Well, I have a sneaking suspicion that the worm will turn in the US. Obama is probably going to be a one-hit blunder after selling out to big insurance and big pharma. If things keep going the way they are, even Nixon would be able to beat him in a run-off - it would be the battle of the Zombie Pres'nits.
My question is when is Hillary going to publicly split so she can try to run. It's not like she can afford to wait 6 more years, and in the event that anone gets a second term, the wait (with an intervening republican interengnum) would be more like 10 to 14.
She either splits publicly, or Obama finds a "reason" to not run for a second term. And since everyone loves a cat-fight... you can guess who the Repub. candidate will be.
Way off-topic, except that it relates to power and the abuse therof. It's not like the Obama administration has been doing anything to repeal some of the more invasive laws.
Mailing lists would not be affected. You white-list the ones you want to receive at no charge, same as friends - and for the rest, screw 'em.
The money has to be paid up front, same as postage stamps. 1 cent an email if you're not on my white list.
Users of email will most certainly put up with it - if you're on my white list, it costs nothing for us to email each other. I can ask you to add others, and vice versa. Everyone else, pay 1 cent from your isp account to my isp account before your mail is sent. No money, the mail is dropped at the edge.
Who gives a f$ck about what Microsoft wants?
It doesn't require cooperation from anyone else - you don't cooperate, you can't send me email. I'm happy.
No central authority needed. Anyone pays 1 cent to my isp can send me one email if they're not whitelisted.
Open relays still have to pay the price, so what do I care?
No jurisdictional problems. If you're not on the white list, you credit my isp account with 1 cent, they forward the email. You don't, they don't. If you're on my blacklist, it's a buck.
What tax? You're paying me to receive your unsolicited email. If I don't like it, I blacklist you. If I do like it a lot, I may whitelist you, or just let you keep sending it in return for the micropayments.
Sending email is still free between people who have whitelisted each other. For the rest, pay to play, please.
That's because most case, the defendant opts for a non-jury trial because it's a LOT cheaper. It has nothing to do with whether you're entitled to one - and in this case, he definitely is.
However, people sometimes opt for jury trials for even the most mundane issues - one guy took a couple of weeks over a LAWN MOWER (he lost, btw).
My experience has been the opposite - when it's important, I always end up firing the bozo and doing it myself because I can do a better job (more familiar with the case, certain that I am in the right and that I'm not shading the facts, highly motivated since it IS personal, etc.)
You should do jury duty at least once. It's frustrating and boring at times, but it's also interesting and eye-opening.
Been there, done that, 1 month murder trial. It only takes one juror, but in a case like this, there will probably be more than one. Look at how many times the government tried Morenthaler, and the jury refused to convict (three times) despite the judge telling them it was their duty to convict.
Canadians are quite capable of telling a judge, nicely, to go f$ck himself when a law is unjust. We have no problem with jury nullification here. It's one reason that judges treat the jurors with respect. Unlike the US, jurors here, through the process of nullification, can judge both the facts and the law.
And he's allowed to. There's no law saying that you cannot comment publicly on police behaviour. Look at the tazering to death in the BC airport, and the cover-up that was attempted there before it turned out that people with cell phones had video.
Good point - thanks for catching it - though I stand by my statements that member of the RCMP have in fact been proven to indulge in illegal behaviour in the past - that's not news. Thanks for the web site addresses - now it's just a question of how long before someone posts this on wikipeida:-)
its really hard these days to come up with useful names these days without infringing on another companies trademark. ESPECIALLY if you want to go international.
You mean like "Mandrake"? Hearst sued them, but honestly, Mandriva? That's as bad as Mandrivel. Not like anyone cares any more.
"You may have won $5,000.00. Text BUZZ420 to find out!"
Sucker texts BUZZ420, gets the "Sorry you didn't win, btw did you know that yadda yadda yadda."
He gets the spam after sending the short code. They will claim a pre-existing relationship from some email he may or may not have clicked on 5 years ago from some other place that included crap about sending offers from their "partners".
