Linguistical analysis has a long history in courts the world over - and like any other expert witness, it boils down to who has the more credible witness.
But the technique has been well established as reliable enough to produce acceptable testimony in court.
Differing usage patterns cause differing loads on the network - internet usage on a smart phone is lighter than internet usage on a desktop, for a variety of reasons. Its not charging extra for the same bandwidth, its charging extra for the totally different usage pattern.
The problem is, how you "use it" differs depending on the device you do the browsing on - browsing on a smart phone or PDA actually produces a lot less traffic than browsing on a desktop or laptop, because behaviours differ between the two types of devices (not to mention all of the other crap going on on a full blown PC, such as checking for OS updates, virus protection updates, ftp uploads etc etc etc).
Now, you might say "yes, but they've charged me for 5GB, so why does that matter - let me use it until it runs out!?" - it matters because on a mobile device, your 5GB of usage is spread over a longer timespan than when you are using an actual computer, which means tethering causes a heavier demand on the network...
So the act of tethering can have a very real effect on the network - and when you buy a tethering plan, you are paying for that added effect.
My opinion is just that any system that has to have someone actively involved in cleaning up after vandalism cannot be said to be "working". A "working" system is one where vandalism could not happen in the first place, but informative edits could still me made without issue.
Wikipedia is reactive - it can only react to events of vandalism, it cannot prevent them. That is why I don't consider this to be an example of Wikipedia "working", and the fact that this is how it is intended to be does not mean that that should be considered to be "working" either - its just another way to redefine success when talking about a failure.
Zuckerburg's writing style of 2003 needs to be compared with emails of that era, not today.
If you had read the article, you would have had the opportunity to read the report yourself, within which was the following:
I was retained in this matter by GIBSON DUNN and was asked to determine,to the extent possible, the authorship of a series of QUESTIONED writings excerpted into an Amended Complaint in this matter, by performing a stylistic analysis of those QUESTIONED writings vis-à-vis KNOWN reference writings of Mr. Mark Zuckerberg. KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerberg exchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails.
Certainly sounds like the comparison material was taken from the same time period as the presented document is suggested to have originated...
I think its been well proven that Android does not prevent "vendor lockout" - quite a few vendors just treat it the same as any other off the shelf OS they would have purchased for their mobile device, not as the open and ubiquitous single OS/multiple device platform that Google wanted.
I'd love to see any actual evidence supporting your "version" of events, because thats not what I've seen - the US intelligence agencies were falling over themselves trying to supply supporting evidence to the Bush administration.
Accurate information is everything. Unfortunately, the British and US intelligence agencies pushed for war based on such wonderful intelligence like some poor chaps university essay, hearsay and outright lies.
I wonder if the costly embarrassment that was the Iraq invasion could have been avoided if actual cross-checking had taken place...
If a British owner of an online gambling website can be arrested on felony charges the moment he steps into the US, simply on the basis that his website allows US citizens access to online gambling (illegal in most US states), then why can't a British court request data from an American company?
The injunction doesn't apply to you unless there is a reasonable reason for you to know it existed - in this case, the injunction was brought out against the news media, and they would have been well aware of both the story and the injunction within the media circles, so they would fall under the reasonable knowledge requirement. You and I however wouldn't know anything about the story nor the injunction until the story broke - at that point, it would be a fair defence that the story was now in the public knowledge, so the injunction no longer applied.
The legal issues are not against the people that re-tweeted the story, they are against the few people that initially tweeted it - those people have been linked to the media, and it might be proven that they had reason to know about the injunction prior to releasing the information.
If you knew about the affair from somewhere, say someone in the media told you but did not tell you about the injunction, then you would also be in the clear.
Read it more literally than that - they will blacklist MacDefender (probably, as the other poster suggests, via hash or another signature check) but not really expand it into a proper malware checker.
It doesn't matter what Mitterrand thinks of Polanski's case, Polanski is a French citizen and thus is protected from extradition from his country - Mitterrand couldn't do anything short of changing the law...
And we all know the shit storm that changing laws to suit the US causes here on Slashdot...
I've had no problems getting same day engineer callouts to replace parts in enterprise systems from Dell - the difference is, Dell offers enterprise orientated options, Apple does not. And the Dell systems weren't expensive in comparison either.
Heh, its ironic - I'm currently sat in an office where all the computers (a dozen or so) are Macs - iMac 27" to be precise.
The irony is that they are all running Windows 7, not one is running OSX. Business owner bought them because they looked cool, but the business is a.Net software development house.
Its also opinion when someone labels something such as this "wrong", or "not acceptable". Being filthy rich doesn't necessarily make them a legitimate target just because they are filthy rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Linguistical analysis has a long history in courts the world over - and like any other expert witness, it boils down to who has the more credible witness.
But the technique has been well established as reliable enough to produce acceptable testimony in court.
Differing usage patterns cause differing loads on the network - internet usage on a smart phone is lighter than internet usage on a desktop, for a variety of reasons. Its not charging extra for the same bandwidth, its charging extra for the totally different usage pattern.
