Except that you can't bury the 'bottom' of the thing only the top/sides. Radiation leakage still gets into the soil by going down through the nicely melted pathway.
Preface question: Who is 'They' you keep referring too? the IP owner?
The point is that they're assuming he's guilty beforehand.
How? because they found their IP being shared from an IP address they take the IP address owner to court? That's called finding evidence of a crime and taking appropriate action. How is anyone 'assuming' guilt?
Their assumption should be that he is innocent to begin with... in the actual court case. Yes, in the actual court case, it is typically innocent until/unless proven guilty
Well which is it? You say they should be innocent in the court case while rebutting that by saying they are innocent in the court case?
Yet another problem. It enables them to waste your time and money by making frivolous claims.
That's why they need to meet a 'reasonable' standard prior to filing charges. And there are frivolous lawsuit penalties should they do that.
And that's exactly what I don't like. Neither of those make any sense. Just because it's money at stake instead of jail time, that does not mean that you should be able to get away with having less evidence.
Really? you don't agree with having civil courts and criminal courts? You don't agree that jail time should require a higher standard than just a parking ticket? just wow.
You might want to read up on the law a bit. Charged != guilty. But charged is how they start the process. They don't need to 'prove' anything to charge you. Just a reasonable idea that it *might* be you. At that point you retain counsel and rebut their charges in...wait for it....court.
Since these are mostly civil cases the standard they have to meet to file charges is lower. Unfortunately so is the standard to 'prove' you guilty.
We can argue about semantics all you want. ISPs are 'common carriers' and are immune to such lawsuits as a general rule.
And yes 'talk too' is the first step. If you don't have a reasonable alibi or explanation, then yes you are going to be charged with said violation of the law.
On the contrary, they don't have to 'prove' anything to charge you. Hence why it is 'charge' and not 'convict'.
They do have to offer evidence that it is 'reasonable' that you did the crime. And the ISP saying the IP in question is yours is plenty 'reasonable' for a court of law.
So yes, you can and will be charged based on that information.
In court, all of the things you mention are perfectly good defense arguments. But they are that, defense arguments. You need to be charged before you can bring them up. Of course playing nice with the investigation up front might keep you only at 'person of interest' levels and avoid the charge all together. But that requires the acknowledging that they have information that points to you and providing an explanation to point them somewhere else.
If you don't think your contract holds *you* responsible for any criminal activity during the use of the contracted services, you are wildly naive. Not 'liable', 'responsible'. The latter they can do. The former is the justice department's job (or whoever was harmed).
"You hereby agree to not violate any laws when using the system." is blatant boilerplate legalese in every contract ever written by even a half competent lawyer.
Dude yourself. If you make available the tools by which crimes can be committed, you damn well can be held liable for their use in such crimes.
If you allow someone access to your computer and they do something illegal with it, *you* are the one they are going to talk too since it was your computer and connection. They don't know anything about anybody else, nor frankly, do they care. You can explain your alibi, but if you say nothing, trust me, you are ending up in court.
There are certainly mitigating issues in many cases, but the 'facts' only show that your IP address committed the crimes. They are going to sue *you* and nobody else. If threats are made over a phone, they know the person to whom that number is assigned and will investigate them appropriately.
Now, IP crimes are generally not criminal which is both good and bad. Good, for you, that it doesn't rise to the same level as 'criminal' charges, bad, for you, that they don't need to adhere to the same level of proof. Hence, they'll sue *you* and let you have to explain in court.
which happens in court. You don't have 'prove' anything to charge someone and hold a trial. There are some checks along the way but they don't require 'proof' of anything, just some semblance of reasonableness that you could be the guilty party.
You're not convicted of anything until you're in court hence you're not guilty of anything. However, they *are* going to bring you into court if your car was seen robbing a bank and you can't reasonably explain who else might have been driving it.
From a legal standpoint, only one person signed the contract. That person is liable for anything done with the connection. And yes, as the legally assigned person have to 'prove' it wasn't they who committed the act that was traced back to their 'address'.
and for the old world analogy:
If your car is seen and photographed robbing a bank and everybody in the house had access to keys, who do you think they are going to look at first?
