spam. You had to abandon your email accounts.
This had nothing to do with the speech itself. It's not about what you write or whether people are offended by what you write. It's about the damage done by the process of delivery. The harm would have been exactly the same if it were political, religious, or lines from Shakespeare.
The speech doesn't cause harm. The mechanism of delivery causes harm. I no more support Spam as freedom of speech than I support graffiti on other peoples property.
If I write "Bush sucks" on a piece of paper, that's freedom of speech. If I write it on someone's forehead, the free speech justification isn't going to protect me against criminal damage. If I write it on their car (because no analogy is complete without using a car), I can still be charged with criminal damage. In some places, I might even get hit with a local fire ordinance fine for flag burning. I can't hack into a computer and print stuff on someone else's printer, I can't cut a TV cable and insert my own television broadcasts, I can't steal a copy of Harry Potter and burn it to protest about the advocacy of witchcraft, I can't stick a loudhailer up to someone's front door and yell political slogans.
Spam is a nuisance. It costs society a lot in monetary terms and causes considerable annoyance to a lot of people - this can be measured by the resources that some people will put into stopping spam over and above the cost of simply deleting it.
He's only a kid. I guess he's learned a valuable lesson.
Try plugging in a gigabyte of RAM. It's a cheap and easy upgrade, and in my experience, most of the slowdown on PCs is because of constant swapping.
1: These are leaked documents. Any bank has major issues with leaks.
2: They suggest that the bank is involved in money laundering or tax evasions.
3: Many of the names leaked are apparently quite important.
So there's not really a need for a lot of effort. Any one of these three reasons is enough.
I think so. It seems that the legal system is designed with an assumption that being dragged away from your normal life to sit in a courtroom to answer probing questions is of minimal inconvenience.
Well, I went to wikileaks to find the guy's ID and seems the URL is invalid.
I see it as more of a big chunky PDA than a small portable PC. The non-windows OS, the solid state storage, and the crappy screen really make it useless as a replacement for a desktop, but its portability and (presumable) ruggedness make it great for carrying around and then copying files to a main PC
I'm really not sure what their point is there. If I send a word document to the bank then I expect them to keep it in their records, and keep it confidential. And this release from wikileaks seems to alternate between arrogant and whiny thus damaging its case in the court of public opinion.
Like I said, it's subtle.
Statement 1:
"I am not 91degrees"
Statement 2:
"I said I'm not 91degrees"
Statement 1 is clearly a lie. The second statement is technically true. Saying "our organisation denies xyz" is closer to the second statement. You may disagree, of course, and that's fair enough, but I suspect this is why they phrased it the way they did.
They didn't say the material is not authentic. Just that they deny that it is authentic. Slight, subtle difference. Assuming it is authentic, the first is a direct lie whereas the second is an honest statement referring to a second statement that may or may not be true.
It's quite right that private banking information should remain private. It's also quite correct that JB should take great pains to avoid confirming that the data is genuine. As such, whether the data is legitimate or forged, they should behave in exactly the same way.
And that's about it for my sympathy. JB could have asked wikileaks to take down specific pages (wikileaks most likely would not have done but it's a matter of courtesy). They could have specified a jurisdiction for their demands, or given a reason that they could not specify a jurisdiction. By demanding the wiping of the DNS records, they have advertised the existence of the leak and even made the mainstream press in at least one country.
Admiral Ackbar led the attack on the second Battle Station. The thermal exhaust port weakness was on the first.
It's not his job to determine the legal strength of the argument. Only to find the person downloading materials.
Now, if you have logs that show a file was downloaded and the indicated IP address was assigned to a specific computer at a given time, you would assume that you downloaded from that computer. You can probably be reasonably sure you've got the right person. False positives are probably lower than 5% or so. For most of us in our day to day life, this level of false positive is fine for making decisions. People do it all the time.
The fact that this is not sufficient for a court is up to people who know about evidence - i.e. lawyers - to deal with. The RIAA should have asked him the questions that he was asked in cross examination.
Yes. The borderline is between incompetent and dishonest:)
Look - many free software developers are people with enough money why simply want to create something for their own purpose, but are happy for others to use it. Red Hat et al. help more people to use the software. Nobody is being exploited. Nobody expects or wants to make money from free software. They wouldn't make money from proprietary software either.
Most of them are actually people who use customised free software for a specific customer.
What makes you think it's all students?
I can see the merits in both arguments. Why is making available rejected in this case but not in the Thompson case? How are these different?
Perhaps people think that copying stuff for personal use is okay, but if you're profiting from it directly then the originator deserves a cut.
The myth of shareholder primacy
Granted, this is about Australian law, but American law isn't substantially different. Microsoft want to swallow up Yahoo. The company would no longer exist. It's relevant.
So what exactly are the resource requirements of HDi and BDJ? Are we talking gigabytes or terabytes here?