While the word "honesty" has many connotations, in this case it simply means "not lying". That's how the researchers defined honesty, so what you're saying is true, but isn't relevant to this study.
The study uses and defines "dishonesty" instead of the word "honesty"...
Dishonesty
In its most basic form, dishonesty involves the conscious attempt by a person to convince others of a false reality (Abe, 2011). In this work, we operationalize dishonesty as a generalized personal inclination to obscure the truth in natural, everyday life situations. The most common type of such dishonesty is represented by “white lies” or “social lies” that people tell themselves or others in order to appear more desirable or positive (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996; Granhag & Vrij, 2005). While most people claim to be honest most of the time (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Halevy, Shalvi, & Verschuere, 2013), research suggests that minor cases of dishonesty are quite common (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; Hofmann, Wisneski, Brandt, & Skitka, 2014; Serota, Levine, & Boster, 2010), especially when people believe that dishonesty is harmless or justifiable (Fang & Casadevall, 2013) or that they can avoid any penalties (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009). In other words, people tend to rationalize their own dishonesty (Ayal & Gino, 2012) and perceive it as less severe (Peer, Acquisti, & Shalvi, 2014) or nonexistent (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008).
As for Michael Flynn, Wikipedia considered him noteworthy starting January 5th, 2010 [wikipedia.org].
And below is the whole content of the page in the link you mentioned...
Michael T. Flynn is a Major General in the U.S. military and the top military intelligence officer in Afghanistan. He published an "extraordinary" report on "the failure of his own service, American military intelligence, in Afghanistan over the last eight years." [1]
And there is a note on the top...
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 5 January 2010...
U drunk? Class 3 is profane and untrustworthy. So 50% of the profane are liars, but 0% of non profane are.
The 4th group are also liars -- claimed to use profanity but actually don't use it -- so I am not sure how you come up with 0% here.
By the way, I don't agree with the study methodology and conclusion. I understand that they tried to quantify behavior, so that a measurement could be applied. However, the accuracy of quantification method that the study used is NO WHERE NEAR the acceptable level in science but rather way too low (up to 67%). Thus, the study is just garbage...
The honesty of the status updates written by the participants was assessed following the approach introduced by Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, and Richards (2003) using LIWC. Their analyses showed that liars use fewer first-person pronouns (e.g., I, me), fewer third-person pronouns (e.g., she, their), fewer exclusive words (e.g., but, exclude), more motion verbs (e.g., arrive, go), and more negative words (e.g., worried, fearful; Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003).... Newman et al. (2003) achieved up to 67% accuracy when detecting lies, which was significantly higher than the 52% near-chance accuracy achieved by human judges.
You do realize that LISP is one of the older programming languages, around for decades, and apparently, its popularity stagnates on a pretty low plateau?
To me, there is another reason why LISP would never gain popularity these days -- recursive. To be efficient in this language, one should be able to think and program in recursive which requires a complete understanding of what is to be done or the program could easily go into an infinite loop. Most newer (so called) programmers nowadays can't think or program it that way. Instead, they think and program more in iterative way. Also, recursive has a down side which is limited memory. In order to be able to program with limited resources, again, one must understand and have a complete understanding of what is to be done... Not easy to find that type of people these days...
I mean, we use the CFAA for damn near everything? Why not this, where it actually seems to apply?
OK, an explanation could be found here on LA Times. You could also read below quote (from the given link) for the specific part of the answer.
At the federal level, prosecutors can use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to target ransomware. But state prosecutors typically must pursue such cases under laws against extortion, or those that target threats to injure a person or property that have not been acted upon.
That doesn"t quite fit computer crime, Hoffman said.
"With ransomware, the threat has already been carried out," he said. "The data has already been encrypted; it has already been compromised. It"s more like data kidnapping."
At least one other state, Wyoming, has outlawed ransomware.
...Not for low income people. It is free for them....
I think you are confusing regular state ID with state ID for voting purpose. An example is to look at Wisconsin state ID for voting purpose and a non-government site giving the similar information (but incomplete especially the header).
Why should that matter? You sound like a speciesist. If you went back 30 years, and asked Americans if they would object more to gays marrying, or robots marrying, I think the robots would win.
