Not at all. He is facing 79 criminal counts, He would only get 471 years if he were sentenced to the maximum for every count AND served them consecutively.
It's the consecutively part that makes the 471 number meaningless. This is clearly a case where sentences should run concurrently.
>> How long would a typical DVD quality movie >> take to download?
> Less time than it takes to go to Blockbuster. > Less gas, too.
Not for me. I can bike to the nearest Blockbuster and back in about 20 minutes, using no gas, and that's a hell of a lot faster than my cable modem. Or I can just wait for the movie to show up in my mailbox if I use NetFlix.
The result of this of course is that every journalist sued for not turning documents over as a result of the unconstitutional subpoena..
I think that this statement contains an even more important misconception. No subpoena has been issued for the notes. There is no provision of the PATRIOT act that would allow such a subpoena, and if there were, it would be, as it says, unconstitutional.
Instead, the journalists are being required to preserve the information. This does show how the PATRIOT act is being misused to expand the Justice Department's powers. However, it in and of itself presents NO First Admendment issues. There are situations where a journalist can be compelled to turn over records. It is therefore constitutional to use a statue to prevent reporters from destroying those records.
Civil disobedience only works if you're dealing with essentially rational people; the assumption is that even if the law itself makes no sense, the people enforcing it can eventally be made to see reason. Otherwise, it's hopeless.
Harry Turtledove built a very interesting story around this idea in "The Last Article", an alternate history of Gandhi in a Nazi occupied India.
Well, it's a little different. Using the numbers above, say I instead bought a put for 1,000 shares at $20. If SCO drops to $10, I buy 1,000 shared, excersise the put, and make $10,000 less option price. If SCO rises above $20 at all, I don't excercise and just lose the option price.
Buying a put option has less risk then the scenario I described, but the option price will therefore be higher. Also, while I'm a bit surprised (see post above parent) that there aren't any call options available, I'm not at all surprised no one is writing puts.
There are ways to limit your losses when shorting a stock. One is to buy call options on it. For instance, say SCO is $30 now, and you've short-sold 1,000 shared at $20. If you buy call options at $70 for the same date, the most you can lose is $50,000. If SCO drops to $10, you don't excercise the options and make $10,000 minus the option price (which should be prety low).
No. Charging admission to a viewing in a barracks is prohibited. Displaying it via a projector in a barracks might be prohibited. Viewing it on a computer monitor by one or more persons is explicitly permitted.
The defense lawyer wanted to present some evidence based on MRIs that supposedly showed that his client was not legally responsible for his actions. The panel of experts could be gathered until after the trial was supposed to start, so the judge ruled that no questions about the technique could be asked during jury selection (as it might influence us). At the last minute, the defense attorney decided that wasn't acceptable, so we all got to go home.
Yes, open source users can take advantage of patches for newer versions sometimes. This doesn't obviate the need to support users of of older versions. It doesn't make debugging the problem faster.
I'm not saying there aren't advantages to open source. I'm just saying that the authors of the paper have done a poor job of proving faster debugging is one of them.
The paper's conculsion seemed to be that debugging open source projects is faster because you don't have a version problem where customers report bugs in code that has already been modified for the next version.
I don't buy it. Many open source projects (ACE/TAO, Mozilla) for instance have large customer bases using non-current versions, and presumably finding bugs. Sure, if you only want to fix the bug in the released version, its faster, but it's not like closed source vendors don't have the source code to their previous release to debug with.
Sure debugging is faster if you always make everyone upgrade to the latest version before filing a bug report. Good luck getting mass acceptance with that.
I didn't particularly like the detour to Osgiliath either. It make Faramir a much less sympathetic character, I hope this will change in the next movie. It's interesting, because I really liked how the Fellowship of the Ring movie gave more depth to Boromir. Even more importantly, I thought it detracted from the much better scenes at Helm's Deep and Isengard.
On the other hand, I don't think that the encounter with the Nazgul spoiled the idea that Sauron had no idea where the Ring was. Now, Sauron knows that the ring was heading towards Gondor. He knows that Isildur's heir is heading towards Gondor. I think that it is perfectly in keeping with how he is portrayed in the book that he would not suspect that the Ring would be turned around and brought back into the heart of his power.
I think it's less about how fabricated they are then what the context they supposedly took place in is. "Legend" is used for things which should leave a historical mark, and that explain history--the seige of Troy, the Exodous, etc. "Myth" is used for stories that are purely spiritual--the Garden of Eden, for instance, or the birth of Athena from Zeus's forhead.
At one point, you could buy Iams premium dogfood, delivered to your door, for less than what pets.com was paying wholesale. (According to an aquaintance of mine who was a Iams salesman).
