...many North American and European bumblebees are failing to "track" warming by colonizing new habitats north of their historic range....
Maybe bumblebees select habitats to colonize based more upon the daylight patterns than temperatures, and that is why they are not following the warmth as it moves towards the poles?
For Pete's sake, most honeybees are simply loaded onto trucks and moved to where they are needed. It doesn't have much to do with their "natural" habitat, it has to do with when and where the truck takes them. This is a huge business...
Repeat after me: it has nothing to do with all the RF from all the fucking cellphone towers everywhere. Still don't believe that? Repeat it again, as many times as necessary...
Actually, this has more to do with pesticide use in the controlling of mosquitos and such than the climate changing. Honey Bees are big business and renting out hives a profitable venture. These hives travel all over the country (I saw three full semi-trucks of Bees just last week heading north) and all this global warming (if true) does is to make the growing season happen sooner and makes the business of bee keeping just move the hives north sooner.
Remember, Malibu Media can just change venues too and start this all over again... This judge didn't do anything worth while for you and me and opened himself up to an appeal where he obviously will be slapped.
About the only thing he accomplished is getting Malibu Media out of his courtroom and off his docket, for now. Nothing else will change.
And this is why I encrypt all my WiFi traffic and have MAC filters fully engaged when I'm not there to validate who's connecting.
You may get ON my network, but unless you crack the keys and sniff a valid MAC address, you won't get very far.. I suggest you use the other neighbor's open WiFi, it will be easier for you.
I fully appreciate your perspective and I agree that the waters are getting pretty muddy when you start trying to tie an IP address to a person, but the issue here is the issuing of the subpoena and not letting Malibu Media pursue discovery. They must be allowed to protect their rights in civil court, and that means they must be allowed to subpoena third parties for information so they can move from "John Doe" to an actual name and in this case, that takes a subpoena from the court.
What you are arguing is not really relevant to the issuing of the subpoena. It may be relevant to the trial and for your defense, but discovery MUST be allowed to proceed or Malibu Media's rights are being trampled on. Common law demands they get their due process, like it or not.
I urge you to carefully consider the broader implications to your position on this. Where I don't like how the trolls do business, if we change the discovery rules here, I fear we may cause bigger problems in other areas in the future.
Remember this is civil court, so if you think this arrangement fully protects you, you are sadly mistaken. Also remember that in civil court the level of proof is "most likely" not "beyond shadow of a doubt".
If you pay the ISP bill, then you are "most likely" responsible in the eyes of a civil court. If you are going to try the "it wasn't me" defense, you are going to need some kind of evidence of this. Just describing your network configuration isn't going to help you all that much.
Also, remember how trolls work... They don't want to take you to trial, they want money from you. They are going to tie you and your lawyers up in high cost litigation and push for a settlement out of court. Taking this to court is likely to cost you dearly and trying to pass off responsibility to somebody else isn't likely to help you in the end.
So don't be fooled. Subpoena requests like this are valid and your ISP will be forced to rat you out and you CAN be named in a civil suit as the subscriber. It won't matter that much who used your network to infringe, they can and will come after you...
This is civil court.. "Proving" something is a bit easier than you imagine, however you are correct that they must pick somebody to name in the suit. The problem though, is that the name on the bill is likely going to be considered "responsible" for the infringement because it was most likely them and not someone else.
You see, civil court is about "what's most likely to be true" and not iron clad proof. So they may not be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you did it, only that it was most likely you that did it, and you will be found liable for civil damages. So, if somebody in your house (your wife or kids) did it, the complainant is just going to shrug and say that it doesn't matter exactly WHO did it, somebody in that house did it and the head of the household (aka the name on the ISP's bill) is responsible. What's the difference anyway? If it's your kids, you are going to pay and if it is your wife, it's going to impact both of you...
IF the judge was upset with them, what he did was totally stupid and will be overturned on appeal. That the trolls where able to settle out of court is NOT his concern, that they filed suit and it never makes it to trial is not grounds for being upset with them. Such things happen ALL THE TIME and only a fraction of civil cases actually end up in the courtroom in front of a jury, trust me, I know this first hand.
Now if the trolls where ignoring the judge's orders, he needs to find them in contempt and levy sanctions for it, not go out and start denying legal requests on flimsy legal grounds to make his point. He may be upset with them, not like what they are doing, but a judge MUST stay impartial in his application of the law regardless of how he or she feels about it.
