You are wrong about electric cars, the will still require repairs: electronics, motors, transmissions, etc.
However, your overall point is VERY well taken.
We are reaching a critical juncture in human history where we must decide what we are going to do about all the excess human capital that we have.
This is a movie that was practically ruined by lens flare and/or screen whiteouts in almost every scene.
The cinematographer also insisted on having camera shake in at least 50% of the scenes, even if the ship was moving relatively smoothly though space. If there wasn't camera shake, the camera angle was coming up from the actor's feet at a 35 degree tilt.
In sum, the cinematography was distracting and truely, genuinely, terrible.
I will admit that I have never had a paid online news subscription.
That said, I believe that democracy cannot continue without a free and strong investigative press corps.
There was a day and age when dozens if not hundreds of news organizations made news. Today, we are down to a handful of organizations that have the resources, skills, and clout to get the stories that matter the most.
Blogs are not enough. They lack the credibility and the finances to pursue and investigate news. They only provide us with the information that the blogger can stumble across in their personal lives, or they parrot the news produced by the few real papers left.
Now, that does not mean I think the AP should charge for its content.. but.. news organizations have to make money somehow, and monetization though advertising doesn't seem to cut it..
Well, apparently outside of Maryland, the issue appears to be pretty well settled:
If users are notified, it affords them a chance to protest the subpoenas in court and, if successful, keep their identities secret and avoid being sued or targeted by somebody claiming defamation, copyright, privacy or other breaches. When individuals challenge subpoenas, the lawyers seeking their identity sometimes drop the case. And the courts routinely quash challenged subpoenas if they conclude there were no legal violations to begin with, privacy experts said.
"The notice gives you the opportunity to speak privately, by filing a motion to quash," said Fred von Lohmann, an intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The courts, before somebody's identity is released, are requiring a legitimate claim against you."
Still, if the subpoenas go unchallenged, the ISPs comply with them. "
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/news/2007/09/vw_parody_ad
It sounds to me that this process works a lot like a motion for summary judgment.
You can't just IGNORE a lawsuit against you, but you can motion for summary judgment, basically saying, "the case against me is so weak, please just throw it out."
It sounds like these internet subpoenas are being treated basically the same way.
You can't IGNORE them if you are served with a subpoena, and companies must have the ABILITY to get your identity via a subpoena, but if they have a total bullshit case, the judge can just decline to issue a subpoena.
That sounds TOTALLY reasonable to me.
Maybe we are just arguing past each other now...
But my basic point is that companies (and people) must have some way to "unmask" your IP/user handle for those cases where it is necessary to determine if you violated their legal rights.
Well, in 99% of all legal cases the ENTIRE POINT of the proceeding is the "illegality determination phase."
From murder to defamation, criminal and civil, innocent people of all sorts have to defend their actions (and even non-actions)!
I don't see how this sort of case is any different.
This is no different than the RIAA subpoenas of ISPs to determine who is illegally swapping music.
I don' like the RIAA, but I understand that private people and organizations MUST, under our legal structure as it stands, have the right to a PROCESS to determine the identity of someone causing them harm.
THEN, there can be a determination of whether or not there was any crime or civil tort or breach of contract.
TO be frank, I think that you are ignoring how our legal system actually works in 99% of all cases.
Also, imagine you were a business owner. Another business owner, down the street, hires 10 people to anonymously post brutal lies about your business on yelp.com.
Suddenly, you are almost broke.
Now, just because those lies were posted anonymously on the internet, you are saying that there should be NO LEGAL PROCESS by which the true identities of the people should be revealed?
If not, please clarify what your position is..
Well, lets flesh out the full hypo:
In the real world, a person can put a sign up in their front lawn saying "McDonalds is the worst tasting food ever" and no you can't touch that because it is opinion. It doesn't matter if it is anonymous or not.
On the internet, a person can do the same, with the same results.
But in both the real world, and the internet, if you write "This McDonalds puts human flesh in its burgers", you can be sued for defamation.
The court/jury will look at factors including whether or not it is parody and of course, whether or not it is true.
I don't see why posting on the internet (as apposed to placing a sign in your yard) should give you any sort of immunity from prosecution.
There is a legal PROCESS. If you didn't do anything wrong, you will be acquitted.
The only difference between print and the internet is that in theory you can print 1000 flyers defaming McDonalds, not put your name on it, and no one will ever know who spread them around central park. You can "get away" with it.
But similarly, you can go to a public library, make an internet post defaming McDonalds, and "get away" with it.
The point is that I see no reason why the internet should be different than print, anonymous or not.
That said, the court SHOULD AND MUST respect the difference between opinion and fact.
I can say, "The resturant should have been cleaner" and that is an opinion.. and should be protected on both the internet and print. (Unless maybe they can prove it was a Level 3 clean room, I kid, I kid)
Oh, but I would be totally up in arms if we ever allowed something like the DMCA take down notices, i.e. -- all you have to do is ALLEGE that something is a lie to have it taken down. That would be BS.
I see your point, but that isn't how speech has worked for 100s of years.
If you write something defamatory, presented as a fact, e.g. "there are rats in the kitchen here" you have always been liable for that speech.
A business would spend a HELL of a lot of money on lawyers if they subpoenaed every forum out there on a daily basis. A hell of a lot, as in tens of millions of dollars a year.
As a law student, it seems *entirely* prudent to me that a business man should be able to get a subpoena to get the IPs and names of people who are posting defamatory comments on the internet (assuming they are in fact defamatory).
That said, NOTHING should prevent a person from being able to make anonymous posts. It is only IF your posts break the law that you should be "discoverable".
Likewise, a person should be able to rant and rave about the government as much as they want. But if they make a post advocating an assassination, they face discovery of their IP/name.
