Different grades of flash memory are available, visible to the consumer as the "Class" rating on SDHC cards (SD above 2 GB capacity). You can buy unrated, Class 2, 4, 6 and sometimes 8 MB/s nominal serial block write speed. These rating are very important for digital camera performance.
Did you try any of the Classed SD cards in a fast USB adapter (not all are fast) to establish some watermarks for what class flash chips the labels are hiding?
As has been very evident, SCO has been stretching this case out as long as it possibly can. It is not interested particularly in winning, just in not losing finally. Frighten away corporations who potentially would use Linux but with the lawsuit have to declare the risk on their SEC 10C filing.
The only player I can see with the motivation to continue the FUD is Microsoft, but they are probably hanging back since they are still and adjudged monopolist, and could be very severely penalized for interfering with a competitor. But never fear, they have a cloud of dependant VAR they can "motivate" to support SCO with a high-price asset sale.
It bothers me because I've done both. Simply put, finance is seeking out risk. Upside risk with lesser downside. Engineering is building machines (of all kinds) to operate with minimal risk. No matter how much math you do, you can't convert one into the other (except by erroneously dividing by zero)!
Furthermore, engineered systems have two separate control systems: normal operating controls and independant safety controls. Never the twain shall meet, for often the normal controls exacerbate the situation and must be pre-empted by the safety controls. The more advanced the normal controls (optimization), the more advanced the safeties have to be.
None of this is present in finance. VaR may be all well and good as a normal operating measure, but does nothing in the tail which will blowup. I do not see anything as a tail safety measure institutionalized. What measures are taken are done on "gut feel".
It is as predictable as April Fools -- media content-fillers try to fill the newsvoid with non-news. The press is a giant maw that needs feeding daily. Nevermind the quality of the feed. Ink and photons must be sold on sched!
The web is _slightly_ kinder since it does not have press- or airtime deadlines. The hits just drop off. Yet electrons need to be sold too!
Yes, the Nobel in economics isn't one of the originals. However, it _is_ selected by much the same method. And I fully expect science to evolve, including new areas.
Modern "Portfolio" Theory has received at least three Nobels. Yet MPT has lead directly and predictably (no fat tails) to the financial crisis.
I'm very unimpressed and becoming highly cynical on what passes for "accepted science." There seems to be a strengthening political element. Quite obvious in the case of Global Warming.
... and not just with customers, but now with judges/courts too. It's a "going out of business" move.
Defense attornies should have this violation at their fingertips and cite when motioning to limit discovery. Since it is substantially the same plaintiff (and may be the same attornies), the judge will have to consider the malfeasance, and probably is adequate justification for granting the motion to limit discovery rather than add conditions.
Of course, the RIAA can go to appeal, but for that to be successful, they will have to thoroughly purge themselves of their contempt cited. Judges (even appellate) do not tolerate being ignored.
If I am not mistaken, ordinary phonographic records can only legally be played in private settings, while records for public performance (like radio, malls, etc) need special versions & licences.
The use at Gitmo doesn't sound like "private performances" and sounds much more like "public performances" in the sense they are being done to further the organizations' goals, and not for private appreciation.
The artists involved may well have a copyright violation suit to press. Unlike patents, I do not believe the USGov has a royalty-free use of copyrighted materials.
Of course I know IPv4 are traceable. With DHCP that often requires going through ISP logs, not a trivial task, nor one that can easily be performed past the log retention period.
IPv6 _can_ be used in privacy-enhancing ways, but where there is determined government opposition, it will not be. A communications authority could easly require that certain of the 128 bits addr contain UIDs. What could an ISP do?
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure" [Mark Twain]
Yes, IPv6 is up. It could hardly be otherwise from such a small base. However, I still have major concerns about privacy/anonymity/security and separately about overhead.
I would not be at all surprised to see IPv6 as the choice of policemen and totalitarian states. Far easier user traceability.
Of course a protest exposes more people to the issue. But not necessarily that many more unless well covered by the media. Which is unreliable at best. I've seen multiple local media ignore a 100+ bipartisan political rally in favor of 6 PETAns protesting a dead elephant. I neither trust the coverage (completeness) nor content of media.
As for self-censorship, it is a form of highlighting and protesting against the pervasive lameness filters. Even at SlashDot. With your UID you may be too new to know about the actress and controversial warm breakfast cereal favored in the American South.
Yes, the more odious regimes generally abandon any pretense at separation of powers or even head-of-state from chief exec. But France and Germany and many other republics have a separation HoS from CEO, yet it doesn't make them noticably superior.
The real issue is separation of powers, and the whippability of representatives. This is where US "anticorruption" Campaign finance reform hides an extreme hazard. AFAICS, only the US and Japan have legislators moderately independant from their parties. Where they are not (here I invoke the grizzly spectre of Tony Blair putting down three backbencher rebellions over Iraq), the party boss controls all.
Although nicely social, demonstrations and protesting seems somewhat futile -- whinging you are unhappy and the perpetrators ought to fix it. Especially when they are stupid enough to not realize the level of discontent, they are likely to be stubborn as a matter of "principle" (most likely of power retention).