It does matter. Your argument is actually trying to pull in something else -- inferior feeling among humans -- which is not the point. I'm talking about living and non-living things. And as I said, if one day the human societies decide that robots are living organisms, then I'm sure that the thought would be changed.
Outside of obtaining a particular tax filing status and access to social security spousal benefits, what does it mean to be married? What is the difference between an unmarried cohabitating couple and a married couple?
Hospital visitation? Inheritance? These would come much easier with marriage status...
Change in attitudes can happen very quickly. A decade ago, a strong majority of Americans was opposed to gay marriage. Today, it is the law of the land, and even the most ardent opponents have mostly given up any hope of reversing it.
That's completely different. Two guys are in the same species. Robot is not even considered as a living organism. If one day they categorize robots as a part of living organism, then your example would hold.
If my neighbor wants to marry his Roomba, I will not object.
I don't have any objection either. It is not really my business.
isn't it like 10 minutes or less from the strip to the airport? say 5 round trips an hour at $14 each round trip. $7 there and back for different people is $70 an hour before expenses. not too bad.
Nope. In reality, the driver app doesn't work the way you are hoping it to be -- allow you to pick up back and fort. Also, in reality, what you said may or may not happen at all. If it does happen, it won't be as often as you think; thus, you can't really make money that way.
The drivers are making money. Try having a conversation with one sometime.
Not sure you really know what you are talking about. Also, define the "making money" when you answer this kind of question. To me, "making money" means the money your earning is consistent and significantly higher than a minimum wage after deducting all expenses involved in doing the business (car depreciation, insurance, gas, etc).
And yes, I did talk to my friends who are Uber drivers. Most of them made lower than minimum wage as a casual driver, and they are doing it for fun, not for money. If they really want to make money, they have to selectively go out during different surcharge at different places. Besides, they have to be lucky enough to get requests continuously. One of my friend who claimed that one night he was making money because he got around $260 working from 6pm until 3am. If you really think that it is "making money" for him, then you fail simple maths because that is close to a minimum wage after deducting depreciate of the car and gas.
its the dual radio antennas that are being patented. Because adding more than one Antenna is considered "innovation" these days.
The patent they are referring to simply combines multiple antennas (2 or more) with multiple SIMs (2 or more). That's what Apple claimed as 'innovation'. It could be a new idea because it is not exactly dual antennas or dual SIMs. The innovation should be able to scale more than just 2 antennas and 2 SIMs at the same time. Thus, it is possible that the way to deal with these multiple antennas and SIMs could be different from dealing with dual.
Anyway, I still think that the patent technology is a bit too vague because Apple wants to cover every possible ways of innovation in this type now...
Nobody would review anything if they have an average experience because there is no excitement or anything to talk about. Only extreme experience would be posted especially when it is bad. Bad thing is more memorable than good thing, so people tend to post bad review more than good review.
However, there are those who are paid to give either good or bad reviews, especially in service businesses/industries, and that ruins good intention of the system. Sadly, it is very difficult to verify whether a review is real. Even if it is real (and usually a bad one), commonly people would not have hard evidence to prove the experience if it is a service type business (e.g. restaurant) because recording anything without consent of others being recorded could get yourself sued (in the U.S.)...
They might say that, but that's not the same as Trump will do as they say. Trump said he will talk to companies and figure out why they aren't hiring American workers and then try to solve the problems. During his campaign, he already discovered one reason: regulations. It's much cheaper, faster and easier to just build a plant in Mexico than to go through regulations set by Washington. For all we know he is investigating which specific regulations, which works to push out companies.
I hope half, if not ALL, of what you said would come true. I will wait and see but won't keep my hope up. However, if he fails, I don't accept any excuses he is going to give; especially those that are pointing fingers to others.
OpenSSL has a serious vulnerability for 2 years and nobody bats an eye. Microsoft has a network issue for a week and the Linux fags line up to crucify people. What a community of hypocritical fuckwits.