Look, this is CIVIL court not criminal court so if you get served because somebody you don't know was running bitTorrent on your open network, it sucks to be you, but that's what you get for being kind of stupid. You can try the "somebody I don't know did this" defense, and it might work for you, but it very well may not. In civil court the burden of proof is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" but something much less.
I would suggest that if you want to make this defense, that you do two things. 1. You maintain surveillance of your open network, logging the access times and MAC's of your open network. 2. You consider closing your network and give your guests a password, or at least start blocking unauthorized MAC's when they show up in your logs. If you have logs that say, Hey, somebody I don't know accessed my network at the time the infringement took place, that machine was subsequently blocked when I discovered it... Otherwise, the jury will be likely to just find you liable and give the troll damages..
Perhaps, but if that's the case, the judge acted stupidly. He should have just found them in contempt and levied sanctions on them for it and not resorted to this tirade of refusing subpoenas. If he really is just angry, then what he did will be overthrown on appeal.
There's apparently a blanket rule against using the court system to conduct fishing expeditions.
Depends on what you consider "fishing" to be. If they can prove that infringement took place and that they are simply trying to find out who did it, I believe they have the right to file suit and use the power of the court to force the disclosure of information by third parties so they CAN find out who is responsible.
If you consider "fishing" to be using the courts to determine if infringement actually happened or not, where they don't know if it occurred, then yes, that kind of activity IS forbidden as a rule.
I don't know what Malibu media produces but I imagine it's your basic porn garbage. Since Larry Flint pornography has been legal, so I think the judge was way overreaching here..
However I do agree with you about the quality of stuff coming out of Hollywood these days. I just don't think it reaches the legal definition of obscene.
Where I don't really care about supporting the trolls and how they do business, common law says that you have the right to protect your intellectual property (i.e. that copyrighted thing) in the civil courts. Unless it is possible to discover the owner/user of that IP address though a subpoena I don't see how you can control infringement though the civil courts. There may be valid reason for this judge to refuse to issue THIS subpoena but it surely cannot be a blanket rule now that you cannot force an ISP to rat out their subscribers in civil court. Your point that an IP is not an ID, really is a red herring. Of course it's not, but it does allow the troll to request additional subpoenas to further investigate and determine if the person who's name goes on the ISP's bill is really the one likely who infringed or not. This is civil court after all...
I think that if this troll can prove they have a copyright on the material and the right to enforce it, they will have a good case to appeal this decision and it will likely be overturned. Common law demands it.
No, I said we should be thinking about such stuff because there might be value there... Which is totally different than making the claim it's a good idea. I haven't a clue if it's viable or not... I'm not a rocket scientist and all...
I'm no rocket scientist but this is nuts. We are going to launch some satellite, have it capture another one, then deorbit both of them? What a waste! A waste of energy and technology to launch such hardware just to throw it away. Not to mention that orbiting broken satellites might have some useful components we might consider trying to recycle. A big dish antenna is heavy, but could conceivably be reused and save launch weight on the next satellite.
These larger pieces of space junk are easy to track, few in number, and thus are not that dangerous. What we really need is a solution that allows us to start clearing out the smaller pieces of junk. Maybe by just nudging them around until they are in decaying orbits, or vaporizing them using lasers. If we are going to talk pie in the sky, let's do something more useful...(and perhaps more likely to be successful.)
This has been a growing problem that no one has made a realistic attempt to solve. Glad someone has finally started working on it.
This isn't a realistic solution... About all we can conceivably do right now is go snatch larger hardware assemblies and either bring them down or put them into parking orbits out of the way. Getting the real dangerous stuff, moving at huge relative velocities is like trying to catch bullets using your fingers. All you will do is put a whole though your fingers and likely just create more junk in the process.
We would have better luck if we would vaporize this stuff from the ground or push it into decaying orbits using lasers or something. Trying to go up and catch it using a net is not going to work unless you can get the relative velocities nearly identical and who has the time and energy for that?
With DDR4 and the huge amounts of ram available to modern desktop pcs, I would think the ramdrive would be gaining in popularity. I guess though, if you've got sensitive data a ramdrive is a bad move.
I wouldn't say sensitive data, I'd say data you need to persist. Actually putting sensitive data (stuff you don't want disclosed) into RAM might be a good idea in some ways. With data in RAM power off and the data is gone, where if you have it on a removable device it can sprout legs and walk away.