However, I don not see anything else Aussies can do. I don't think their constitution is strong enough to carry a challenge against parlementary primacy. Naturally, they can vote the b#ms out, but that happens anyways as a matter of control.
Unfortunately, many "democracies", especially UK-style parlements, functionally are elected dictatorships.
NSERC sounds like a Canadian grant. It is beyond stupid to ask about law without mentioning jurisdiction, especially since most of the posters here are or at least will assume the United States. Most canuks are bright enough to point it out.
Canadian law is very different from US, particularly around work-for-hire and you really need to talk with a local legal-aid office or lawyer.
Maybe Mom & the Grills should be prosecuted too. I don't know. Two+ wrongs do not make a right. As for monitoring & controlling teeners, do you have any idea how hard that is? They rebel. Mom apparently tried but was shouted down by obscenity. Schools require/advantage Internet and computer use, so its' tough to electronically ground the little darlings unless you happen to be a Linux netadmin. And CPS limits physical punishment.
The Grills escaped Federal prosecution by being offered immunity in exchange for testimony. Something of a Prisoners' Dilemma, I imagine. But at least one Grill was an employee acting on instructions. Not that that makes her innocent, but it does lessen her responsibility.
Please remember a jury of twelve forcibly ordinary people unanimously agreed on the verdict. Not the Federal govt.
As for News corp deciding, they could complain, but would have to justify the complaint. As I posed side-thread, there are affirmative defenses.
As for Megan (&mom), maybe they did lie but what was the benefit? Because that benefit is the essence of fraud. They'd have an affirmative defense of MySpace not even taking simple precautions and generally tolerating underage members. Drew doesn't have that defense.
I am perfectly comfortable with prosecuting fraud. That is, providing false information for profit/gratification. When you lie, it had better be for justifiable reason (protection) and not for any sort of benefit.
Encouraging suicide _would_ be assisting if you believe they are listening to you and would follow that instruction. Otherwise, intent fails since you have no reasonable basis to believe they'd do it.
The "unlawful access" law was certainly written for mainframes (more IMB than unix, IIRC) but has proven remarkably robust and seen little call for refinement. It has always had detractors, but so have all laws for the past thousand years or so.
Sure. Last msg was: "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you."
This from an exfriends mother impersonating a cute boy. Just like a sexual predator, grossly misrepresenting herself for personal gratification.
Be careful that your own tastes do not color your sense of logic or justice.
Suicide itself is legal in a number of places (England, Canada) while assisting it is still a crime.
We are talking about a very simple legal decision here: MySpace allows its' servers to be used for pleasant chat. It does not allow harrassment, and probably bans a fair number of people each month for this violation. The court found based on evidence that Lori knew or ought to have known this policy and wilfully violated it. Making server access unauthorized and unlawful (ignorance of the law is no excuse). Ergo guilty.
Thank you for the additional facts. I wonder why Missouri didn't prosecute.
Owing to the nature of the violation (unlawful access to computer resources), the charge would have to be brought where the server was located. So watch _where_ you are going. I do, and there are some places I just will not go. Do you?
Where is "assisting suicide" confined only to direct, physical assistance? Granted such assistance is obvious and intent easy to prove. But presuming the burdens of actions and intent can be proven why would other things not be "assistance"?
If you tell me you want to commit suicide and ask where you can buy rope, and I not assisting suicide if I answer you? If you don't say why, then of course I have no proveable intent.
This isn't a question of overcharging, but rather making sure the guilty are punished. Whether this is correct or not (maybe you rejoice over OJ), there _is_ a strong tendency in American justice not to allow people "to get away with murder."
As much as I respect her other writing, PJ needs a chill-pill. Hasn't she ever head "Bad facts make bad law?" The tormerntors' behaviour was egregious and they ought to have been charged with "assisting suicide" if such a charge was available in CA.
As for serverco retroactively ruling conduct "unauthorized", there's a panoply of affirmative defenses such as invitation, habitual tolerence, failure to notify, discriminatory enforcement. Cyberbullying wouldn't have those available.
Slashdot Mirror
Different grades of flash memory are available, visible to the consumer as the "Class" rating on SDHC cards (SD above 2 GB capacity). You can buy unrated, Class 2, 4, 6 and sometimes 8 MB/s nominal serial block write speed. These rating are very important for digital camera performance.
Did you try any of the Classed SD cards in a fast USB adapter (not all are fast) to establish some watermarks for what class flash chips the labels are hiding?
As has been very evident, SCO has been stretching this case out as long as it possibly can. It is not interested particularly in winning, just in not losing finally. Frighten away corporations who potentially would use Linux but with the lawsuit have to declare the risk on their SEC 10C filing.
The only player I can see with the motivation to continue the FUD is Microsoft, but they are probably hanging back since they are still and adjudged monopolist, and could be very severely penalized for interfering with a competitor. But never fear, they have a cloud of dependant VAR they can "motivate" to support SCO with a high-price asset sale.
Furthermore, engineered systems have two separate control systems: normal operating controls and independant safety controls. Never the twain shall meet, for often the normal controls exacerbate the situation and must be pre-empted by the safety controls. The more advanced the normal controls (optimization), the more advanced the safeties have to be.
