I think I probably should have extended or edited the quote a little bit. It wasn't the twelve year old who I'm harping on; the mother made the comment.
Do I expect a 12 year old to know that downloading music is against the law? You bet. Whom do I blame when they don't know? The parents whos job it is to educate and direct their children. The law is written such that parents are responsible for the actions of their minor children, except in extreme situations.
I do not think it's unreasonable, as a parent of a 11- and 10-year-olds, to have children under supervision. My children do no use the computer unmonitored, nor do they go play outside without me knowing exactly who's house they're going to and which parent is home. If I know the parent doesn't give what, in my opinion, is adequate supervision, the kids don't play there.
Am I going to prevent them from ever getting into trouble? Not a chance. But I'll bet every thing I own that the worst my kids will be doing any time soon is forgetting their homework or annoying the neighbors when they play baseball outside.
The comment made by Torres is indicitive of a problem in our society. We're constantly looking for a way to remove blame from everybody, thereby eliminating personal responsibility. I find it reprehensible and idiotic.
As a parent, were I to find myself in a similar situation, I'd have to ask myself: "When did this happen and where was I when it did?" Then, I'd have to take necessary steps to fix the situation.
It's comments like this that destroy my faith in the human race:
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
What in the world does being 12 years old and female have to do with the legality of an action? These statements are equivelant:
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal, we have curly hair!"
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal, I have a pet lizard!"
Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Yeah, the RIAA is scum. Yeah, copyright law blows. But, jeez people, what the hell is happening to taking responsibility for your actions.
I used to go to a tavern quite often where they had three of these machines. My friend and I would play one of them for hours on end.
One evening, a rather drunk foresome (heh) was doing the old "smash-the-shit-out-of-the-game" routine and one of the guys slipped forward a bit too much. With a rather large crash, he shattered the glass above the monitor and sliced the crap out of his hand. Naturally, hilarity insued and nobody could stop laughing. It seems that alchohol makes blood funny.
After getting cleaned up and bandaged with a bar towel, one of the bartenders came out to sweep the floor. Meanwhile, the extremely drunk foresome moved to the next machine.
Mr. Bloody-stump proceded to use his uncut hand for another brilliant stroke -- obviously thinking that since it's happened once, it can't happen again -- and smashes his other hand into the screen cover with similar results.
When we spoke to the bartenders about this after last call, the said it happens about every two weeks.
The next week, all of the protective covers were Lexan.
YAY! Somebody who understands what "innocent until proven guilty" means (I have a rant below about it)!
The defendant only has to prove the device has legal uses (security, automatization, etc)... At that point HUGES has to prove the device was used for something ilegal!
Unfortunately, I don't know how the DMCA fiddles with this normally true statement. The DMCA makes it ilegal to purchase or have in your possession copyright circumvention devices. The DMCA, if I remember correctly, imposes stiff criminal penalties but isn't a civil statute.
It'll be interesting (in a kind of scary way) to see if Hughes tries to use the DMCA in the civil case...
Sorry about the double post, but I didn't notice that you bought it in the course of work.
You might want to contact that old company, if they're still in business, and tell them what's going on. If they have legal council, and it's explained that this reader was bought during the course of a project from them, you might get some free legal advice or (unlikely) some representation.
I know that there are lawyers who read/. Where are you guys? You should be chomping at the bit to help this guy out!
To the poster: please keep us posted. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'd be willing to donate some money for a legal defense fund if you stipulated: (1) that any monies left over after defense were donated to the EFF or OSF; (2) a portion of any monies recovered in damages, if any, were likewise donated to the EFF or OSF; and (3) that you really stick it to the fuckers if you can.
Ok, you need to call the EFF right now and see if they can put you in touch with a lawyer who will do either pro bono work or possibly work on a contingency basis. IANAL, but I believe that the puntitive damage statutes for frivolous Federal law suits are gigantic. Since this clearly is a lawsuit without base, as you are currently their customer and have purchased the device, you could be in a position to get substantially more than that $12 per hour, and become a folk hero at the same time.
Were I in your shoes, I'd do everything I could to find a lawyer who fits the criteria and slap an extortion and harrassment counter suit, naming damages in the $100 million range. Then refuse to settle.