Sadly it isn't that way for me but I wish it was. I have Sprint with unlimited* data over an aged Treo 700p. I've used PdaNet a few times and can clearly see the difference in the speed. It's not the data but simply the interface rendering that takes the extra time on the phone.
I pay Sprint for 'unlimited' data at a specific data rate (or max rate anyway). Even if there's a cap, there's no justification for saying I have to pay more to access it via another device. if my phone can do something with the data, say display it, and it can natively t it do something else with the data, say forward it to another device, how is that a problem? It doesn't hurt Sprint in way shape or form. What hurts them is providing services without the ability to actually meet those service requirements; i.e. unlimited data at a certain rate.
Except that there isn't anything stopping them from streaming directly to the consumer. If they do it better, more seamlessly than TWC people will get it directly.
The channels have way more power than TWC does now thanks to the internet. They're just too stupid to realize it.
I see positives here. Currently mobile phone providers require extra money to be able to 'tether' your laptop through your phone - when the phone does this on it's own if they didn't disable it. I pay for data access. How I use that access should be unimportant to the data provider. I consume the same data whether on an iPhone or on my computer.
Comcast is basically claiming the same thing. They pay for the channels and if they want to allow their users (who already receive those channels) to access them via another device - it's up to them what they want to do with that 'data' that they receive from the channels.
Nice to see a greedy corporation be stuck in the same bind us little people are. Now maybe we'll get some legal standing that using data you have properly paid to access is valid no matter how you use it.
If they gave us a 24" single monitor I might agree with you. But having 2 screens allows for comparing things side by side or having a reference open.
Alt-tab is faster than turning my neck and re-focusing my eyes.
How far apart were your monitors? Mine are right next to each other; there's minimal if any turning of ones head involved. You're refocusing your eyes regardless since your entire screen changes when you alt tab.
I find that you don't really notice the increase until you have 2 monitors and have to go back to just 1. When I remote into my work machine I'm stuck with just a one monitor interface and switching between them.
I will agree that these steps will allow one to believe in the existence of God.
That still does not do anything to 'prove' that God exists.
Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay
You quote something saying asking for proof is faith and then say it isn't? Well of course it isn't. 'Faith' is a human feeling. It may or may not be backed up by knowledge and past experience but it is not a physical concept that can be tested.
First you have to want to believe.
There is no 'wanting to believe' in science. If you have to want to ignore the lack of evidence, you're not believing in anything.
Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief
Again, not disbelieving 'the word' does nothing to prove God exists.
The method thus far is want to believe. Act on that belief, read the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon), remember the mercies of Jesus Christ, really think about them, then pray to God in the name of Christ with a sincere heart, real intent, with faith in Christ. Then you will feel the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and know that what you have read and what you are doing are true.
In a nutshell, if you want to believe you will believe and will be sure that your belief is true and real.
That is still nothing but a personal feeling. I can feel faith that it will rain in the next week. I can feel faith that large crowds will do bad things sometimes. That faith does not prove anything. Studying WHAT I have faith in is what we're talking about. And in terms of religion there is no evidence proving God exists.
You still haven't presented anything other than showing how to believe God exists.
I just cannot transfer it to you but I can tell you more about how you can verify what I claim I have as evidence yourself by having it yourself.
I think you misunderstand. I am not saying you provide proof and I will believe. I'm saying provide your evidence, or if you like, your repeatable tests and proofs that allow anyone to verify what you claim.
I could provide examples of some of what adds to my evidence
And yet you don't.
what is the real, strongest evidence is internal
which is my original point. Religion is a human creation. it is *internal* to us. It is a creation of our mind to be able to rationalize the world around us.
I think this is a fairer answer than you'd get from many other people because there's no "trust me"; it's all, "You can know for yourself", you just have to be willing to do the experiments yourself.
While you are providing civil discourse on the subject, your evasion of providing even the most basic evidence or 'experiments' to test your assertions is telling that you aren't able to do so.
The 10 commandments (or the equivalent for most religions) can basically be distilled to "don't fuck with other people".