None of this is present in finance. VaR may be all well and good as a normal operating measure, but does nothing in the tail which will blowup. I do not see anything as a tail safety measure institutionalized. What measures are taken are done on "gut feel".
The web is _slightly_ kinder since it does not have press- or airtime deadlines. The hits just drop off. Yet electrons need to be sold too!
Yes, the Nobel in economics isn't one of the originals. However, it _is_ selected by much the same method. And I fully expect science to evolve, including new areas.
Modern "Portfolio" Theory has received at least three Nobels. Yet MPT has lead directly and predictably (no fat tails) to the financial crisis.
I'm very unimpressed and becoming highly cynical on what passes for "accepted science." There seems to be a strengthening political element. Quite obvious in the case of Global Warming.
Defense attornies should have this violation at their fingertips and cite when motioning to limit discovery. Since it is substantially the same plaintiff (and may be the same attornies), the judge will have to consider the malfeasance, and probably is adequate justification for granting the motion to limit discovery rather than add conditions.
Of course, the RIAA can go to appeal, but for that to be successful, they will have to thoroughly purge themselves of their contempt cited. Judges (even appellate) do not tolerate being ignored.
The use at Gitmo doesn't sound like "private performances" and sounds much more like "public performances" in the sense they are being done to further the organizations' goals, and not for private appreciation.
The artists involved may well have a copyright violation suit to press. Unlike patents, I do not believe the USGov has a royalty-free use of copyrighted materials.
Everything is a question of ease. Do you want this to be easy?
IPv6 _can_ be used in privacy-enhancing ways, but where there is determined government opposition, it will not be. A communications authority could easly require that certain of the 128 bits addr contain UIDs. What could an ISP do?
Yes, IPv6 is up. It could hardly be otherwise from such a small base. However, I still have major concerns about privacy/anonymity/security and separately about overhead.
I would not be at all surprised to see IPv6 as the choice of policemen and totalitarian states. Far easier user traceability.
As for self-censorship, it is a form of highlighting and protesting against the pervasive lameness filters. Even at SlashDot. With your UID you may be too new to know about the actress and controversial warm breakfast cereal favored in the American South.
The real issue is separation of powers, and the whippability of representatives. This is where US "anticorruption" Campaign finance reform hides an extreme hazard. AFAICS, only the US and Japan have legislators moderately independant from their parties. Where they are not (here I invoke the grizzly spectre of Tony Blair putting down three backbencher rebellions over Iraq), the party boss controls all.
However, I don not see anything else Aussies can do. I don't think their constitution is strong enough to carry a challenge against parlementary primacy. Naturally, they can vote the b#ms out, but that happens anyways as a matter of control.
Unfortunately, many "democracies", especially UK-style parlements, functionally are elected dictatorships.
Canadian law is very different from US, particularly around work-for-hire and you really need to talk with a local legal-aid office or lawyer.
The Grills escaped Federal prosecution by being offered immunity in exchange for testimony. Something of a Prisoners' Dilemma, I imagine. But at least one Grill was an employee acting on instructions. Not that that makes her innocent, but it does lessen her responsibility.
As for News corp deciding, they could complain, but would have to justify the complaint. As I posed side-thread, there are affirmative defenses.
As for Megan (&mom), maybe they did lie but what was the benefit? Because that benefit is the essence of fraud. They'd have an affirmative defense of MySpace not even taking simple precautions and generally tolerating underage members. Drew doesn't have that defense.
I am perfectly comfortable with prosecuting fraud. That is, providing false information for profit/gratification. When you lie, it had better be for justifiable reason (protection) and not for any sort of benefit.
But Lori committed wire fraud. Why complain about her getting nailed?
The "unlawful access" law was certainly written for mainframes (more IMB than unix, IIRC) but has proven remarkably robust and seen little call for refinement. It has always had detractors, but so have all laws for the past thousand years or so.
This from an exfriends mother impersonating a cute boy. Just like a sexual predator, grossly misrepresenting herself for personal gratification.
Suicide itself is legal in a number of places (England, Canada) while assisting it is still a crime.
We are talking about a very simple legal decision here: MySpace allows its' servers to be used for pleasant chat. It does not allow harrassment, and probably bans a fair number of people each month for this violation. The court found based on evidence that Lori knew or ought to have known this policy and wilfully violated it. Making server access unauthorized and unlawful (ignorance of the law is no excuse). Ergo guilty.
Owing to the nature of the violation (unlawful access to computer resources), the charge would have to be brought where the server was located. So watch _where_ you are going. I do, and there are some places I just will not go. Do you?
If you tell me you want to commit suicide and ask where you can buy rope, and I not assisting suicide if I answer you? If you don't say why, then of course I have no proveable intent.
This isn't a question of overcharging, but rather making sure the guilty are punished. Whether this is correct or not (maybe you rejoice over OJ), there _is_ a strong tendency in American justice not to allow people "to get away with murder."
As for serverco retroactively ruling conduct "unauthorized", there's a panoply of affirmative defenses such as invitation, habitual tolerence, failure to notify, discriminatory enforcement. Cyberbullying wouldn't have those available.