If you can't find a lawyer who meets the above criteria, contact CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews or some other national news outlet to see if they'd be interested in running your story.
Once it hits TV, lawyers will crawl out of the woodwork to help just for the noteriety.
Ok, I just can't take it any more. I'm sick and tired of people crying "Innocent until proven guilty! Innocent until proven guilty!" at the drop of a hat. It's obvious that the vast majority of people just don't have a clue what the statement actually means and where it applies!
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not preclude one from being sued. If it did, a suit could not be initiated because the plaintiff (the suer) must have proved that the defendant (the suee) is guilty before filing the suit. This is a classic chicken-and-egg problem if I ever heard of one.
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the court system and the juries they employ. Period. I am not a member of the court, so I am free to profess the guilt or innocence of anybody or anything, with or without evidence, until I'm called to serve on a jury. And even at that point, I can still hold the same feelings for everything except for the case I'm currently sitting on.
The battle cry of "Innocent until proven guilty!" is the mark of somebody ignorant about the way that our government works. Unfortunately, this describes just about everybody relying on their public school "Government" classes.
Forcing every person not directly involved in a court case to support the "Innocent until proven guilty" standard would strip the general popluace of the other favorite rallying cry: "The freedom of speech."
In short, I completely with the original poster's spirit: this is a chickenshit response to a problem that DirectTV has. Unfortunately the post itself screams knee-jerk reaction.
And to answer the posters question
Innocent Until Provent Guilty...what ever happened to that mantra?
I'll simply respond: It's alive and well in the courts, where it actually belongs.
Cox (at least in Phoenix) has about the best channel guide implimentation I've seen.
The guide is broken into three frames: upper left, with a show description and running time; upper right, which displays the current channel with the audio; and the lower half contains all of the programming.
You can also browse by date, subject, and title as well as store 15 or so reminders.
It's the reason I didn't go back to regular cable when I resubscribed.
Hmmm... That title sounds kind of 60's counter-culture... Anyway.
I'm a user of Acid Pro and FruityLoops (Big Pro Thingy From Hell edition). I've been thinking of moving my music production to the Apple for quite some time, but the only product I'd evaluated was ProTools. I hate it. I have a large mixing board and I do not want another one emulated on my computer.
Most of my stuff is either custom loop-based, where I create my own loops with my own synths and stuff, or percussive tracks with triggered one-shot samples. Acid with SoundForge and FruityLoops do everything I need in those instances, respectively.
The blurb says that the product "is similar to Acid and FruityLoops." This doesn't sound right to me; the two programs both produce music, but the similarity ends right there.
So, has anybody on this thread used all three products? And would you care to give an evaluation based on music creation merits?
If I remember correctly (and I might not; it's been years since I've dealt with phone line voltage), the line voltage hovers at 90V or so DC when it's on the hook, and the ring tone swings up to 100V or so.
The voltage isn't the problem, however, the current is. And, because it's based on DC power, the phone packs quite a bit of current - 50ma or so, again IIRC - to overcome the resistance of copper wiring. AC isn't as sensitive as DC to the resistance, but phones were around long before AC was in wide use.
In the scenario described above, the problem comes into play if you're the least resistive path to a ground. If you drew a schematic, you'd be a resistor in series between the phone line and earth ground. It only takes a few milliamps to kill in some situations.
Not good, because you act as a current sink for the circuit. This isn't as bad if the path is, say, your right arm to your right foot. But, typically you wouldn't be answering the phone or operating the computer with a hand and a foot. If the current path is across your chest, as in touching the computer with one hand and the phone with another, it could create a shortest path current across the chest.
As others have mentioned in this thread, it could kill you if your electrical resistance is low enough. Sweaty palms or just getting out of a swim in the ocean could possibly be enough.
Why is it that everytime any OSDN site is mentioned in a slashdot blurb - the blurb gets "Somesite and Slashdot are both part of the OSDN network" added to it?
It's a practice called full disclosure, and it's fairly common in a variety of broadcast and print media. Typically, it's done when there's an article or story about an entity or business that is, in some way, affiliated with the reporting source. Most news agencies use this as a "we think this is interesting, but we're biased" sort of disclaimer.
