The judge is a human being, the law is subject to interpretation, and a trial is a time-boxed event. Those three things make your argument in court quite important. If you come forward with a very good argument and no rebuttal is done on the other side, it naturally skews the results, especially in a tech-related subject where the judge is most likely a bit lost. It's just how life is.
You can have a lawyer for free. Granted, it's maybe not the best one because (s)he is overworked, but it's a heck of a lot better than defending yourself.
You are so smarter than I am, I think I will spend my next month reading all your/. posts from the first to the very last. I expect my IQ to grow significantly.
I refer to your trolling because you answered my "There was a point to go to court with this" with "So by French law, making it a title makes it a presentation as a fact?".
These two statements may be equivalent in your view, but they are not in mine.
Additionally, not all judges are tech savvy and I can see why seeing this as the second result of a Google search with the name of the restaurant may push a judge to settle this matter in a court of law. This does not set the law, it merely indicates that a judge was convinced by ONE party to investigate further.
Maybe where you live there are no stupid trials when technology comes into play. If so, please tell me where it is, I am interested. We don't live in a perfect world and France most assuredly do not lead the pack on that front. Again, I am interested in the name of your country where no mistakes are made and every trial is exactly 100% what every parties thought it would be at the beginning.
As I said, she most likely lost because she was not represented. The fact that this went to trial is not all that surprising though, which was my point.
It is to be questioned, actually. We have defamation laws in France (and there are some flavor of them about all over the place) and when you make a review you should always either sustain your claim and present it as fact (to avoid defamation) or present it as your own opinion (in there you have free speech). The limit is often blurry, but you cannot call the president (or anyone for that matter) a thief unless you have proof. You can however say that you think he is a thief. Of course, there is context that helps quite a bunch here.
In this case, the title of the article was presented as a fact (The place to avoid at Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino) and in the search results page it was completely out of context.
So all in all, I think there was at least reasonable doubt and the trial doesn't surprise me all that much. The claim of the restaurant was even very limited: removing its name from the title.
Now, if you want to live in a place with "real" free speech, good luck with that. But whenever someone Google-Bomb you with accusation of pedophilia, well, good luck.
French here. The lady owner of the blog did not choose to lawyer up and went there to defend herself. The restaurant just wanted her to change the title of the blog post which was along the line of "The place to avoid at Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino" (where Cap-Ferret is the name of the town the restaurant is in). They just wanted the name of the restaurant removed from the title because it was 2nd place on Google and was starting to be detrimental to their business. She removed the blog post entirely on her own. It appears she doesn't intend to counter sue.
It pretty much looks like something that would not have happened if the defendant was properly represented.
As always, the analogy is flawed. If the court ordered someone to break into your house and delete the attachment you saved locally, your analogy would hold. As it is, what GS is asking would be analogous to the court ordering the post office to remove the letter from your PO Box. Seems much more reasonable to me.
People are controlling your mind all the time. Every time you see an ad, someone is trying to control your mind to try to convince you buy something. Every time you read an article in a paper, someone controls your mind to try to get their point across. Every time you argue with someone she is trying to control your mind by getting her point across. Etc.
The definition of hacking, the legal one, in many places at least in europe is defined pretty much as the following: Being somewhere you're not supposed to, while knowing you're not supposed to, and then snooping around instead of just leaving. I guess it's the digital alternative of 'breaking and entering'. Just because you found a post-it with the lock of the front door on the ground, it doesn't make it right to go in. Common sense should kick in at some point, so if you do it anyways, justice assumes common sense did kick in and you entered willfully. THAT makes it illegal.
In a story as touchy as Snowden's, nothing is as simple as you make it out to be. Not your theory, not the GP's theory. There are probably thousands of strings being pulled as we converse on the subject, and we have no idea.
...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.
I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.
I honestly could not care less about the number of cores of the microprocessor. Sure, the more the merrier, but again, the more the hungrier. You could stuff 128 cores in there that the machine wouldn't go 1ms faster for pretty much all tasks. What would be useful here would be a benchmark of this CPU with the iPad 3 CPU (which is clocked higher btw). Of course, all benchmarks are biaised, but still, that would give a few pointers for comparing both CPUs. I'm sure you're the guy that says the latest CANON camera is superior to competitor X because it haz moar pixels. Hint: it's not true. Another hint: 4 cores ain't necessarily better than two.
microSD slot is definitely a plus. I'll count that as one.
The OS is at worst a matter of taste, not a clear cut superiority.
And last, I don't know where you can find a new iPad3 these days, so I find it hard on your part to compare the new HP tablet to an old iPad model... The one sold by Apple is the iPad 4, which has an even higher clock rate.
Please name "several important ways" in which this crap out-specs the iPad3? Are there more than the important ways than those for which the iPad3 out-specs the HP one?
Slashdot Mirror
The judge is a human being, the law is subject to interpretation, and a trial is a time-boxed event. Those three things make your argument in court quite important. If you come forward with a very good argument and no rebuttal is done on the other side, it naturally skews the results, especially in a tech-related subject where the judge is most likely a bit lost. It's just how life is.
You can have a lawyer for free. Granted, it's maybe not the best one because (s)he is overworked, but it's a heck of a lot better than defending yourself.
You are so smarter than I am, I think I will spend my next month reading all your /. posts from the first to the very last. I expect my IQ to grow significantly.