The problem is, how you "use it" differs depending on the device you do the browsing on - browsing on a smart phone or PDA actually produces a lot less traffic than browsing on a desktop or laptop, because behaviours differ between the two types of devices (not to mention all of the other crap going on on a full blown PC, such as checking for OS updates, virus protection updates, ftp uploads etc etc etc).
Now, you might say "yes, but they've charged me for 5GB, so why does that matter - let me use it until it runs out!?" - it matters because on a mobile device, your 5GB of usage is spread over a longer timespan than when you are using an actual computer, which means tethering causes a heavier demand on the network...
So the act of tethering can have a very real effect on the network - and when you buy a tethering plan, you are paying for that added effect.
My opinion is just that any system that has to have someone actively involved in cleaning up after vandalism cannot be said to be "working". A "working" system is one where vandalism could not happen in the first place, but informative edits could still me made without issue.
Wikipedia is reactive - it can only react to events of vandalism, it cannot prevent them. That is why I don't consider this to be an example of Wikipedia "working", and the fact that this is how it is intended to be does not mean that that should be considered to be "working" either - its just another way to redefine success when talking about a failure.
Try reading the article, the comparison documents were taken from the same period as the questionable document.
Slashdot commenters aren't even trying these days...
Zuckerburg's writing style of 2003 needs to be compared with emails of that era, not today.
If you had read the article, you would have had the opportunity to read the report yourself, within which was the following:
Certainly sounds like the comparison material was taken from the same time period as the presented document is suggested to have originated...
Now *thats* spin!
This is no more a good example of "Wikipedia working" than people cleaning up after graffiti vandals is a good example of society working.
I think its been well proven that Android does not prevent "vendor lockout" - quite a few vendors just treat it the same as any other off the shelf OS they would have purchased for their mobile device, not as the open and ubiquitous single OS/multiple device platform that Google wanted.
I'd love to see any actual evidence supporting your "version" of events, because thats not what I've seen - the US intelligence agencies were falling over themselves trying to supply supporting evidence to the Bush administration.
Most of modern day english was "incorrect" before it became common in usage - english is an evolving language, suck it up.
Accurate information is everything. Unfortunately, the British and US intelligence agencies pushed for war based on such wonderful intelligence like some poor chaps university essay, hearsay and outright lies.
I wonder if the costly embarrassment that was the Iraq invasion could have been avoided if actual cross-checking had taken place...
And why should Apple give a shit about X11 or terminal apps?
X11 on OSX needs to die anyway.
For the small fraction of people that have more than one active account on their Mac, sure, but for most people it will do the same amount of damage.
If a British owner of an online gambling website can be arrested on felony charges the moment he steps into the US, simply on the basis that his website allows US citizens access to online gambling (illegal in most US states), then why can't a British court request data from an American company?
The injunction doesn't apply to you unless there is a reasonable reason for you to know it existed - in this case, the injunction was brought out against the news media, and they would have been well aware of both the story and the injunction within the media circles, so they would fall under the reasonable knowledge requirement. You and I however wouldn't know anything about the story nor the injunction until the story broke - at that point, it would be a fair defence that the story was now in the public knowledge, so the injunction no longer applied.
The legal issues are not against the people that re-tweeted the story, they are against the few people that initially tweeted it - those people have been linked to the media, and it might be proven that they had reason to know about the injunction prior to releasing the information.
If you knew about the affair from somewhere, say someone in the media told you but did not tell you about the injunction, then you would also be in the clear.
Read it more literally than that - they will blacklist MacDefender (probably, as the other poster suggests, via hash or another signature check) but not really expand it into a proper malware checker.
Cue MacProtector....
And of course Security Essentials.
Also, how is specifically inviting those "activists" to take part anything like "screening out dissenting voices"? Can't have it both ways.
It doesn't matter what Mitterrand thinks of Polanski's case, Polanski is a French citizen and thus is protected from extradition from his country - Mitterrand couldn't do anything short of changing the law...
And we all know the shit storm that changing laws to suit the US causes here on Slashdot...
I've had no problems getting same day engineer callouts to replace parts in enterprise systems from Dell - the difference is, Dell offers enterprise orientated options, Apple does not. And the Dell systems weren't expensive in comparison either.
Now apply all of that logic to the public road network. Still think it applies? How about mobile phone signals and the public airwaves?
Heh, its ironic - I'm currently sat in an office where all the computers (a dozen or so) are Macs - iMac 27" to be precise.
The irony is that they are all running Windows 7, not one is running OSX. Business owner bought them because they looked cool, but the business is a .Net software development house.
Just imagine if general transport (cars etc) were logged and released under FOIA...
Why is this any different?
No, its not a joke, its called an opinion.
Its also opinion when someone labels something such as this "wrong", or "not acceptable". Being filthy rich doesn't necessarily make them a legitimate target just because they are filthy rich.