I don't think it ever would actually fly. In such an instance, their case would be dismissed. Perhaps the consumer would have a counter-suit against the ISP for providing faulty data and causing damage to the consumer (specifically, the hassle of getting a dismissal), but if the RIAA uses information provided by the ISP with respect to an IP that had been used for illegal file sharing, it isn't really the RIAA's fault if the name/address data it receives is faulty. It is the ISP's fault and that's where liability ought to lie.
Yes yes yes -- cue the ad nauseum replies about open access points, friends, or compromised machines. Those are all defenses that may or may not be more or less successful in a suit. What they're talking about here is faulty data provided by the ISP and it seems to me that the RIAA can't be blamed for that, but the ISP sure can.
Already use it. I hate how to move an item from desktop to desktop, you must minimize to dock, then maximize on the desired desktop. DM is tacked on, not "OS integrated". Granted, OSX would be useless without it, but DM isn't up to snuff compared to linux offerings.
I already use Desktop Manager, but it doesn't integrate with the OS well, that's why I said "OS integrated". For example, to move an item from one desktop to another, I have to minimize it to the dock, go to the desktop, and then maximize it. The pager doesn't allow this and the title bar icon doesn't either (I prefer to not use the pager anyway). In a linux box, the pager in the title bar lets me grab and move applications. I can also right click on an app and send it to another desktop. I like this, and as I understand it, Spaces will allow such shuffling and is something I'd consider more or less integrated with the OS rather than tacked on like Desktop Manager. Don't get me wrong, OSX would be unusable without Desktop Manager, but DM has its flaws and limitations.
I'm not clear why you responded to me. I was just making a joke about calling alcohol a fossil fuel. FWIW, I think corn to ethanol is lame too (bourbon excepted), but it sounds like you're flaming me innapropriately here.
That's because while MS is playing catchup feature-wise (you add a nice caveat right to your question). Everyone else is behind market-wise, but enjoys better features and security. Why add in something like "oh yeah, and there's also a POS from MS which doesn't implement this feature fully"?
I have several macs and linux machines (the macs are laptops, the linux boxes desktops or servers). Everyone says all the time that linux isn't desktop ready, and yet, all these cool things I can already do keep creeping into OSX. I like OSX because I can legally have certain features which I can't on linux (basically mass market media), but I'm always wishing they would add things, like OS integrated multiple desktops (coming soon) and middle click paste. I suppose I'll have to wait to OS X Siamese Cat for middle click paste, but I'm really looking forward to "spaces". That alone will bring OSX 50% closer to the features I enjoy on my linux machines.
Nobody thinks the world would be at peace. But we wouldn't have fucked up Iraq. Saddam was no hero, but his was a secular regime hated by those who hate us. All we've done is give them another country to turn into a theocracy. At this point, there is no hope for the next three decades at minimum. Either we stay there till it is even more obviously impossible, at which point the anti-US theocracy takes over and 30-40 years later, tensions ease (think Viet Nam). Or we leave now, the theocracy takes over, and 30-40 years later tensions ease. This is all Bush's fault. Oh, and Nader's.
That is only true if all responsible parties are held to a reasonable level of accountability.
That's where the key word "foreseeable" comes into play. The basic standard is that if a reasonable person could foresee the potential damage, a person who's property caused that damage will be held accountable. There's a lot of wiggle room in the words "foreseeable" and "reasonable person". Personally, I think there has been enough publicity about security problems that it is foreseeable that a PC could be compromised if no measures were taken to protect it. What constitutes "reasonable measures" is of course, open to debate.
Then of course, "reasonable person" has it's own issues. Are we talking about any idiot or do we expect people to do a minimal level of research for products they buy? I would argue it is the latter. If a person were to store a cistern of acid on their property, it would be reasonable to hold them to a standard of "reasonableness" that would apply to people who regularly deal with acid storage. If the cistern corroded, leaked, and destroyed part of a neighboring nursery's stock -- I think it's really clear the nursery could sue the person storing the acid if he/she didn't employ the standard means of protecting against leakage. Similarly, if a person brings a dangerous piece of electronics on to their property, and unleashes it on the rest of the world, should they not be held to a basic standard of care with respect to that machine?
Honestly, I don't know how it would play out, but it would make a very interesting case.
Finally a reason (aside from erroneous child porn prosecution) to do something about all those compromised machines. If people thought the police might bust down their door to stop their computer from doing illegal things, they might think about being more responsible. Considering the damage an unattended compromised pc can do, it really is surprising that people don't face liability. If you keep a dangerous instrumentality on your property, and it causes damage to others, you are liable for that if the harm is foreseeable. Considering how the news has been peppered with these stories about compromised pcs causing people problems(*), the harm is now foreseeable.
(*) A total non-geek person I know brought up that AZ child porn case to me in conversation and mentioned she thinks her machine is probably compromised too.
Do you seriously think a mac user will buy video at walmart? I know I'm not the only mac user in the world, but I've got Walmart on the same list as MS, Sony, and any movie with Tom Cruise in it. Even if they had made thier store mac and linux compatable -- I wouldn't even consider using it.