"even though [StarOffice] could open doc files, the niggling issues such as formatting, behavior differences in how it handled certain things (numbered lists)"
I found these issues as well, however, I found it did a better job of importing.doc files than different versions of Word did.
Ssoroghod's People
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In the Draco tavern tale "Ssoroghod's People", you tell a cautionary tale about experimenting in your only living space. What do you feel is the greatest danger from biotechnology? What do you feel is the most promising application for it?
("Ssoroghod's People" can be found in the collection Redshift, ed. Sarrantonio)
In other words, the benefit derived from the sale in no way relates to the social or commercial standing of the person whose information is sold
I can't see how you interpret this as protecting celebrities. Every person has social and commercial standing, good or bad. The decision says the sale in no way relates to that standing.
So no, you don't have to be paid to make the call, there just has to be some commercial harm (lost time/revenue, which has been found to suffice)
OK, I'll concede that you could bring a suit under this act for lost time/money due to deceptive phonecalls. That doesn't mean you automatically win, so I don't see a huge problem with it.
"Hardly the same thing - what was sold was essentially publicly available information - an address, maybe an SSN."
RTFA. They ruled that an SSN was not public information.
"Liability for damages for fraud seems to me to pertain to the client, not any third party"
RTFA. Under NH law, if you, as a third party, are harmed by someones fraudulent buisiness practices, you can claim damages against him. The fraud was on the part of the IB, the damage was caused by information obtained as a result of that fraud. The "notion of responsibility and causal effect" is for a lower court to rule on on a case by case basis, this merely said there was grounds for a suit in this case.
Essentially you are saying, "Let's invade everyone's privacy (it's not clear who should do the invading - the IB? The cops?) simply to prevent someone from misusing what is essentially public information in any event."
No I'm not. I'm saying that if you want _private_ information on someone, I don't see why you can't be required to divulge your own. I don't see why it's unclear who I think should do the checking. It is the IB who must excercise reasonable care when divulging private information, therefore the burden is on them to ask for and verify the information they need.
"There was no contract between the IB and anyone else (except maybe the stalker client) concerning protection of this information"
It's not a matter of contract law, it's a matter of "violation of seclusion". There's no contract saying you won't take pictures through my bedroom window, but you could still be violated for selling them.
"While obtaining the information using a pretext is sleazy, I don't see how this constitutes liability for the misuse of the information by a third party"
No part of the ruling said that obtaining information under a pretext gave you liability for misuse. It said it gave you liability for damages under the fraudulent buisness practices act.
"The criminal justice system doesn't like sleazy IB's, so they make them liable for something they have no control over"
The court ruled that IB's must take reasonable care in disclosing peoples personal information. Why do you have a problem with this? What would be wrong with having to submit to a criminal background check before you can pay someone for personal information about another person? What legitimate public need would be thwarted by such a scheme?
"When is the court ready to assign liability to cops and Feds who fake court orders, manufacture evidence, and otherwise abuse their responsibilities on a daily basis and thereby cause thousands of people to spend time in jail for crimes they did not commit? Oh, wait, I forgot - the criminal justice system is immune from prosecution for `screwups'"
Odd, because they actually aren't immune to liability if you manufacture evidence or falsely imprison someone.
"there's no reason to artificially reserve the misappropriation of a name or likeness to a person's reputation or prestige, i.e., to celebrities"
This has nothing to do with celebrity. If I pretend to be you on eBay, say, and sell bad goods, I've misappropriated your reputation. If I apply for a credit card, pretending to be you, I've missappropriated your credit record, which is commercial reputation. What's the court ruled that is that the name itself is not private.
"Jeez, anytime you make a call under a false pretext you're subject to a deceptive practices act!?"
Again, no, only if you do it for a commercial purpose. In other words, yes, you are liable if someone pays you to make a crank call. Or if you own a video store, calling other video stores pretending to be a customer so you can figure out what titles they are already out of so you can alter your pricing accordingly.
The SSN was obtained from a credit header, which I don't think counts as a publically available means. In fact, I'm curious, where is the SSN part of the public record? Anyway, the court ruled that
The other issue was obtaining the work address. The court ruled that a work address was not private information, but that obtaining the information using fraudulent means and then selling it constituted commiting fraud in the practice of a buisiness.
I deployed too quickly on a hop-n-pop and had my main wrap around my legs. Let me tell you, going to reserve at terminal hurts like a mother, but I'm alive
Hey, far better to take opening shock at terminal than to have to deploy you reserve with the main still wrapped around your leg! That happened to some poor static-line student at Walterboro on Feb. 2ncd, the canopies entangled and he landed on the runway. See the Incidents forum at dropzone if your interested. He lived, but he's in pretty bad shape.
"Don't you all find it a bit odd that an open source project bars people from working on it? How can that be?"