I think that alone makes religion a good thing since if you do you will probably end up in jail, or worse, with your brains smashed in.
It makes having a system of rules and consequences that encourage good behavior is a good thing. Religion is simply one method for doing that. Rule of law is another one without the negative aspects of religion that you describe.
Without the acceptance of that framework then most discussions of evidence are fruitless.
Spoken like someone who does not have any evidence.
There are not valid and really good philosophical arguments for the existence of God; such an approach will always fall short.
I rest my case.
I know I talked about philosophy a lot but this isn't about philosophy, it's about whether or not there is good, reproducible evidence for God. But whether or not you accept that evidence depends on your acceptance of a way of knowing
How about you just provide the evidence? You still seem to be missing that point of the discussion.
People also once thought Africans were wild less evolved people. Turns out they were just not educated as much or in the same manner as the Europeans expected.
When starting in a culture with a rudimentary level of educational knowledge at best, both religion and science offer steps up into more educated modern societies.
That doesn't make religion any more real. In fact its pretty much the exact myth we tell kids about Santa Claus - be good and you'll be rewarded.
Why? Since religion is, as you so clearly state, "entirely a human creation" then what stops any particular human from modifying it to best suit their needs.
They can indeed. However, if they are going to impose their religious views on 'my' life, then yes I have a problem when they themselves don't follow their purported beliefs. If they want to publicly disown the parts they no longer believe in fine. It's all still in the bible though so kinda hard to say they've rejected those parts.
Religion is outdated. It is no longer necessary for society to function, at a time it most certainly was but that time has past.
If I've got 80ish years to live it seems like focusing on what makes me happy should trump everything else, even if that happiness is a fiction since in death nothing will matter anyway
Why is that happiness a fiction? It's testable and provable and repeatable. It's definition may be varied, but 'being' happy is very real condition.
As for the 'meaning' of our lives, that is philosophy and entirely a different discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that you can't bury the 'bottom' of the thing only the top/sides. Radiation leakage still gets into the soil by going down through the nicely melted pathway.
I believe he's referring to this.
;-) mmmm Bacon
Yes I just Kevin Bacon'd your argument
The point is that they're assuming he's guilty beforehand.
How? because they found their IP being shared from an IP address they take the IP address owner to court? That's called finding evidence of a crime and taking appropriate action. How is anyone 'assuming' guilt?
Their assumption should be that he is innocent to begin with ... in the actual court case. Yes, in the actual court case, it is typically innocent until/unless proven guilty
Well which is it? You say they should be innocent in the court case while rebutting that by saying they are innocent in the court case?
Yet another problem. It enables them to waste your time and money by making frivolous claims.
That's why they need to meet a 'reasonable' standard prior to filing charges. And there are frivolous lawsuit penalties should they do that.
And that's exactly what I don't like. Neither of those make any sense. Just because it's money at stake instead of jail time, that does not mean that you should be able to get away with having less evidence.
Really? you don't agree with having civil courts and criminal courts? You don't agree that jail time should require a higher standard than just a parking ticket? just wow.
You might want to read up on the law a bit. Charged != guilty. But charged is how they start the process. They don't need to 'prove' anything to charge you. Just a reasonable idea that it *might* be you. At that point you retain counsel and rebut their charges in...wait for it....court.
Since these are mostly civil cases the standard they have to meet to file charges is lower. Unfortunately so is the standard to 'prove' you guilty.
Note I said 'can be' not 'will be'.
We can argue about semantics all you want. ISPs are 'common carriers' and are immune to such lawsuits as a general rule.
And yes 'talk too' is the first step. If you don't have a reasonable alibi or explanation, then yes you are going to be charged with said violation of the law.
On the contrary, they don't have to 'prove' anything to charge you. Hence why it is 'charge' and not 'convict'.
They do have to offer evidence that it is 'reasonable' that you did the crime. And the ISP saying the IP in question is yours is plenty 'reasonable' for a court of law.
So yes, you can and will be charged based on that information.