It depends on the jurisdiction. For example, New York State has a "long-arm" statute, so that it doesn't matter where it took place, as long as you hve a presence in New York. Canada doesn't have a similar statute with respect to anything except sexual exploitation of minors (so don't visit Thailand for a nasty weekend of child abuse) and terrorism..
The Aryan Nations used to run a hate web site in Canada. After they were ordered to remove it, they just moved it to an American server. The prosecution asked for the judge to issue an order, and he said "Okay, but I don't see what good it will do. It's now out of the court's jurisdiction."
Section 300 provides for a 5 year jail term. Section 317 specifically mentions a jury trial.
Also, except in indictments specifically enumerated in section 553, it is up to the accused, not the judge, to decide whether they will have a trial by judge alone or by jury. See section 554. Also sections 558 and following.
Don't take my word for it - here's the Canadian Criminal Code directly from the government website: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/FramesView.html
As I pointed out elsewhere, there is no requirement that TMobile make their sms gateway available to any non-subscriber, and that includes short-code services.
Also, there is no requirement that TMobile actually deliver *any* sms message - read your contract. the big print giveth, and the small print taketh away.
Then, since you contacted them to get off their spam list, they now have a "previous relationship" with you.
Now if they had to pay every recipient - even a penny - spam would almost disappear. So don't tax email or spam - just make it a micro-transaction from one party to the other, and allow for me to white-list people who can send me stuff for free, and blacklist others who will have to pay a buck.
While judges don't like it, it's very easy to defend yourself pro se in Canada. In fact, a recent study showed that it's not just becoming more common in criminal and civil courts, but also in family law, where the majority of people (60%) now represent themselves.
The Internet has changed the balance of power. People can do their research, find precedents, previous filings that they can cut-and-paste and edit, the rules of procedure, etc. Anyone with a bit of hard work and intelligence can make a good presentation - and that's all you're talking about, making a better presentation of the facts and the law than the other side.
In this case, the law is on the guy's side. Winning will be easy.
Did you even read the comment? I make it clear that the RCMP are SCREWED on this one. In a follow-up comment, I also point out that the web server is in New York, and Canada doesn't have a long-arm statute except for child sexual abuse and terrorism.
The "defamatory libel" (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel") wasn't committed in Canada. The publication took place in the US.
Even trying to argue that it was posted from Canada fails - it isn't published (under the meaning of the law) until it is made available on the server.
They didn't dot their "I"s or cross their "T"s, and now that it's public, other sites, even sites hosted in Canada, are allowed to report the details under articles 308-310 of the criminal code.
They f*cked themselves but good. If this guy has guts (and he seems to) he'll stand his ground.
Spam is spam. Do you want your cell phone going off 100 times a day with spam? There is no obligation to forward spam.
In fact, if you read your contract, they have no obligation to deliver ANY text message. They may attempt to. That's it. "We attempted to, It didn't pass through the spam filters. Sux 2 B U"
besides, they were using the TMobile computer-to-sms gateway - they have no contractual arrangement with TMobile, so it's not even like Joe Blow Customer who can complain if his messages are getting censored.
Yes, I am in Kanuckistan - Poutineville, to be specific, though I'm abandoning Quebec as soon as I can. I'm patient, but I've had it.
Defamation (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel" - not the same thing) is different from the US. The truth is not an absolute defense. However, they screwed up, because the police, being public figures, are more subject to open criticism than the average citizen. This is intimidation, pure and simple.
The web site is in New York, so it's outside the Canadian courts' jurisdiction, pure and simple. The US 5th Amendment takes precedence on US soil.
So we have the problem of venue. If the defamatory statements were published in the US, and if Canada doesn't have a long-arm statute (we don't, except for child abuse and terrorism), the RCMP are SOL. Sorry boys, you don't get your man this time.
309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 273.
Fair comment on public person or work of art
310. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
(a) on the public conduct of a person who takes part in public affairs; or
(b) on a published book or other literary production, or on any composition or work of art or performance publicly exhibited, or on any other communication made to the public on any subject, if the comments are confined to criticism thereof.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 274.