OpenSSL, I believe, is free (and somewhat if not an open source). The vulnerability went under radar for 2 years because nobody publicly disclosed until then. The patch came out pretty soon after. On the other hand, Windows 10 is NOT FREE. Either you bought the OS before or it came with a device you had paid for. You could upgrade it from Windows 7, but it still falls into what I mentioned earlier. You are supposed to get what you paid for...
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.... adding resistance to the wind traveling around our earth, and you don't think this will have any long term repercussions?
I must ask you first. What do you know about where and how wind come from? If you can answer that, you would understand why wind farming should not have any significant impact or repercussion on anything. **hint: wind is not created by the region where it is going through**
Did they offer the Americans an equivalent salary?
Yes, they are supposed to get equivalent American salary. However, there is a loophole or a way to avoid this and it is a fraud. Sadly, it requires due diligent to catch this fraud. It is a perfect fit to how Disney is doing -- hiring a contract IT company to take over the department. How the fraud is doing? Here it is...
In this case, let's call Disney company X and an IT company company Y. Company X has a contract with company Y to pay a certain amount of money for work from company Y. The money company X is paying is, let's say, $75k a year per employee as a contract to company Y. Then company Y hires some new or fresh graduates to fill in those positions. Company Y pays these new graduates for $40k a year. They then trained them on specific areas that company X either is looking or may ask for. Then company Y fabricates these graduates' resumes with experiences related to the training (which teaches them nothing). Company Y also trains graduates to memorize and study every bit of their resume if there is any interview. Now, these graduates are supposed to be ready for a much higher paying job. If company X ask for an interview, then these graduates should do well as if they have been working in the area. In theory, they would know what to answer. In practice, they have done nothing. If the person is hired/accepted by company X, the company is getting paid $75k per person, and each employee is getting $40k.
See the loop hole there? The company X does not know (or need to know) about what they are paying for. Those higher management in company X would be so proud that they have saved a lot of money to the company and would be getting big bonuses. In the mean time, the company Y is knowingly fraudulent on persons' qualifications. Also, company Y would file H1B for these graduates as entry level, and the salary they are getting is far lower than the work they are doing. If any of these graduates couldn't improve or catch up to the level of work, they would replace them with others they hired.
Why would these newly graduates allow this to happen? Well, they get a benefit of being able to work; besides, company X usually promises them to get them work permit and eventually a green card later on. It is a win-win situation for them. Who is losing? You should know that by now...
Citation needed. I'm pretty sure this is not true.
It is not easy to determine fair use; however, for most part research is fallen into fair use category. However, most of the time, fair use is a case-by-case basis, so the issue may be tested in court. You can go here.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not by itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
pen as in a pen or is that supposed to be short for something?
Or if you are lazy, 'pen' comes from 'penetrate'. If you corporate the word with cyber or Internet, you should now know what kind of testing they do (no pun!).
Before you state something as a fact, you might want to check to see if it is so. A "Right" isn't the correct term, even if it was the correct term, it would require some sort of previous example or court case to outline, neither of which has happened here.
I don't see the point why you need to point out something irrelevant. Maybe the GP should say "the President can and is not illegal" instead?
Further this is 100% contrary to what Obama said here: [huffingtonpost.com]
What make you think that such order MUST MEAN something whic is a contrast to what he said? There are many other reasons for doing so (e.g. collecting data for political strategy in the future, etc.).
Not a surprise, when one who is on one side would always attempt to discredit the other side... That's why independents don't want to involve in either side...
The standard for showing that the person was falsely accused is pretty high, however... if he had resided at the location in question instead of simply being the operator of the facility, it probably wouldn't have gone the way it did.
May or may not be different. The reason is that the plaintiff only use IP address to identify that there is an illegal download of the movie. The Internet in the place is shared, so the plaintiff will have to do a lot more due diligent (more expenses and time) in order to find the right person. If the plaintiff ever found a person, the case would be completely different when filing (much stronger evidence)...
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, here is the history link of the page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
See some odd things going on there (especially during October 2016)?
While the word "honesty" has many connotations, in this case it simply means "not lying". That's how the researchers defined honesty, so what you're saying is true, but isn't relevant to this study.
The study uses and defines "dishonesty" instead of the word "honesty"...