In court, all of the things you mention are perfectly good defense arguments. But they are that, defense arguments. You need to be charged before you can bring them up. Of course playing nice with the investigation up front might keep you only at 'person of interest' levels and avoid the charge all together. But that requires the acknowledging that they have information that points to you and providing an explanation to point them somewhere else.
If you don't think your contract holds *you* responsible for any criminal activity during the use of the contracted services, you are wildly naive. Not 'liable', 'responsible'. The latter they can do. The former is the justice department's job (or whoever was harmed).
"You hereby agree to not violate any laws when using the system." is blatant boilerplate legalese in every contract ever written by even a half competent lawyer.
Dude yourself. If you make available the tools by which crimes can be committed, you damn well can be held liable for their use in such crimes.
If you allow someone access to your computer and they do something illegal with it, *you* are the one they are going to talk too since it was your computer and connection. They don't know anything about anybody else, nor frankly, do they care. You can explain your alibi, but if you say nothing, trust me, you are ending up in court.
There are certainly mitigating issues in many cases, but the 'facts' only show that your IP address committed the crimes. They are going to sue *you* and nobody else. If threats are made over a phone, they know the person to whom that number is assigned and will investigate them appropriately.
Now, IP crimes are generally not criminal which is both good and bad. Good, for you, that it doesn't rise to the same level as 'criminal' charges, bad, for you, that they don't need to adhere to the same level of proof. Hence, they'll sue *you* and let you have to explain in court.
but it is still up to them to prove it was you ...
which happens in court. You don't have 'prove' anything to charge someone and hold a trial. There are some checks along the way but they don't require 'proof' of anything, just some semblance of reasonableness that you could be the guilty party.
You're not convicted of anything until you're in court hence you're not guilty of anything. However, they *are* going to bring you into court if your car was seen robbing a bank and you can't reasonably explain who else might have been driving it.
> or that you initiated the act knowingly
I think the poster's meaning was that you actively participated in the download; rather than a virus doing the downloading so to speak.
From a legal standpoint, only one person signed the contract. That person is liable for anything done with the connection. And yes, as the legally assigned person have to 'prove' it wasn't they who committed the act that was traced back to their 'address'.
and for the old world analogy:
If your car is seen and photographed robbing a bank and everybody in the house had access to keys, who do you think they are going to look at first?
Sadly it isn't that way for me but I wish it was. I have Sprint with unlimited* data over an aged Treo 700p. I've used PdaNet a few times and can clearly see the difference in the speed. It's not the data but simply the interface rendering that takes the extra time on the phone.
I pay Sprint for 'unlimited' data at a specific data rate (or max rate anyway). Even if there's a cap, there's no justification for saying I have to pay more to access it via another device. if my phone can do something with the data, say display it, and it can natively t it do something else with the data, say forward it to another device, how is that a problem? It doesn't hurt Sprint in way shape or form. What hurts them is providing services without the ability to actually meet those service requirements; i.e. unlimited data at a certain rate.
Except that there isn't anything stopping them from streaming directly to the consumer. If they do it better, more seamlessly than TWC people will get it directly.
The channels have way more power than TWC does now thanks to the internet. They're just too stupid to realize it.
I see positives here. Currently mobile phone providers require extra money to be able to 'tether' your laptop through your phone - when the phone does this on it's own if they didn't disable it. I pay for data access. How I use that access should be unimportant to the data provider. I consume the same data whether on an iPhone or on my computer.
Comcast is basically claiming the same thing. They pay for the channels and if they want to allow their users (who already receive those channels) to access them via another device - it's up to them what they want to do with that 'data' that they receive from the channels.
Nice to see a greedy corporation be stuck in the same bind us little people are. Now maybe we'll get some legal standing that using data you have properly paid to access is valid no matter how you use it.
I disagree, 640K is apparently *not* enough anymore.
Alt-tab is faster than turning my neck and re-focusing my eyes.
How far apart were your monitors? Mine are right next to each other; there's minimal if any turning of ones head involved. You're refocusing your eyes regardless since your entire screen changes when you alt tab.
I find that you don't really notice the increase until you have 2 monitors and have to go back to just 1. When I remote into my work machine I'm stuck with just a one monitor interface and switching between them.