Easy. Open source means "Anyone can use my code in his/her project" with the possible caveat the new project must also be open source. Open source does not mean "Anyone can put his/her code in my project."
Slashdot Mirror
"471 years for spoofing a From: email header"
Not at all. He is facing 79 criminal counts, He would only get 471 years if he were sentenced to the maximum for every count AND served them consecutively.
It's the consecutively part that makes the 471 number meaningless. This is clearly a case where sentences should run concurrently.
>> How long would a typical DVD quality movie
>> take to download?
> Less time than it takes to go to Blockbuster.
> Less gas, too.
Not for me. I can bike to the nearest Blockbuster and back in about 20 minutes, using no gas, and that's a hell of a lot faster than my cable modem. Or I can just wait for the movie to show up in my mailbox if I use NetFlix.
I think that this statement contains an even more important misconception. No subpoena has been issued for the notes. There is no provision of the PATRIOT act that would allow such a subpoena, and if there were, it would be, as it says, unconstitutional.
Instead, the journalists are being required to preserve the information. This does show how the PATRIOT act is being misused to expand the Justice Department's powers. However, it in and of itself presents NO First Admendment issues. There are situations where a journalist can be compelled to turn over records. It is therefore constitutional to use a statue to prevent reporters from destroying those records.
Harry Turtledove built a very interesting story around this idea in "The Last Article", an alternate history of Gandhi in a Nazi occupied India.
Well, it's a little different. Using the numbers above, say I instead bought a put for 1,000 shares at $20. If SCO drops to $10, I buy 1,000 shared, excersise the put, and make $10,000 less option price. If SCO rises above $20 at all, I don't excercise and just lose the option price.
Buying a put option has less risk then the scenario I described, but the option price will therefore be higher. Also, while I'm a bit surprised (see post above parent) that there aren't any call options available, I'm not at all surprised no one is writing puts.
There are ways to limit your losses when shorting a stock. One is to buy call options on it. For instance, say SCO is $30 now, and you've short-sold 1,000 shared at $20. If you buy call options at $70 for the same date, the most you can lose is $50,000. If SCO drops to $10, you don't excercise the options and make $10,000 minus the option price (which should be prety low).
No. Charging admission to a viewing in a barracks is prohibited. Displaying it via a projector in a barracks might be prohibited. Viewing it on a computer monitor by one or more persons is explicitly permitted.
The defense lawyer wanted to present some evidence based on MRIs that supposedly showed that his client was not legally responsible for his actions. The panel of experts could be gathered until after the trial was supposed to start, so the judge ruled that no questions about the technique could be asked during jury selection (as it might influence us). At the last minute, the defense attorney decided that wasn't acceptable, so we all got to go home.
Yes, open source users can take advantage of patches for newer versions sometimes. This doesn't obviate the need to support users of of older versions. It doesn't make debugging the problem faster.
I'm not saying there aren't advantages to open source. I'm just saying that the authors of the paper have done a poor job of proving faster debugging is one of them.
The paper's conculsion seemed to be that debugging open source projects is faster because you don't have a version problem where customers report bugs in code that has already been modified for the next version.
I don't buy it. Many open source projects (ACE/TAO, Mozilla) for instance have large customer bases using non-current versions, and presumably finding bugs. Sure, if you only want to fix the bug in the released version, its faster, but it's not like closed source vendors don't have the source code to their previous release to debug with.
Sure debugging is faster if you always make everyone upgrade to the latest version before filing a bug report. Good luck getting mass acceptance with that.
I didn't particularly like the detour to Osgiliath either. It make Faramir a much less sympathetic character, I hope this will change in the next movie. It's interesting, because I really liked how the Fellowship of the Ring movie gave more depth to Boromir. Even more importantly, I thought it detracted from the much better scenes at Helm's Deep and Isengard.
On the other hand, I don't think that the encounter with the Nazgul spoiled the idea that Sauron had no idea where the Ring was. Now, Sauron knows that the ring was heading towards Gondor. He knows that Isildur's heir is heading towards Gondor. I think that it is perfectly in keeping with how he is portrayed in the book that he would not suspect that the Ring would be turned around and brought back into the heart of his power.
I think it's less about how fabricated they are then what the context they supposedly took place in is. "Legend" is used for things which should leave a historical mark, and that explain history--the seige of Troy, the Exodous, etc. "Myth" is used for stories that are purely spiritual--the Garden of Eden, for instance, or the birth of Athena from Zeus's forhead.
At one point, you could buy Iams premium dogfood, delivered to your door, for less than what pets.com was paying wholesale. (According to an aquaintance of mine who was a Iams salesman).
"even though [StarOffice] could open doc files, the niggling issues such as formatting, behavior differences in how it handled certain things (numbered lists)"
.doc files than different versions of Word did.