No, you where making hypothetical situations up by adding details to try and support your position by placing the hypothetical "good guy" with the gun into circumstances which put them at a disadvantage.
Boil it down to what it was, bad guy with gun shooting unarmed innocent people in a theater. People where dying because they had no way to defend themselves or get away from the single guy with a gun.
Surely you see the benefit of having a couple of armed law abiding people in that theater. Sure, there is no guarantee they will be able to stop the guy, but there is a good chance they will be able to at least slow him down and save lives in the process. Having NOBODY there with a gun only guarantees that the shooter does what he wants for the 7-15 min it will take for the police to arrive.
Silly me, I'm for giving the law abiding the right to be armed and defend themselves if they can.... You on the other hand want to condemn the innocent to die, and wring your hands about how dangerous guns are. Here's hoping YOU don't find yourself in a dark theater, unarmed, while some nut is shooting up the place... I'd bet you'd LOVE to have a gun then...
Oh please, this situation wasn't a made for TV movie. Why do people keep talking like it is?
These guys are trying to either get out of being punished or they are angling for a movie/book deal on their little bit of fiction...
The more I read their little article, the more it reads like a really bad movie script.... So if it's even partially true, they are playing the con for some reason, and taking it at face value, they had ample opportunity to leave, but stayed and kept taking the money. They are criminals, or really bad writers...
But the politicians won't care, they will all be seen as "doing something" by passing another law that purports to fix something. All they will really accomplish is leveling undue hardship on E-mail and social sites and get a flood of useless information nobody at the NSA is prepared to deal with. Well, that and driving business off shore where they have no rights to force the collection of any data.
Hey, bone heads, stop messing with stuff you don't understand... Didn't the ACA teach you anything? Besides, if you wanted to do something like this, why in the blazes did we give up control of the top level domain servers?
Well, that's find, just be sure to sign this document first.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....
Slashdot Mirror
...many North American and European bumblebees are failing to "track" warming by colonizing new habitats north of their historic range. ...
Maybe bumblebees select habitats to colonize based more upon the daylight patterns than temperatures, and that is why they are not following the warmth as it moves towards the poles?
For Pete's sake, most honeybees are simply loaded onto trucks and moved to where they are needed. It doesn't have much to do with their "natural" habitat, it has to do with when and where the truck takes them. This is a huge business...
Repeat after me: it has nothing to do with all the RF from all the fucking cellphone towers everywhere. Still don't believe that? Repeat it again, as many times as necessary...
Actually, this has more to do with pesticide use in the controlling of mosquitos and such than the climate changing. Honey Bees are big business and renting out hives a profitable venture. These hives travel all over the country (I saw three full semi-trucks of Bees just last week heading north) and all this global warming (if true) does is to make the growing season happen sooner and makes the business of bee keeping just move the hives north sooner.
Nothing to see here.... Move on..
Remember, Malibu Media can just change venues too and start this all over again... This judge didn't do anything worth while for you and me and opened himself up to an appeal where he obviously will be slapped.
About the only thing he accomplished is getting Malibu Media out of his courtroom and off his docket, for now. Nothing else will change.
Clever...
And this is why I encrypt all my WiFi traffic and have MAC filters fully engaged when I'm not there to validate who's connecting.
You may get ON my network, but unless you crack the keys and sniff a valid MAC address, you won't get very far.. I suggest you use the other neighbor's open WiFi, it will be easier for you.
I fully appreciate your perspective and I agree that the waters are getting pretty muddy when you start trying to tie an IP address to a person, but the issue here is the issuing of the subpoena and not letting Malibu Media pursue discovery. They must be allowed to protect their rights in civil court, and that means they must be allowed to subpoena third parties for information so they can move from "John Doe" to an actual name and in this case, that takes a subpoena from the court.
What you are arguing is not really relevant to the issuing of the subpoena. It may be relevant to the trial and for your defense, but discovery MUST be allowed to proceed or Malibu Media's rights are being trampled on. Common law demands they get their due process, like it or not.
I urge you to carefully consider the broader implications to your position on this. Where I don't like how the trolls do business, if we change the discovery rules here, I fear we may cause bigger problems in other areas in the future.
Remember this is civil court, so if you think this arrangement fully protects you, you are sadly mistaken. Also remember that in civil court the level of proof is "most likely" not "beyond shadow of a doubt".