Dishonesty
In its most basic form, dishonesty involves the conscious attempt by a person to convince others of a false reality (Abe, 2011). In this work, we operationalize dishonesty as a generalized personal inclination to obscure the truth in natural, everyday life situations. The most common type of such dishonesty is represented by “white lies” or “social lies” that people tell themselves or others in order to appear more desirable or positive (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996; Granhag & Vrij, 2005). While most people claim to be honest most of the time (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Halevy, Shalvi, & Verschuere, 2013), research suggests that minor cases of dishonesty are quite common (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; Hofmann, Wisneski, Brandt, & Skitka, 2014; Serota, Levine, & Boster, 2010), especially when people believe that dishonesty is harmless or justifiable (Fang & Casadevall, 2013) or that they can avoid any penalties (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009). In other words, people tend to rationalize their own dishonesty (Ayal & Gino, 2012) and perceive it as less severe (Peer, Acquisti, & Shalvi, 2014) or nonexistent (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008).
As for Michael Flynn, Wikipedia considered him noteworthy starting January 5th, 2010 [wikipedia.org].
And below is the whole content of the page in the link you mentioned...
Michael T. Flynn is a Major General in the U.S. military and the top military intelligence officer in Afghanistan. He published an "extraordinary" report on "the failure of his own service, American military intelligence, in Afghanistan over the last eight years." [1]
And there is a note on the top...
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 5 January 2010 ...
Speaking of "noteworthy"... Really???
U drunk? Class 3 is profane and untrustworthy. So 50% of the profane are liars, but 0% of non profane are.
The 4th group are also liars -- claimed to use profanity but actually don't use it -- so I am not sure how you come up with 0% here.
By the way, I don't agree with the study methodology and conclusion. I understand that they tried to quantify behavior, so that a measurement could be applied. However, the accuracy of quantification method that the study used is NO WHERE NEAR the acceptable level in science but rather way too low (up to 67%). Thus, the study is just garbage...
The honesty of the status updates written by the participants was assessed following the approach introduced by Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, and Richards (2003) using LIWC. Their analyses showed that liars use fewer first-person pronouns (e.g., I, me), fewer third-person pronouns (e.g., she, their), fewer exclusive words (e.g., but, exclude), more motion verbs (e.g., arrive, go), and more negative words (e.g., worried, fearful; Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003). ... Newman et al. (2003) achieved up to 67% accuracy when detecting lies, which was significantly higher than the 52% near-chance accuracy achieved by human judges.
You do realize that LISP is one of the older programming languages, around for decades, and apparently, its popularity stagnates on a pretty low plateau?
To me, there is another reason why LISP would never gain popularity these days -- recursive. To be efficient in this language, one should be able to think and program in recursive which requires a complete understanding of what is to be done or the program could easily go into an infinite loop. Most newer (so called) programmers nowadays can't think or program it that way. Instead, they think and program more in iterative way. Also, recursive has a down side which is limited memory. In order to be able to program with limited resources, again, one must understand and have a complete understanding of what is to be done... Not easy to find that type of people these days...
I mean, we use the CFAA for damn near everything? Why not this, where it actually seems to apply?
OK, an explanation could be found here on LA Times. You could also read below quote (from the given link) for the specific part of the answer.
At the federal level, prosecutors can use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to target ransomware. But state prosecutors typically must pursue such cases under laws against extortion, or those that target threats to injure a person or property that have not been acted upon.
That doesn"t quite fit computer crime, Hoffman said.
"With ransomware, the threat has already been carried out," he said. "The data has already been encrypted; it has already been compromised. It"s more like data kidnapping."
At least one other state, Wyoming, has outlawed ransomware.
...Not for low income people. It is free for them....
I think you are confusing regular state ID with state ID for voting purpose. An example is to look at Wisconsin state ID for voting purpose and a non-government site giving the similar information (but incomplete especially the header).
The human mind is a MASSIVELY parallel computer, ...
No, human brain is NOT parallel computing. You may think that you can do multi-tasking, but your brain is actually switching tasks for you.