When truth a defence
311. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel where he proves that the publication of the defamatory matter in the manner in which it was published was for the public benefit at the time when it was published and that the matter itself was true.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 275.
Do the RCMP sometimes lie? That's been proven in court. Instead of trying to suppress publication in another country with a SLAPP criminal proceeding, maybe they should address the issues, and realize that when you're a cop, what you do is public, same as a politician.
Web interfaces are huge kluges. The DOM is not the be-all and end-all - it too was a bolted-on screw-up. Sure, you can make it do a fair imitation of a local app, but you can also get a dog to wear a dress and dance. Doesn't mean you want to take her to the prom. For many things, the browser is the worst platform.
It was Microsoft throwing in a free KIN for each user that clinched the deal.
Seriously, the Swiss screwed up. It happens. Get over it, learn the lessons there are to be learned, and move on.
Lesson 1: Don't announce you're going to move everyone, and it's going to happen by X date. Not everyone is going to switch, and X is a variable, not a const.
Lesson 2: Some things take longer to "work with" than scrapping. The town council database app is obviously one of those.
Lesson 3: Stop with the stupidity of using a web interface for almost everything. It doesn't work. It p*sses people off (or as the article says, get them half-eaten). Get devs who can also code with qt or wxwidgets or java or tcl/tk or whatever.
Lesson 4: Sell to your users. Make it a privilege to be part of the transition. You want people b*tching and moaning about not being "upgraded" to the new linux desktop, not the other way around. Marketing 101.
Lesson 5: Provide effective feedback channels, so that people don't feel they need to set up a web site just to complain because you aren't listening.
First, a stereotype doesn't have to be universally true to be valid. Studies show that many of the gender stereotypes are based in fact. For example, women still do much more of the housework, including almost all the "women's work" - 6x more cleaning, and almost all the laundry, when both partners work outside the house. Ditto for who takes the day off when a child is sick.
Is it bigoted to point out the truth, or is it bigoted to willfully ignore the truth because it points out that men continue to do less than their fair share?
Is it bigoted to point out a biological basis for some of these stereotypes, such as men thinking about sex more often because of the influence of testosterone on the brain, as proven by cross-gender testosterone treatments for various diseases? Or that men are more likely to be promiscuous because of a specific hormone, and that prolonged presence around the same woman eventually reduces production of that hormone (so that there is a biological basis for the stereotypes of men who are away from their wives for prolonged periods being more likely to cheat, as well as the "pussy-whipped" label)? This is hard science. That it validates a stereotype that is uncomplimentary to men is not my fault. There are also true stereotypes about women, some of which I list below. Ignoring them, either because you are offended by the truth, or because it's not the "new PC", is silly. We should learn from them, and maybe learn to laugh at ourselves a bit more often.
Also, you outright lie when you state "Your attitude is akin to that of feminists who argue that men accused of rape don't deserve anonymity in even if they are actually innocent- you want your rights, you want people to treat you with respect, but you show absolutely no respect for others." Please get real. Nowhere have I given any indicator that I want people's civil rights abridged based on gender. Pointing out that common stereotypes exist, and that they often have either a cultural or biological basis, has nothing to do with your statement about any supposed "attitude" or "views" that you imagine I have. There is no connection, and to try to make one is dishonest.
As I said, other stereotypes cut the other way, and are equally valid. Women take more time in the bathroom, in part because we use the bathroom for more than just the obvious facilities. Womens bathrooms are more crowded in part because we bring the crowd with us. When's the last time you saw a man say "I'm going to the bathroom" and seen other guys go "Good idea. I'll go with you?" Women go to the bathroom in groups so we can talk without the guys around, and to leave the guys space to talk a bit more freely. It's a social convention that works to the advantage of both genders, but one that only women can trigger, because men are afraid that doing the same would look gay - many men are deathly afraid at some level that someone will identify them as gay, despite their protestations that they are gay-friendly. They say they're gay-friendly, but two guys kissing still creeps them out, even though two women kissing turns them on.