I found these issues as well, however, I found it did a better job of importing
In the Draco tavern tale "Ssoroghod's People", you tell a cautionary tale about experimenting in your only living space. What do you feel is the greatest danger from biotechnology? What do you feel is the most promising application for it?
("Ssoroghod's People" can be found in the collection Redshift, ed. Sarrantonio)
Hence the best assembly mnemonic ever: eieio
(Enforce In-Order Execution of IO, for PowerPC chips)
You don't think that lots of people would end up going to googler.microsoft.com if that became the default search option for Internet Explorer?
I can't see how you interpret this as protecting celebrities. Every person has social and commercial standing, good or bad. The decision says the sale in no way relates to that standing.
So no, you don't have to be paid to make the call, there just has to be some commercial harm (lost time/revenue, which has been found to suffice)
OK, I'll concede that you could bring a suit under this act for lost time/money due to deceptive phonecalls. That doesn't mean you automatically win, so I don't see a huge problem with it.
If the CD-key is on the CD, wouldn't it be kinda hard to read while your trying to install?
"Hardly the same thing - what was sold was essentially publicly available information - an address, maybe an SSN."
RTFA. They ruled that an SSN was not public information.
"Liability for damages for fraud seems to me to pertain to the client, not any third party"
RTFA. Under NH law, if you, as a third party, are harmed by someones fraudulent buisiness practices, you can claim damages against him. The fraud was on the part of the IB, the damage was caused by information obtained as a result of that fraud. The "notion of responsibility and causal effect" is for a lower court to rule on on a case by case basis, this merely said there was grounds for a suit in this case.
Essentially you are saying, "Let's invade everyone's privacy (it's not clear who should do the invading - the IB? The cops?) simply to prevent someone from misusing what is essentially public information in any event."
No I'm not. I'm saying that if you want _private_ information on someone, I don't see why you can't be required to divulge your own. I don't see why it's unclear who I think should do the checking. It is the IB who must excercise reasonable care when divulging private information, therefore the burden is on them to ask for and verify the information they need.
"There was no contract between the IB and anyone else (except maybe the stalker client) concerning protection of this information"
It's not a matter of contract law, it's a matter of "violation of seclusion". There's no contract saying you won't take pictures through my bedroom window, but you could still be violated for selling them.
"While obtaining the information using a pretext is sleazy, I don't see how this constitutes liability for the misuse of the information by a third party"
No part of the ruling said that obtaining information under a pretext gave you liability for misuse. It said it gave you liability for damages under the fraudulent buisness practices act.
"The criminal justice system doesn't like sleazy IB's, so they make them liable for something they have no control over"
The court ruled that IB's must take reasonable care in disclosing peoples personal information. Why do you have a problem with this? What would be wrong with having to submit to a criminal background check before you can pay someone for personal information about another person? What legitimate public need would be thwarted by such a scheme?
"When is the court ready to assign liability to cops and Feds who fake court orders, manufacture evidence, and otherwise abuse their responsibilities on a daily basis and thereby cause thousands of people to spend time in jail for crimes they did not commit? Oh, wait, I forgot - the criminal justice system is immune from prosecution for `screwups'"
Odd, because they actually aren't immune to liability if you manufacture evidence or falsely imprison someone.
"there's no reason to artificially reserve the misappropriation of a name or likeness to a person's reputation or prestige, i.e., to celebrities"
This has nothing to do with celebrity. If I pretend to be you on eBay, say, and sell bad goods, I've misappropriated your reputation. If I apply for a credit card, pretending to be you, I've missappropriated your credit record, which is commercial reputation. What's the court ruled that is that the name itself is not private.
"Jeez, anytime you make a call under a false pretext you're subject to a deceptive practices act!?"
Again, no, only if you do it for a commercial purpose. In other words, yes, you are liable if someone pays you to make a crank call. Or if you own a video store, calling other video stores pretending to be a customer so you can figure out what titles they are already out of so you can alter your pricing accordingly.
The SSN was obtained from a credit header, which I don't think counts as a publically available means. In fact, I'm curious, where is the SSN part of the public record? Anyway, the court ruled that
The other issue was obtaining the work address. The court ruled that a work address was not private information, but that obtaining the information using fraudulent means and then selling it constituted commiting fraud in the practice of a buisiness.
Hey, far better to take opening shock at terminal than to have to deploy you reserve with the main still wrapped around your leg! That happened to some poor static-line student at Walterboro on Feb. 2ncd, the canopies entangled and he landed on the runway. See the Incidents forum at dropzone if your interested. He lived, but he's in pretty bad shape.
Blue skies
"Don't you all find it a bit odd that an open source project bars people from working on it? How can that be?"
Easy. Open source means "Anyone can use my code in his/her project" with the possible caveat the new project must also be open source. Open source does not mean "Anyone can put his/her code in my project."