If you pay the ISP bill, then you are "most likely" responsible in the eyes of a civil court. If you are going to try the "it wasn't me" defense, you are going to need some kind of evidence of this. Just describing your network configuration isn't going to help you all that much.
Also, remember how trolls work... They don't want to take you to trial, they want money from you. They are going to tie you and your lawyers up in high cost litigation and push for a settlement out of court. Taking this to court is likely to cost you dearly and trying to pass off responsibility to somebody else isn't likely to help you in the end.
So don't be fooled. Subpoena requests like this are valid and your ISP will be forced to rat you out and you CAN be named in a civil suit as the subscriber. It won't matter that much who used your network to infringe, they can and will come after you...
This is civil court.. "Proving" something is a bit easier than you imagine, however you are correct that they must pick somebody to name in the suit. The problem though, is that the name on the bill is likely going to be considered "responsible" for the infringement because it was most likely them and not someone else.
You see, civil court is about "what's most likely to be true" and not iron clad proof. So they may not be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you did it, only that it was most likely you that did it, and you will be found liable for civil damages. So, if somebody in your house (your wife or kids) did it, the complainant is just going to shrug and say that it doesn't matter exactly WHO did it, somebody in that house did it and the head of the household (aka the name on the ISP's bill) is responsible. What's the difference anyway? If it's your kids, you are going to pay and if it is your wife, it's going to impact both of you...
IF the judge was upset with them, what he did was totally stupid and will be overturned on appeal. That the trolls where able to settle out of court is NOT his concern, that they filed suit and it never makes it to trial is not grounds for being upset with them. Such things happen ALL THE TIME and only a fraction of civil cases actually end up in the courtroom in front of a jury, trust me, I know this first hand.
Now if the trolls where ignoring the judge's orders, he needs to find them in contempt and levy sanctions for it, not go out and start denying legal requests on flimsy legal grounds to make his point. He may be upset with them, not like what they are doing, but a judge MUST stay impartial in his application of the law regardless of how he or she feels about it.
Look, this is CIVIL court not criminal court so if you get served because somebody you don't know was running bitTorrent on your open network, it sucks to be you, but that's what you get for being kind of stupid. You can try the "somebody I don't know did this" defense, and it might work for you, but it very well may not. In civil court the burden of proof is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" but something much less.
I would suggest that if you want to make this defense, that you do two things. 1. You maintain surveillance of your open network, logging the access times and MAC's of your open network. 2. You consider closing your network and give your guests a password, or at least start blocking unauthorized MAC's when they show up in your logs. If you have logs that say, Hey, somebody I don't know accessed my network at the time the infringement took place, that machine was subsequently blocked when I discovered it... Otherwise, the jury will be likely to just find you liable and give the troll damages..
Perhaps, but if that's the case, the judge acted stupidly. He should have just found them in contempt and levied sanctions on them for it and not resorted to this tirade of refusing subpoenas. If he really is just angry, then what he did will be overthrown on appeal.
There's apparently a blanket rule against using the court system to conduct fishing expeditions.
Depends on what you consider "fishing" to be. If they can prove that infringement took place and that they are simply trying to find out who did it, I believe they have the right to file suit and use the power of the court to force the disclosure of information by third parties so they CAN find out who is responsible.
If you consider "fishing" to be using the courts to determine if infringement actually happened or not, where they don't know if it occurred, then yes, that kind of activity IS forbidden as a rule.
One more thing... This idea of recycling was not original to me.. It came from DARPA I think..
I'd like to point out that this idea wasn't original to me.. It was a DARPA idea I think....
I don't know what Malibu media produces but I imagine it's your basic porn garbage. Since Larry Flint pornography has been legal, so I think the judge was way overreaching here..
However I do agree with you about the quality of stuff coming out of Hollywood these days. I just don't think it reaches the legal definition of obscene.
I'm not so sure I agree that this make sense...
Where I don't really care about supporting the trolls and how they do business, common law says that you have the right to protect your intellectual property (i.e. that copyrighted thing) in the civil courts. Unless it is possible to discover the owner/user of that IP address though a subpoena I don't see how you can control infringement though the civil courts. There may be valid reason for this judge to refuse to issue THIS subpoena but it surely cannot be a blanket rule now that you cannot force an ISP to rat out their subscribers in civil court. Your point that an IP is not an ID, really is a red herring. Of course it's not, but it does allow the troll to request additional subpoenas to further investigate and determine if the person who's name goes on the ISP's bill is really the one likely who infringed or not. This is civil court after all...