The same with body image. The stereotype that women are much more likely to be worried about weight ("Does this dress make me look fat?") has a basis in fact - it's mostly women who have anorexia nervosa or bulemia, not men. A woman of normal weight who gains 5 pounds is going to be more impacted than a man in the same situation - and not only because wonen's clothes are more sensitive to weight gain or loss.
Ditto for clothes. We do take up more than our share of closet space. Statistics show we have several times the number of shoes, so the stereotype of women going shoe-shopping has a basis in fact. Our dressers are bigger than mens because we have more "stuff", like bras, nylons, etc., than men do. We have more variety in clothes - example - men have pants and shirts and suits. We have pants, tops (in a much larger variety of styles), skirts, dresses, purses, etc. So the stereotype that "women hog the closet space
Mandriva is dead. Almost all the devs have either quit or been fired in the last week. read moe here, the goodbyes on Cooker here, and the newest "plan" - to move development of Mandriva to Brazil here and turn it into a BRIC- country distro. Forget that China already has Red Flag Linux. Forget that they were able to grab Connectiva (a Brazilian distro) and killed the brand. Forget that ALT Linux is an actively maintained Russian distro with a new release earlier today.
Mandriva has lost 30 million euros, unable even to win over its' home market despite the government helping push them in education. It's dead, Jim!
Slashdot Mirror
My question is when is Hillary going to publicly split so she can try to run. It's not like she can afford to wait 6 more years, and in the event that anone gets a second term, the wait (with an intervening republican interengnum) would be more like 10 to 14.
She either splits publicly, or Obama finds a "reason" to not run for a second term. And since everyone loves a cat-fight ... you can guess who the Repub. candidate will be.
Way off-topic, except that it relates to power and the abuse therof. It's not like the Obama administration has been doing anything to repeal some of the more invasive laws.
The money has to be paid up front, same as postage stamps. 1 cent an email if you're not on my white list.
Users of email will most certainly put up with it - if you're on my white list, it costs nothing for us to email each other. I can ask you to add others, and vice versa. Everyone else, pay 1 cent from your isp account to my isp account before your mail is sent. No money, the mail is dropped at the edge.
Who gives a f$ck about what Microsoft wants?
It doesn't require cooperation from anyone else - you don't cooperate, you can't send me email. I'm happy.
No central authority needed. Anyone pays 1 cent to my isp can send me one email if they're not whitelisted.
Open relays still have to pay the price, so what do I care?
No jurisdictional problems. If you're not on the white list, you credit my isp account with 1 cent, they forward the email. You don't, they don't. If you're on my blacklist, it's a buck.
What tax? You're paying me to receive your unsolicited email. If I don't like it, I blacklist you. If I do like it a lot, I may whitelist you, or just let you keep sending it in return for the micropayments.
Sending email is still free between people who have whitelisted each other. For the rest, pay to play, please.
However, people sometimes opt for jury trials for even the most mundane issues - one guy took a couple of weeks over a LAWN MOWER (he lost, btw).
Do you think spammers care about the law? Seriously, do you?
Besides, I'm cheap ;-p
Been there, done that, 1 month murder trial. It only takes one juror, but in a case like this, there will probably be more than one. Look at how many times the government tried Morenthaler, and the jury refused to convict (three times) despite the judge telling them it was their duty to convict.
Canadians are quite capable of telling a judge, nicely, to go f$ck himself when a law is unjust. We have no problem with jury nullification here. It's one reason that judges treat the jurors with respect. Unlike the US, jurors here, through the process of nullification, can judge both the facts and the law.
And he's allowed to. There's no law saying that you cannot comment publicly on police behaviour. Look at the tazering to death in the BC airport, and the cover-up that was attempted there before it turned out that people with cell phones had video.