..., but its slow as shit compared to even the first intel CPUs when it comes to complex math
Even though it is not as fast as computers, apparently it is fast enough to make you think you are performing parallel computing. ;)
Why should that matter? You sound like a speciesist. If you went back 30 years, and asked Americans if they would object more to gays marrying, or robots marrying, I think the robots would win.
It does matter. Your argument is actually trying to pull in something else -- inferior feeling among humans -- which is not the point. I'm talking about living and non-living things. And as I said, if one day the human societies decide that robots are living organisms, then I'm sure that the thought would be changed.
Nothing in parent's comment indicated he/she is religious.
any other use of it is an abomination to nature
Outside of obtaining a particular tax filing status and access to social security spousal benefits, what does it mean to be married? What is the difference between an unmarried cohabitating couple and a married couple?
Hospital visitation? Inheritance? These would come much easier with marriage status...
Change in attitudes can happen very quickly. A decade ago, a strong majority of Americans was opposed to gay marriage. Today, it is the law of the land, and even the most ardent opponents have mostly given up any hope of reversing it.
That's completely different. Two guys are in the same species. Robot is not even considered as a living organism. If one day they categorize robots as a part of living organism, then your example would hold.
If my neighbor wants to marry his Roomba, I will not object.
I don't have any objection either. It is not really my business.
isn't it like 10 minutes or less from the strip to the airport? say 5 round trips an hour at $14 each round trip. $7 there and back for different people is $70 an hour before expenses. not too bad.
Nope. In reality, the driver app doesn't work the way you are hoping it to be -- allow you to pick up back and fort. Also, in reality, what you said may or may not happen at all. If it does happen, it won't be as often as you think; thus, you can't really make money that way.
The drivers are making money. Try having a conversation with one sometime.
Not sure you really know what you are talking about. Also, define the "making money" when you answer this kind of question. To me, "making money" means the money your earning is consistent and significantly higher than a minimum wage after deducting all expenses involved in doing the business (car depreciation, insurance, gas, etc).
And yes, I did talk to my friends who are Uber drivers. Most of them made lower than minimum wage as a casual driver, and they are doing it for fun, not for money. If they really want to make money, they have to selectively go out during different surcharge at different places. Besides, they have to be lucky enough to get requests continuously. One of my friend who claimed that one night he was making money because he got around $260 working from 6pm until 3am. If you really think that it is "making money" for him, then you fail simple maths because that is close to a minimum wage after deducting depreciate of the car and gas.
its the dual radio antennas that are being patented. Because adding more than one Antenna is considered "innovation" these days.
The patent they are referring to simply combines multiple antennas (2 or more) with multiple SIMs (2 or more). That's what Apple claimed as 'innovation'. It could be a new idea because it is not exactly dual antennas or dual SIMs. The innovation should be able to scale more than just 2 antennas and 2 SIMs at the same time. Thus, it is possible that the way to deal with these multiple antennas and SIMs could be different from dealing with dual.
Anyway, I still think that the patent technology is a bit too vague because Apple wants to cover every possible ways of innovation in this type now...
Nobody would review anything if they have an average experience because there is no excitement or anything to talk about. Only extreme experience would be posted especially when it is bad. Bad thing is more memorable than good thing, so people tend to post bad review more than good review.
However, there are those who are paid to give either good or bad reviews, especially in service businesses/industries, and that ruins good intention of the system. Sadly, it is very difficult to verify whether a review is real. Even if it is real (and usually a bad one), commonly people would not have hard evidence to prove the experience if it is a service type business (e.g. restaurant) because recording anything without consent of others being recorded could get yourself sued (in the U.S.)...
4.5 cents per user.
Have you deducted the lawyer fees/awards yet? :p
They might say that, but that's not the same as Trump will do as they say. Trump said he will talk to companies and figure out why they aren't hiring American workers and then try to solve the problems. During his campaign, he already discovered one reason: regulations. It's much cheaper, faster and easier to just build a plant in Mexico than to go through regulations set by Washington. For all we know he is investigating which specific regulations, which works to push out companies.
I hope half, if not ALL, of what you said would come true. I will wait and see but won't keep my hope up. However, if he fails, I don't accept any excuses he is going to give; especially those that are pointing fingers to others.