Originally, it was done in order to limit liability in SEC related stories; in particular, any story that could have a positive or negative bearing on a stock price. In the past several years, however, it's become more and more common to put these types of blurbs in any story that mentions a related holding.
In TV, radio, and print, you'll hear stuff like "as reported by our sister station", "reported by Publication A, owned by our parent corporation", or "our friends at Radio Station B".
As for why their doing it so profusely? My guess is that it's a combination of advertising and liability management.
It uses a proprietary encryption method to protect the data on its harddrive, and the only thing that differentiates this 'game console' from a standard, Windows-running PC is that it has no way to get data on or off of it except through a dedicated connection to Infinium Labs' own servers.
Ok... And CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and a whole host of entities are tied to the Democrats. Who the hell cares?
Technologically, the story could stand on its own. The company was hired to write voting software and fouled it up. The tenuous connection just seems to cheapen the story to me.
I gave money to the Republican party a few years back. By this logic, I engaged in voter fraud.
If you've got proof that Bush rigged the election, please bring it to the table. If the Republican party is more corrupt than the other party, please bring it to the table.
This type of obvious political slanting, on either side of the fence, just shows how silly and gullible the majority of the population is.
I was going to put musical composition down, but since I use my computer almost exclusively for that, I guess it doesn't count.
However, during the.bubble, I somehow came to the conclusion that cooking like a Gourmet chef was something I wanted to do for fun. In typical hyper-focused geek fashion, I put forth 150% effort into my new hobby.
Cash wasn't an issue during latter half of the Nineties, so I spent a pot-full (or perhaps kettle-full?) of it grabbing lots of the professional quality equipment wasn't an issue and I now have one of the best equipped consumer kitchens I've ever seen.
Since then, I've become quite the chef according to family, friends and people I've cooked for on a contractual basis. I find cooking to be somewhat more rewarding than my computer exploits because the results are always instantaneous. People will either grimace and push the plate away, or sink back into their chairs with a blissful smile as they chew; quite a change from the corporate environment where you write code not knowing if it's used or even if anybody knows you did it.
I wrote a ton more about gettings started, and then decided I was going way off topic. I've moved it into my Journal in case anybody actually wants to read it.
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but the solution seems easy enough...
All of the code is in some kind of versioning system like CVS or BitKeeper or whatever is being used. Every check-in is stamped with a user ID as well. Is it not possible to grep through the CVS checkins to see when the offending code was checked in and who it was checked in by?
From what I understand about the Linux checkin methods, they're not really checked in by the person submitting the patch, but the LKML lists and other development lists are archived and most patches are submitted via e-mail from what I've read on the lists.
I really suspect that the code in question was checked in or submitted by a Caldera coder at some point...
Slashdot Mirror
Do I expect a 12 year old to know that downloading music is against the law? You bet. Whom do I blame when they don't know? The parents whos job it is to educate and direct their children. The law is written such that parents are responsible for the actions of their minor children, except in extreme situations.
I do not think it's unreasonable, as a parent of a 11- and 10-year-olds, to have children under supervision. My children do no use the computer unmonitored, nor do they go play outside without me knowing exactly who's house they're going to and which parent is home. If I know the parent doesn't give what, in my opinion, is adequate supervision, the kids don't play there.
Am I going to prevent them from ever getting into trouble? Not a chance. But I'll bet every thing I own that the worst my kids will be doing any time soon is forgetting their homework or annoying the neighbors when they play baseball outside.
The comment made by Torres is indicitive of a problem in our society. We're constantly looking for a way to remove blame from everybody, thereby eliminating personal responsibility. I find it reprehensible and idiotic.
As a parent, were I to find myself in a similar situation, I'd have to ask myself: "When did this happen and where was I when it did?" Then, I'd have to take necessary steps to fix the situation.
It's comments like this that destroy my faith in the human race:
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
What in the world does being 12 years old and female have to do with the legality of an action? These statements are equivelant:
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal, we have curly hair!"
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal, I have a pet lizard!"
Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Yeah, the RIAA is scum. Yeah, copyright law blows. But, jeez people, what the hell is happening to taking responsibility for your actions.
Have you ever gone to the store and bought, say, a Coke product and were given a coupon for a competitor like Pepsi or even a store brand?