Good point - thanks for catching it - though I stand by my statements that member of the RCMP have in fact been proven to indulge in illegal behaviour in the past - that's not news. Thanks for the web site addresses - now it's just a question of how long before someone posts this on wikipeida :-)
You mean like "Mandrake"? Hearst sued them, but honestly, Mandriva? That's as bad as Mandrivel. Not like anyone cares any more.
Sucker texts BUZZ420, gets the "Sorry you didn't win, btw did you know that yadda yadda yadda."
He gets the spam after sending the short code. They will claim a pre-existing relationship from some email he may or may not have clicked on 5 years ago from some other place that included crap about sending offers from their "partners".
The Aryan Nations used to run a hate web site in Canada. After they were ordered to remove it, they just moved it to an American server. The prosecution asked for the judge to issue an order, and he said "Okay, but I don't see what good it will do. It's now out of the court's jurisdiction."
Also, except in indictments specifically enumerated in section 553, it is up to the accused, not the judge, to decide whether they will have a trial by judge alone or by jury. See section 554. Also sections 558 and following. Don't take my word for it - here's the Canadian Criminal Code directly from the government website: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/FramesView.html
Hope this makes it a bit clearer.
It's tough. In part, this is to keep lawsuit costs "reasonable" as compared to the runaway litigation down south. Like much of life, it's a crapshoot.
Also, there is no requirement that TMobile actually deliver *any* sms message - read your contract. the big print giveth, and the small print taketh away.
Try to get removed, and they don't.
Then, since you contacted them to get off their spam list, they now have a "previous relationship" with you.
Now if they had to pay every recipient - even a penny - spam would almost disappear. So don't tax email or spam - just make it a micro-transaction from one party to the other, and allow for me to white-list people who can send me stuff for free, and blacklist others who will have to pay a buck.
The Internet has changed the balance of power. People can do their research, find precedents, previous filings that they can cut-and-paste and edit, the rules of procedure, etc. Anyone with a bit of hard work and intelligence can make a good presentation - and that's all you're talking about, making a better presentation of the facts and the law than the other side.
In this case, the law is on the guy's side. Winning will be easy.
The "defamatory libel" (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel") wasn't committed in Canada. The publication took place in the US. Even trying to argue that it was posted from Canada fails - it isn't published (under the meaning of the law) until it is made available on the server.
They didn't dot their "I"s or cross their "T"s, and now that it's public, other sites, even sites hosted in Canada, are allowed to report the details under articles 308-310 of the criminal code.
They f*cked themselves but good. If this guy has guts (and he seems to) he'll stand his ground.
In fact, if you read your contract, they have no obligation to deliver ANY text message. They may attempt to. That's it. "We attempted to, It didn't pass through the spam filters. Sux 2 B U"
besides, they were using the TMobile computer-to-sms gateway - they have no contractual arrangement with TMobile, so it's not even like Joe Blow Customer who can complain if his messages are getting censored.
Defamation (there's no such thing as libel in Canada, just "defamatory libel" - not the same thing) is different from the US. The truth is not an absolute defense. However, they screwed up, because the police, being public figures, are more subject to open criticism than the average citizen. This is intimidation, pure and simple.
The web site is in New York, so it's outside the Canadian courts' jurisdiction, pure and simple. The US 5th Amendment takes precedence on US soil.
So we have the problem of venue. If the defamatory statements were published in the US, and if Canada doesn't have a long-arm statute (we don't, except for child abuse and terrorism), the RCMP are SOL. Sorry boys, you don't get your man this time.
Also, sections 309 - 310 of the criminal code:
Do the RCMP sometimes lie? That's been proven in court. Instead of trying to suppress publication in another country with a SLAPP criminal proceeding, maybe they should address the issues, and realize that when you're a cop, what you do is public, same as a politician.
Web interfaces are huge kluges. The DOM is not the be-all and end-all - it too was a bolted-on screw-up. Sure, you can make it do a fair imitation of a local app, but you can also get a dog to wear a dress and dance. Doesn't mean you want to take her to the prom. For many things, the browser is the worst platform.
All the guy has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of ONE juror.
When he's not convicted, this will be seen by many as proof that the RCMP did in fact perjure themselves. Dumb move, cops.