I think that if this troll can prove they have a copyright on the material and the right to enforce it, they will have a good case to appeal this decision and it will likely be overturned. Common law demands it.
No, I said we should be thinking about such stuff because there might be value there... Which is totally different than making the claim it's a good idea. I haven't a clue if it's viable or not... I'm not a rocket scientist and all...
Pick two...
It all boils down to what you want, but of the three things we all say we want, you get only two...
I'm no rocket scientist but this is nuts. We are going to launch some satellite, have it capture another one, then deorbit both of them? What a waste! A waste of energy and technology to launch such hardware just to throw it away. Not to mention that orbiting broken satellites might have some useful components we might consider trying to recycle. A big dish antenna is heavy, but could conceivably be reused and save launch weight on the next satellite.
These larger pieces of space junk are easy to track, few in number, and thus are not that dangerous. What we really need is a solution that allows us to start clearing out the smaller pieces of junk. Maybe by just nudging them around until they are in decaying orbits, or vaporizing them using lasers. If we are going to talk pie in the sky, let's do something more useful...(and perhaps more likely to be successful.)
This has been a growing problem that no one has made a realistic attempt to solve. Glad someone has finally started working on it.
This isn't a realistic solution... About all we can conceivably do right now is go snatch larger hardware assemblies and either bring them down or put them into parking orbits out of the way. Getting the real dangerous stuff, moving at huge relative velocities is like trying to catch bullets using your fingers. All you will do is put a whole though your fingers and likely just create more junk in the process.
We would have better luck if we would vaporize this stuff from the ground or push it into decaying orbits using lasers or something. Trying to go up and catch it using a net is not going to work unless you can get the relative velocities nearly identical and who has the time and energy for that?
With DDR4 and the huge amounts of ram available to modern desktop pcs, I would think the ramdrive would be gaining in popularity. I guess though, if you've got sensitive data a ramdrive is a bad move.
I wouldn't say sensitive data, I'd say data you need to persist. Actually putting sensitive data (stuff you don't want disclosed) into RAM might be a good idea in some ways. With data in RAM power off and the data is gone, where if you have it on a removable device it can sprout legs and walk away.
No, you where making hypothetical situations up by adding details to try and support your position by placing the hypothetical "good guy" with the gun into circumstances which put them at a disadvantage.
Boil it down to what it was, bad guy with gun shooting unarmed innocent people in a theater. People where dying because they had no way to defend themselves or get away from the single guy with a gun.
Surely you see the benefit of having a couple of armed law abiding people in that theater. Sure, there is no guarantee they will be able to stop the guy, but there is a good chance they will be able to at least slow him down and save lives in the process. Having NOBODY there with a gun only guarantees that the shooter does what he wants for the 7-15 min it will take for the police to arrive.
Silly me, I'm for giving the law abiding the right to be armed and defend themselves if they can.... You on the other hand want to condemn the innocent to die, and wring your hands about how dangerous guns are. Here's hoping YOU don't find yourself in a dark theater, unarmed, while some nut is shooting up the place... I'd bet you'd LOVE to have a gun then...
Oh please, this situation wasn't a made for TV movie. Why do people keep talking like it is?
These guys are trying to either get out of being punished or they are angling for a movie/book deal on their little bit of fiction...
The more I read their little article, the more it reads like a really bad movie script.... So if it's even partially true, they are playing the con for some reason, and taking it at face value, they had ample opportunity to leave, but stayed and kept taking the money. They are criminals, or really bad writers...
But the politicians won't care, they will all be seen as "doing something" by passing another law that purports to fix something. All they will really accomplish is leveling undue hardship on E-mail and social sites and get a flood of useless information nobody at the NSA is prepared to deal with. Well, that and driving business off shore where they have no rights to force the collection of any data.
Hey, bone heads, stop messing with stuff you don't understand... Didn't the ACA teach you anything? Besides, if you wanted to do something like this, why in the blazes did we give up control of the top level domain servers?
Well, that's find, just be sure to sign this document first.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....
A likely sanitized version of Han Solo? No thanks.
I'd rather kiss a wookie.... Wait a min, maybe THAT's the story?