I refer to your trolling because you answered my "There was a point to go to court with this" with "So by French law, making it a title makes it a presentation as a fact?".
These two statements may be equivalent in your view, but they are not in mine.
Additionally, not all judges are tech savvy and I can see why seeing this as the second result of a Google search with the name of the restaurant may push a judge to settle this matter in a court of law. This does not set the law, it merely indicates that a judge was convinced by ONE party to investigate further.
Maybe where you live there are no stupid trials when technology comes into play. If so, please tell me where it is, I am interested. We don't live in a perfect world and France most assuredly do not lead the pack on that front. Again, I am interested in the name of your country where no mistakes are made and every trial is exactly 100% what every parties thought it would be at the beginning.
Trolling much, eh?
As I said, she most likely lost because she was not represented. The fact that this went to trial is not all that surprising though, which was my point.
It is to be questioned, actually. We have defamation laws in France (and there are some flavor of them about all over the place) and when you make a review you should always either sustain your claim and present it as fact (to avoid defamation) or present it as your own opinion (in there you have free speech). The limit is often blurry, but you cannot call the president (or anyone for that matter) a thief unless you have proof. You can however say that you think he is a thief. Of course, there is context that helps quite a bunch here.
In this case, the title of the article was presented as a fact (The place to avoid at Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino) and in the search results page it was completely out of context.
So all in all, I think there was at least reasonable doubt and the trial doesn't surprise me all that much. The claim of the restaurant was even very limited: removing its name from the title.
Now, if you want to live in a place with "real" free speech, good luck with that. But whenever someone Google-Bomb you with accusation of pedophilia, well, good luck.
French here. The lady owner of the blog did not choose to lawyer up and went there to defend herself. The restaurant just wanted her to change the title of the blog post which was along the line of "The place to avoid at Cap-Ferret: Il Giardino" (where Cap-Ferret is the name of the town the restaurant is in). They just wanted the name of the restaurant removed from the title because it was 2nd place on Google and was starting to be detrimental to their business. She removed the blog post entirely on her own. It appears she doesn't intend to counter sue.
It pretty much looks like something that would not have happened if the defendant was properly represented.
What's your plan?
A) Make the justice scale
A1) DMCA-style
A2) All your money will get into it and them some
B) Stop the websites.
Websites scale, the justice system not so much.
As always, the analogy is flawed.
If the court ordered someone to break into your house and delete the attachment you saved locally, your analogy would hold. As it is, what GS is asking would be analogous to the court ordering the post office to remove the letter from your PO Box. Seems much more reasonable to me.
People are controlling your mind all the time. Every time you see an ad, someone is trying to control your mind to try to convince you buy something. Every time you read an article in a paper, someone controls your mind to try to get their point across. Every time you argue with someone she is trying to control your mind by getting her point across. Etc.
Get off your high horse, use your brain.
Fraud is a serious crime.
I thought it was a legitimate business model.
That's another part of it, yes.
The definition of hacking, the legal one, in many places at least in europe is defined pretty much as the following: Being somewhere you're not supposed to, while knowing you're not supposed to, and then snooping around instead of just leaving. I guess it's the digital alternative of 'breaking and entering'. Just because you found a post-it with the lock of the front door on the ground, it doesn't make it right to go in. Common sense should kick in at some point, so if you do it anyways, justice assumes common sense did kick in and you entered willfully. THAT makes it illegal.
That's pretty much common sense.
I'm actually surprised they're not yet in jail...
You realize I'm not the GGP and that I didn't take sides, right? I don't have a theory.
If I close my eyes, I can actually see pink bunnies running in a field of lily flowers. So peaceul. If only I could keep them shut.
In a story as touchy as Snowden's, nothing is as simple as you make it out to be. Not your theory, not the GP's theory. There are probably thousands of strings being pulled as we converse on the subject, and we have no idea.
It is already too late. Look at Snowden: he revealed everything to the sunlight, and nobody cares. It's gone. NSA is here to stay with all their crap.
Who is going to stop you? The authors are anonymous so who could claim to be the copyright holder to come and stop you?
...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.
I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.
Voldemort? Already?
Interesting that Amazon still has a marketplace seller still selling those at a price almost equal to the iPad 4... Oh well.
On another topic, nice troll you have going there. Don't let me stop you.
I know, I am. And yes, android is much better than iOS on all aspects. For sure. I mean, come on, it has more lines of code.
I honestly could not care less about the number of cores of the microprocessor. Sure, the more the merrier, but again, the more the hungrier. You could stuff 128 cores in there that the machine wouldn't go 1ms faster for pretty much all tasks. What would be useful here would be a benchmark of this CPU with the iPad 3 CPU (which is clocked higher btw). Of course, all benchmarks are biaised, but still, that would give a few pointers for comparing both CPUs. I'm sure you're the guy that says the latest CANON camera is superior to competitor X because it haz moar pixels. Hint: it's not true. Another hint: 4 cores ain't necessarily better than two.
microSD slot is definitely a plus. I'll count that as one.
The OS is at worst a matter of taste, not a clear cut superiority.
And last, I don't know where you can find a new iPad3 these days, so I find it hard on your part to compare the new HP tablet to an old iPad model... The one sold by Apple is the iPad 4, which has an even higher clock rate.
infinite mpg looks suspicious so far. Give it time.
Please name "several important ways" in which this crap out-specs the iPad3? Are there more than the important ways than those for which the iPad3 out-specs the HP one?