I don't really see a differenc here, except for the fact that pop-up ads are quite a bit more annoying.
In effect, you're saying that any wall that is facing "public" or city property is owned by everybody.
This argument is like telling a police officer that he can't write you a ticket because you pay his sallary.
One evening, a rather drunk foresome (heh) was doing the old "smash-the-shit-out-of-the-game" routine and one of the guys slipped forward a bit too much. With a rather large crash, he shattered the glass above the monitor and sliced the crap out of his hand. Naturally, hilarity insued and nobody could stop laughing. It seems that alchohol makes blood funny.
After getting cleaned up and bandaged with a bar towel, one of the bartenders came out to sweep the floor. Meanwhile, the extremely drunk foresome moved to the next machine.
Mr. Bloody-stump proceded to use his uncut hand for another brilliant stroke -- obviously thinking that since it's happened once, it can't happen again -- and smashes his other hand into the screen cover with similar results.
When we spoke to the bartenders about this after last call, the said it happens about every two weeks.
The next week, all of the protective covers were Lexan.
I'll put the soapbox back in the closet now, and leave it there until it's really necessary.
It'll be interesting (in a kind of scary way) to see if Hughes tries to use the DMCA in the civil case...
You might want to contact that old company, if they're still in business, and tell them what's going on. If they have legal council, and it's explained that this reader was bought during the course of a project from them, you might get some free legal advice or (unlikely) some representation.
I know that there are lawyers who read /. Where are you guys? You should be chomping at the bit to help this guy out!
To the poster: please keep us posted. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'd be willing to donate some money for a legal defense fund if you stipulated: (1) that any monies left over after defense were donated to the EFF or OSF; (2) a portion of any monies recovered in damages, if any, were likewise donated to the EFF or OSF; and (3) that you really stick it to the fuckers if you can.
Please, please, please! Keep us posted.
Were I in your shoes, I'd do everything I could to find a lawyer who fits the criteria and slap an extortion and harrassment counter suit, naming damages in the $100 million range. Then refuse to settle.
If you can't find a lawyer who meets the above criteria, contact CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews or some other national news outlet to see if they'd be interested in running your story.
Once it hits TV, lawyers will crawl out of the woodwork to help just for the noteriety.
Good luck!
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not preclude one from being sued. If it did, a suit could not be initiated because the plaintiff (the suer) must have proved that the defendant (the suee) is guilty before filing the suit. This is a classic chicken-and-egg problem if I ever heard of one.
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the court system and the juries they employ. Period. I am not a member of the court, so I am free to profess the guilt or innocence of anybody or anything, with or without evidence, until I'm called to serve on a jury. And even at that point, I can still hold the same feelings for everything except for the case I'm currently sitting on.
The battle cry of "Innocent until proven guilty!" is the mark of somebody ignorant about the way that our government works. Unfortunately, this describes just about everybody relying on their public school "Government" classes.
Forcing every person not directly involved in a court case to support the "Innocent until proven guilty" standard would strip the general popluace of the other favorite rallying cry: "The freedom of speech."
In short, I completely with the original poster's spirit: this is a chickenshit response to a problem that DirectTV has. Unfortunately the post itself screams knee-jerk reaction.
And to answer the posters question
I'll simply respond: It's alive and well in the courts, where it actually belongs.The guide is broken into three frames: upper left, with a show description and running time; upper right, which displays the current channel with the audio; and the lower half contains all of the programming.
You can also browse by date, subject, and title as well as store 15 or so reminders.
It's the reason I didn't go back to regular cable when I resubscribed.
I'm a user of Acid Pro and FruityLoops (Big Pro Thingy From Hell edition). I've been thinking of moving my music production to the Apple for quite some time, but the only product I'd evaluated was ProTools. I hate it. I have a large mixing board and I do not want another one emulated on my computer.
Most of my stuff is either custom loop-based, where I create my own loops with my own synths and stuff, or percussive tracks with triggered one-shot samples. Acid with SoundForge and FruityLoops do everything I need in those instances, respectively.
The blurb says that the product "is similar to Acid and FruityLoops." This doesn't sound right to me; the two programs both produce music, but the similarity ends right there.