OpenSSL has a serious vulnerability for 2 years and nobody bats an eye. Microsoft has a network issue for a week and the Linux fags line up to crucify people. What a community of hypocritical fuckwits.
OpenSSL, I believe, is free (and somewhat if not an open source). The vulnerability went under radar for 2 years because nobody publicly disclosed until then. The patch came out pretty soon after. On the other hand, Windows 10 is NOT FREE. Either you bought the OS before or it came with a device you had paid for. You could upgrade it from Windows 7, but it still falls into what I mentioned earlier. You are supposed to get what you paid for...
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.... adding resistance to the wind traveling around our earth, and you don't think this will have any long term repercussions?
I must ask you first. What do you know about where and how wind come from? If you can answer that, you would understand why wind farming should not have any significant impact or repercussion on anything. **hint: wind is not created by the region where it is going through**
Did they offer the Americans an equivalent salary?
Yes, they are supposed to get equivalent American salary. However, there is a loophole or a way to avoid this and it is a fraud. Sadly, it requires due diligent to catch this fraud. It is a perfect fit to how Disney is doing -- hiring a contract IT company to take over the department. How the fraud is doing? Here it is...
In this case, let's call Disney company X and an IT company company Y. Company X has a contract with company Y to pay a certain amount of money for work from company Y. The money company X is paying is, let's say, $75k a year per employee as a contract to company Y. Then company Y hires some new or fresh graduates to fill in those positions. Company Y pays these new graduates for $40k a year. They then trained them on specific areas that company X either is looking or may ask for. Then company Y fabricates these graduates' resumes with experiences related to the training (which teaches them nothing). Company Y also trains graduates to memorize and study every bit of their resume if there is any interview. Now, these graduates are supposed to be ready for a much higher paying job. If company X ask for an interview, then these graduates should do well as if they have been working in the area. In theory, they would know what to answer. In practice, they have done nothing. If the person is hired/accepted by company X, the company is getting paid $75k per person, and each employee is getting $40k.
See the loop hole there? The company X does not know (or need to know) about what they are paying for. Those higher management in company X would be so proud that they have saved a lot of money to the company and would be getting big bonuses. In the mean time, the company Y is knowingly fraudulent on persons' qualifications. Also, company Y would file H1B for these graduates as entry level, and the salary they are getting is far lower than the work they are doing. If any of these graduates couldn't improve or catch up to the level of work, they would replace them with others they hired.
Why would these newly graduates allow this to happen? Well, they get a benefit of being able to work; besides, company X usually promises them to get them work permit and eventually a green card later on. It is a win-win situation for them. Who is losing? You should know that by now...
Citation needed. I'm pretty sure this is not true.
It is not easy to determine fair use; however, for most part research is fallen into fair use category. However, most of the time, fair use is a case-by-case basis, so the issue may be tested in court. You can go here.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not by itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
pen as in a pen or is that supposed to be short for something?
Or if you are lazy, 'pen' comes from 'penetrate'. If you corporate the word with cyber or Internet, you should now know what kind of testing they do (no pun!).
Before you state something as a fact, you might want to check to see if it is so. A "Right" isn't the correct term, even if it was the correct term, it would require some sort of previous example or court case to outline, neither of which has happened here.
I don't see the point why you need to point out something irrelevant. Maybe the GP should say "the President can and is not illegal" instead?
Further this is 100% contrary to what Obama said here: [huffingtonpost.com]
What make you think that such order MUST MEAN something whic is a contrast to what he said? There are many other reasons for doing so (e.g. collecting data for political strategy in the future, etc.).
Not a surprise, when one who is on one side would always attempt to discredit the other side... That's why independents don't want to involve in either side...
The standard for showing that the person was falsely accused is pretty high, however... if he had resided at the location in question instead of simply being the operator of the facility, it probably wouldn't have gone the way it did.
May or may not be different. The reason is that the plaintiff only use IP address to identify that there is an illegal download of the movie. The Internet in the place is shared, so the plaintiff will have to do a lot more due diligent (more expenses and time) in order to find the right person. If the plaintiff ever found a person, the case would be completely different when filing (much stronger evidence)...