That still does not do anything to 'prove' that God exists.
Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay
You quote something saying asking for proof is faith and then say it isn't? Well of course it isn't. 'Faith' is a human feeling. It may or may not be backed up by knowledge and past experience but it is not a physical concept that can be tested.
First you have to want to believe.
There is no 'wanting to believe' in science. If you have to want to ignore the lack of evidence, you're not believing in anything.
Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief
Again, not disbelieving 'the word' does nothing to prove God exists.
The method thus far is want to believe. Act on that belief, read the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon), remember the mercies of Jesus Christ, really think about them, then pray to God in the name of Christ with a sincere heart, real intent, with faith in Christ. Then you will feel the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and know that what you have read and what you are doing are true.
In a nutshell, if you want to believe you will believe and will be sure that your belief is true and real.
That is still nothing but a personal feeling. I can feel faith that it will rain in the next week. I can feel faith that large crowds will do bad things sometimes. That faith does not prove anything. Studying WHAT I have faith in is what we're talking about. And in terms of religion there is no evidence proving God exists.
You still haven't presented anything other than showing how to believe God exists.
I'm not dodging your request for evidence
Yes you are.
I just cannot transfer it to you but I can tell you more about how you can verify what I claim I have as evidence yourself by having it yourself.
I think you misunderstand. I am not saying you provide proof and I will believe. I'm saying provide your evidence, or if you like, your repeatable tests and proofs that allow anyone to verify what you claim.
I could provide examples of some of what adds to my evidence
And yet you don't.
what is the real, strongest evidence is internal
which is my original point. Religion is a human creation. it is *internal* to us. It is a creation of our mind to be able to rationalize the world around us.
I think this is a fairer answer than you'd get from many other people because there's no "trust me"; it's all, "You can know for yourself", you just have to be willing to do the experiments yourself.
While you are providing civil discourse on the subject, your evasion of providing even the most basic evidence or 'experiments' to test your assertions is telling that you aren't able to do so.
The 10 commandments (or the equivalent for most religions) can basically be distilled to "don't fuck with other people". I think that alone makes religion a good thing since if you do you will probably end up in jail, or worse, with your brains smashed in.
It makes having a system of rules and consequences that encourage good behavior is a good thing. Religion is simply one method for doing that. Rule of law is another one without the negative aspects of religion that you describe.
Without the acceptance of that framework then most discussions of evidence are fruitless.
Spoken like someone who does not have any evidence.
There are not valid and really good philosophical arguments for the existence of God; such an approach will always fall short.
I rest my case.
I know I talked about philosophy a lot but this isn't about philosophy, it's about whether or not there is good, reproducible evidence for God. But whether or not you accept that evidence depends on your acceptance of a way of knowing
How about you just provide the evidence? You still seem to be missing that point of the discussion.
But what? You said exactly what I did :) I said I give *them* respect, not their religious views.
And the crusades. Anything can be used for evil purposes, it doesn't discount the point of religion in the first place.
People also once thought Africans were wild less evolved people. Turns out they were just not educated as much or in the same manner as the Europeans expected.
When starting in a culture with a rudimentary level of educational knowledge at best, both religion and science offer steps up into more educated modern societies.
That doesn't make religion any more real. In fact its pretty much the exact myth we tell kids about Santa Claus - be good and you'll be rewarded.
Why? Since religion is, as you so clearly state, "entirely a human creation" then what stops any particular human from modifying it to best suit their needs.
They can indeed. However, if they are going to impose their religious views on 'my' life, then yes I have a problem when they themselves don't follow their purported beliefs. If they want to publicly disown the parts they no longer believe in fine. It's all still in the bible though so kinda hard to say they've rejected those parts.
Religion is outdated. It is no longer necessary for society to function, at a time it most certainly was but that time has past.
If I've got 80ish years to live it seems like focusing on what makes me happy should trump everything else, even if that happiness is a fiction since in death nothing will matter anyway
Why is that happiness a fiction? It's testable and provable and repeatable. It's definition may be varied, but 'being' happy is very real condition.
As for the 'meaning' of our lives, that is philosophy and entirely a different discussion.