And don't forget the main byproduct of fermentation is.... CO2. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of CO2 impact ethanol actually has (how much removed by corn when growing, how much released when the corn is fermented, how much released when the stalks decompose, and how much is released when the alcohol is burned).
Hold your horses there, if you want that job in spin control, you need merely say there was a keyboard error, and worse, I'm taking advantage of that by using his words out of context and twisting them to my own nefarious purposes.
Methinks you have a position available for you in "spin control". The first line of his post says "It's very unlikely that he has a product liability case here." Then he gives a list of (inherently inconsistent) reasons why he believes that.
Second, Dell has issued a safety recall and anyone who has chosen not to participate is going to have a hard time winning a case. Third, the Inspiron 1200 wasn't one of the affected systems.
So let me get this right. It's his fault because he didn't participate in a battery recall program in which he couldn't participate because his system wasn't on the recall list. You my friend, should consider running for public office.
Actually, it's a standard cannon of statutory construction that courts should avoid arriving at absurd results based on a literal reading. I mean, it's such a common notion to the courts, that paragraphs such as this are likely stored for easy cut & paste by judges:
This court has the ultimate authority to determine the meaning and purpose of a statute.... Our paramount duty in statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent.... We avoid a literal reading of a statute if it would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences.... "The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over the express but inept wording."
Internal citations omitted. This quote is from State v. Elgin. Note: this is a WA state case only, however, the rules of statutory construction described here are ancient and widely used... except perhaps by FL Ct. of Appeals. I would hope that FL Supreme Court judges are smarter.
These teens are just another example of kids who had no clue, thinking they knew what was best for themselves, without having any idea of what acting responsibly is all about.
Get real. The GP's point was not that they were making good decisions, it was that their bad decision was inconsequential (it was that great line about dropping a can of fruit on your foot). Seriously, you need to analyze this. Should kids get a criminal record for every dumb thing they do? I did lots of dumb things in my time (although I've never considered losing my virginity at 15 one of them). Despite my mistakes, I somehow managed to get through college and graduate school, run my own small business, and have a rich hobby-life on the side as well. Maybe the kids ought to be grounded or have their network privileges revoked for a couple weeks, but a criminal record? Insanity.
As an aside, if our laws become so draconian that it's impossible to not be a criminal in some way, might that encourage people to just become rapant law breakers? When you can't win, why try?
The LEDs are a sure sign of biological weapons but if you are going to make a poisonous chemical device, everyone knows you have to go incandescents. Jeez, what were you, sleeping during bomb making class?
Q. Is it forseeable that pouring boiling water on a person will cause burns. A. Yes
Q. Is it forseeable that pouring boiling water on a person will cause an earthquake in Uganda. A. No.
Q. Is it forseeable that a lite-brite advertisement placed w/o permission will get taken down and a fine sent to the party who put it up w/o permission? A. Yes
Q. Is it forseeable that a lite-brite advertisement placed w/o permission will cause an entire city to "duck and cover". A. No
So ten other cities had these and failed to go ape-shit. To me, it just sounds like boston is at the wrong end of the bell curve here. What's more retarded than Boston though, is bending over and paying out. Let me just cite this once again: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302011_devices 01.html. The headline reads: Cartoon Network publicity stunt sparks panic in Boston -- but not here
And it has some choice quotes, like this one:
"To us, they're so obviously not suspicious," said King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart. "They're not suspicious devices or packages. We don't consider them dangerous."... Neither Seattle police nor the King County Sheriff's Office received 911 calls regarding the figures, authorities said.
There, proof that both residents and officials of the Pacific Northwest are smarter/less paranoid the residents/officials of Boston.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it ever would actually fly. In such an instance, their case would be dismissed. Perhaps the consumer would have a counter-suit against the ISP for providing faulty data and causing damage to the consumer (specifically, the hassle of getting a dismissal), but if the RIAA uses information provided by the ISP with respect to an IP that had been used for illegal file sharing, it isn't really the RIAA's fault if the name/address data it receives is faulty. It is the ISP's fault and that's where liability ought to lie.
Yes yes yes -- cue the ad nauseum replies about open access points, friends, or compromised machines. Those are all defenses that may or may not be more or less successful in a suit. What they're talking about here is faulty data provided by the ISP and it seems to me that the RIAA can't be blamed for that, but the ISP sure can.
Already use it. I hate how to move an item from desktop to desktop, you must minimize to dock, then maximize on the desired desktop. DM is tacked on, not "OS integrated". Granted, OSX would be useless without it, but DM isn't up to snuff compared to linux offerings.
I already use Desktop Manager, but it doesn't integrate with the OS well, that's why I said "OS integrated". For example, to move an item from one desktop to another, I have to minimize it to the dock, go to the desktop, and then maximize it. The pager doesn't allow this and the title bar icon doesn't either (I prefer to not use the pager anyway). In a linux box, the pager in the title bar lets me grab and move applications. I can also right click on an app and send it to another desktop. I like this, and as I understand it, Spaces will allow such shuffling and is something I'd consider more or less integrated with the OS rather than tacked on like Desktop Manager. Don't get me wrong, OSX would be unusable without Desktop Manager, but DM has its flaws and limitations.