Seriously, the Swiss screwed up. It happens. Get over it, learn the lessons there are to be learned, and move on.
Lesson 1: Don't announce you're going to move everyone, and it's going to happen by X date. Not everyone is going to switch, and X is a variable, not a const.
Lesson 2: Some things take longer to "work with" than scrapping. The town council database app is obviously one of those.
Lesson 3: Stop with the stupidity of using a web interface for almost everything. It doesn't work. It p*sses people off (or as the article says, get them half-eaten). Get devs who can also code with qt or wxwidgets or java or tcl/tk or whatever.
Lesson 4: Sell to your users. Make it a privilege to be part of the transition. You want people b*tching and moaning about not being "upgraded" to the new linux desktop, not the other way around. Marketing 101.
Lesson 5: Provide effective feedback channels, so that people don't feel they need to set up a web site just to complain because you aren't listening.
Is it bigoted to point out the truth, or is it bigoted to willfully ignore the truth because it points out that men continue to do less than their fair share?
Is it bigoted to point out a biological basis for some of these stereotypes, such as men thinking about sex more often because of the influence of testosterone on the brain, as proven by cross-gender testosterone treatments for various diseases? Or that men are more likely to be promiscuous because of a specific hormone, and that prolonged presence around the same woman eventually reduces production of that hormone (so that there is a biological basis for the stereotypes of men who are away from their wives for prolonged periods being more likely to cheat, as well as the "pussy-whipped" label)? This is hard science. That it validates a stereotype that is uncomplimentary to men is not my fault. There are also true stereotypes about women, some of which I list below. Ignoring them, either because you are offended by the truth, or because it's not the "new PC", is silly. We should learn from them, and maybe learn to laugh at ourselves a bit more often.
Also, you outright lie when you state "Your attitude is akin to that of feminists who argue that men accused of rape don't deserve anonymity in even if they are actually innocent- you want your rights, you want people to treat you with respect, but you show absolutely no respect for others." Please get real. Nowhere have I given any indicator that I want people's civil rights abridged based on gender. Pointing out that common stereotypes exist, and that they often have either a cultural or biological basis, has nothing to do with your statement about any supposed "attitude" or "views" that you imagine I have. There is no connection, and to try to make one is dishonest.
As I said, other stereotypes cut the other way, and are equally valid. Women take more time in the bathroom, in part because we use the bathroom for more than just the obvious facilities. Womens bathrooms are more crowded in part because we bring the crowd with us. When's the last time you saw a man say "I'm going to the bathroom" and seen other guys go "Good idea. I'll go with you?" Women go to the bathroom in groups so we can talk without the guys around, and to leave the guys space to talk a bit more freely. It's a social convention that works to the advantage of both genders, but one that only women can trigger, because men are afraid that doing the same would look gay - many men are deathly afraid at some level that someone will identify them as gay, despite their protestations that they are gay-friendly. They say they're gay-friendly, but two guys kissing still creeps them out, even though two women kissing turns them on.
The same with body image. The stereotype that women are much more likely to be worried about weight ("Does this dress make me look fat?") has a basis in fact - it's mostly women who have anorexia nervosa or bulemia, not men. A woman of normal weight who gains 5 pounds is going to be more impacted than a man in the same situation - and not only because wonen's clothes are more sensitive to weight gain or loss.
Ditto for clothes. We do take up more than our share of closet space. Statistics show we have several times the number of shoes, so the stereotype of women going shoe-shopping has a basis in fact. Our dressers are bigger than mens because we have more "stuff", like bras, nylons, etc., than men do. We have more variety in clothes - example - men have pants and shirts and suits. We have pants, tops (in a much larger variety of styles), skirts, dresses, purses, etc. So the stereotype that "women hog the closet space
Mandriva has lost 30 million euros, unable even to win over its' home market despite the government helping push them in education. It's dead, Jim!
- with one exception - dump Miguel. Please. Mono is something you see a doctor about. Let's keep it that way.