So, has anybody on this thread used all three products? And would you care to give an evaluation based on music creation merits?
I wonder what would happen if I did provide another reference? I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be acceptable either.
Sorry, troll, got better things to do.
The voltage isn't the problem, however, the current is. And, because it's based on DC power, the phone packs quite a bit of current - 50ma or so, again IIRC - to overcome the resistance of copper wiring. AC isn't as sensitive as DC to the resistance, but phones were around long before AC was in wide use.
In the scenario described above, the problem comes into play if you're the least resistive path to a ground. If you drew a schematic, you'd be a resistor in series between the phone line and earth ground. It only takes a few milliamps to kill in some situations.
Not good, because you act as a current sink for the circuit. This isn't as bad if the path is, say, your right arm to your right foot. But, typically you wouldn't be answering the phone or operating the computer with a hand and a foot. If the current path is across your chest, as in touching the computer with one hand and the phone with another, it could create a shortest path current across the chest.
As others have mentioned in this thread, it could kill you if your electrical resistance is low enough. Sweaty palms or just getting out of a swim in the ocean could possibly be enough.
It's a practice called full disclosure, and it's fairly common in a variety of broadcast and print media. Typically, it's done when there's an article or story about an entity or business that is, in some way, affiliated with the reporting source. Most news agencies use this as a "we think this is interesting, but we're biased" sort of disclaimer.
Originally, it was done in order to limit liability in SEC related stories; in particular, any story that could have a positive or negative bearing on a stock price. In the past several years, however, it's become more and more common to put these types of blurbs in any story that mentions a related holding.
In TV, radio, and print, you'll hear stuff like "as reported by our sister station", "reported by Publication A, owned by our parent corporation", or "our friends at Radio Station B".
As for why their doing it so profusely? My guess is that it's a combination of advertising and liability management.
Answer the question?
Ok... And CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and a whole host of entities are tied to the Democrats. Who the hell cares?
Technologically, the story could stand on its own. The company was hired to write voting software and fouled it up. The tenuous connection just seems to cheapen the story to me.
I gave money to the Republican party a few years back. By this logic, I engaged in voter fraud.
If you've got proof that Bush rigged the election, please bring it to the table. If the Republican party is more corrupt than the other party, please bring it to the table.
This type of obvious political slanting, on either side of the fence, just shows how silly and gullible the majority of the population is.
Yeah, there's a security flaw in the voting program. Yeah, they didn't configure their servers correctly. Yeah, their math is funky...
And the Republicans did it?
Give me a break...
I'm thinking that Rampart alone will justify the purchase of this one... Mmmmm...Castles...
With the over-the-top reactions reported in the media, this might be exactly what is needed to force Charter One to deal with their fucked setup.
However, during the .bubble, I somehow came to the conclusion that cooking like a Gourmet chef was something I wanted to do for fun. In typical hyper-focused geek fashion, I put forth 150% effort into my new hobby.
Cash wasn't an issue during latter half of the Nineties, so I spent a pot-full (or perhaps kettle-full?) of it grabbing lots of the professional quality equipment wasn't an issue and I now have one of the best equipped consumer kitchens I've ever seen.
Since then, I've become quite the chef according to family, friends and people I've cooked for on a contractual basis. I find cooking to be somewhat more rewarding than my computer exploits because the results are always instantaneous. People will either grimace and push the plate away, or sink back into their chairs with a blissful smile as they chew; quite a change from the corporate environment where you write code not knowing if it's used or even if anybody knows you did it.
I wrote a ton more about gettings started, and then decided I was going way off topic. I've moved it into my Journal in case anybody actually wants to read it.
Yes.
All of the code is in some kind of versioning system like CVS or BitKeeper or whatever is being used. Every check-in is stamped with a user ID as well. Is it not possible to grep through the CVS checkins to see when the offending code was checked in and who it was checked in by?
From what I understand about the Linux checkin methods, they're not really checked in by the person submitting the patch, but the LKML lists and other development lists are archived and most patches are submitted via e-mail from what I've read on the lists.
I really suspect that the code in question was checked in or submitted by a Caldera coder at some point...
That's gotta be the most politically incorrect thing I've ever seen posted on the front page of /.
Frigging hillarious...
In a pile on my desk...