And while they're at it, Jim Flaherty could go too. I have a grudge against the MOF for other reasons, but still ...
I'm not clear why you responded to me. I was just making a joke about calling alcohol a fossil fuel. FWIW, I think corn to ethanol is lame too (bourbon excepted), but it sounds like you're flaming me innapropriately here.
That's because while MS is playing catchup feature-wise (you add a nice caveat right to your question). Everyone else is behind market-wise, but enjoys better features and security. Why add in something like "oh yeah, and there's also a POS from MS which doesn't implement this feature fully"?
I have several macs and linux machines (the macs are laptops, the linux boxes desktops or servers). Everyone says all the time that linux isn't desktop ready, and yet, all these cool things I can already do keep creeping into OSX. I like OSX because I can legally have certain features which I can't on linux (basically mass market media), but I'm always wishing they would add things, like OS integrated multiple desktops (coming soon) and middle click paste. I suppose I'll have to wait to OS X Siamese Cat for middle click paste, but I'm really looking forward to "spaces". That alone will bring OSX 50% closer to the features I enjoy on my linux machines.
Nobody thinks the world would be at peace. But we wouldn't have fucked up Iraq. Saddam was no hero, but his was a secular regime hated by those who hate us. All we've done is give them another country to turn into a theocracy. At this point, there is no hope for the next three decades at minimum. Either we stay there till it is even more obviously impossible, at which point the anti-US theocracy takes over and 30-40 years later, tensions ease (think Viet Nam). Or we leave now, the theocracy takes over, and 30-40 years later tensions ease. This is all Bush's fault. Oh, and Nader's.
Wow, +1 retard. How do I add someone to my foes list?
Then of course, "reasonable person" has it's own issues. Are we talking about any idiot or do we expect people to do a minimal level of research for products they buy? I would argue it is the latter. If a person were to store a cistern of acid on their property, it would be reasonable to hold them to a standard of "reasonableness" that would apply to people who regularly deal with acid storage. If the cistern corroded, leaked, and destroyed part of a neighboring nursery's stock -- I think it's really clear the nursery could sue the person storing the acid if he/she didn't employ the standard means of protecting against leakage. Similarly, if a person brings a dangerous piece of electronics on to their property, and unleashes it on the rest of the world, should they not be held to a basic standard of care with respect to that machine?
Honestly, I don't know how it would play out, but it would make a very interesting case.
Finally a reason (aside from erroneous child porn prosecution) to do something about all those compromised machines. If people thought the police might bust down their door to stop their computer from doing illegal things, they might think about being more responsible. Considering the damage an unattended compromised pc can do, it really is surprising that people don't face liability. If you keep a dangerous instrumentality on your property, and it causes damage to others, you are liable for that if the harm is foreseeable. Considering how the news has been peppered with these stories about compromised pcs causing people problems(*), the harm is now foreseeable.
(*) A total non-geek person I know brought up that AZ child porn case to me in conversation and mentioned she thinks her machine is probably compromised too.
Do you seriously think a mac user will buy video at walmart? I know I'm not the only mac user in the world, but I've got Walmart on the same list as MS, Sony, and any movie with Tom Cruise in it. Even if they had made thier store mac and linux compatable -- I wouldn't even consider using it.
I didn't forget that, that's the first part of my equation.
And don't forget the main byproduct of fermentation is .... CO2. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of CO2 impact ethanol actually has (how much removed by corn when growing, how much released when the corn is fermented, how much released when the stalks decompose, and how much is released when the alcohol is burned).
Hold your horses there, if you want that job in spin control, you need merely say there was a keyboard error, and worse, I'm taking advantage of that by using his words out of context and twisting them to my own nefarious purposes.
Methinks you have a position available for you in "spin control". The first line of his post says "It's very unlikely that he has a product liability case here." Then he gives a list of (inherently inconsistent) reasons why he believes that.
Internal citations omitted. This quote is from State v. Elgin. Note: this is a WA state case only, however, the rules of statutory construction described here are ancient and widely used
As an aside, if our laws become so draconian that it's impossible to not be a criminal in some way, might that encourage people to just become rapant law breakers? When you can't win, why try?
Wow. I hope you don't emigrate to America -- we don't need any more subversives than we already have.
The LEDs are a sure sign of biological weapons but if you are going to make a poisonous chemical device, everyone knows you have to go incandescents. Jeez, what were you, sleeping during bomb making class?
Perhaps if you pour boiling water on a butterfly resting on Godzilla's big toe ...
Q. Is it forseeable that pouring boiling water on a person will cause burns.
A. Yes
Q. Is it forseeable that pouring boiling water on a person will cause an earthquake in Uganda.
A. No.
Q. Is it forseeable that a lite-brite advertisement placed w/o permission will get taken down and a fine sent to the party who put it up w/o permission?
A. Yes
Q. Is it forseeable that a lite-brite advertisement placed w/o permission will cause an entire city to "duck and cover".
A. No
And it has some choice quotes, like this one:There, proof that both residents and officials of the Pacific Northwest are smarter/less paranoid the residents/officials of Boston.