Seems 100% reasonable.
I know that Verizon kept bluetooth off of many of its phones because it wanted to force users to use its pay-to-play "get it now" system.
Maybe Google is aiming for something similar?
It seems to me that sending an operating room to Mars to serve a crew of 10 or less is a HUGE waste of taxpayer dollars. With all due respect to the astronauts, Lewis and Clark did not have a mobile OR robot, and they did just fine.
For the millions or billions this system would cost, we could build a couple Earthside hospitals and save some innocent kids or something.
The ONLY possible rationale for building this would be if it would lead to expanded capabilities here on Earth, but I still don't think we should send a CT scan to Mars.
Well, for some crimes, the mens rea can be the omission of a duty to act. So intentionally or negligently failing to secure your music could be enough. A mens rea can set a standard as low as simple negligence.
Basically, by saying that he did not have the intent to distribute, he is making a claim that he did not have a Mens Rea to break the law. However, I am not sure that this is a valid legal argument. It will depend on what the statute and case law have established as the mens rea for illegal music distribution. It is entirely possible that merely placing music on an unsecured network is enough to meet the "intent to distribute" mens rea, and in that case, he is SOL.
IANL, yet.
It seems that this *IS* an issue for some people..
on
Gmail Mis.delivered?
·
· Score: 1
A lot of people are saying this isnt an issue, but it sounds as if several people here are saying they DO get email intended for others. Does that suggest that at one point (or even now?) Google let people sign up both john.smith@ and johnsmith@ as different accounts?
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong about electric cars, the will still require repairs: electronics, motors, transmissions, etc. However, your overall point is VERY well taken. We are reaching a critical juncture in human history where we must decide what we are going to do about all the excess human capital that we have.
This is a movie that was practically ruined by lens flare and/or screen whiteouts in almost every scene. The cinematographer also insisted on having camera shake in at least 50% of the scenes, even if the ship was moving relatively smoothly though space. If there wasn't camera shake, the camera angle was coming up from the actor's feet at a 35 degree tilt. In sum, the cinematography was distracting and truely, genuinely, terrible.
I will admit that I have never had a paid online news subscription. That said, I believe that democracy cannot continue without a free and strong investigative press corps. There was a day and age when dozens if not hundreds of news organizations made news. Today, we are down to a handful of organizations that have the resources, skills, and clout to get the stories that matter the most. Blogs are not enough. They lack the credibility and the finances to pursue and investigate news. They only provide us with the information that the blogger can stumble across in their personal lives, or they parrot the news produced by the few real papers left. Now, that does not mean I think the AP should charge for its content.. but.. news organizations have to make money somehow, and monetization though advertising doesn't seem to cut it..
The people need to DO something about this. It IS a slippery slope.
Well, apparently outside of Maryland, the issue appears to be pretty well settled: If users are notified, it affords them a chance to protest the subpoenas in court and, if successful, keep their identities secret and avoid being sued or targeted by somebody claiming defamation, copyright, privacy or other breaches. When individuals challenge subpoenas, the lawyers seeking their identity sometimes drop the case. And the courts routinely quash challenged subpoenas if they conclude there were no legal violations to begin with, privacy experts said. "The notice gives you the opportunity to speak privately, by filing a motion to quash," said Fred von Lohmann, an intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The courts, before somebody's identity is released, are requiring a legitimate claim against you." Still, if the subpoenas go unchallenged, the ISPs comply with them. " http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/news/2007/09/vw_parody_ad It sounds to me that this process works a lot like a motion for summary judgment. You can't just IGNORE a lawsuit against you, but you can motion for summary judgment, basically saying, "the case against me is so weak, please just throw it out." It sounds like these internet subpoenas are being treated basically the same way. You can't IGNORE them if you are served with a subpoena, and companies must have the ABILITY to get your identity via a subpoena, but if they have a total bullshit case, the judge can just decline to issue a subpoena. That sounds TOTALLY reasonable to me. Maybe we are just arguing past each other now... But my basic point is that companies (and people) must have some way to "unmask" your IP/user handle for those cases where it is necessary to determine if you violated their legal rights.
Well, in 99% of all legal cases the ENTIRE POINT of the proceeding is the "illegality determination phase." From murder to defamation, criminal and civil, innocent people of all sorts have to defend their actions (and even non-actions)! I don't see how this sort of case is any different. This is no different than the RIAA subpoenas of ISPs to determine who is illegally swapping music. I don' like the RIAA, but I understand that private people and organizations MUST, under our legal structure as it stands, have the right to a PROCESS to determine the identity of someone causing them harm. THEN, there can be a determination of whether or not there was any crime or civil tort or breach of contract. TO be frank, I think that you are ignoring how our legal system actually works in 99% of all cases.
Also, imagine you were a business owner. Another business owner, down the street, hires 10 people to anonymously post brutal lies about your business on yelp.com. Suddenly, you are almost broke. Now, just because those lies were posted anonymously on the internet, you are saying that there should be NO LEGAL PROCESS by which the true identities of the people should be revealed? If not, please clarify what your position is..
Well, lets flesh out the full hypo: In the real world, a person can put a sign up in their front lawn saying "McDonalds is the worst tasting food ever" and no you can't touch that because it is opinion. It doesn't matter if it is anonymous or not. On the internet, a person can do the same, with the same results. But in both the real world, and the internet, if you write "This McDonalds puts human flesh in its burgers", you can be sued for defamation. The court/jury will look at factors including whether or not it is parody and of course, whether or not it is true. I don't see why posting on the internet (as apposed to placing a sign in your yard) should give you any sort of immunity from prosecution. There is a legal PROCESS. If you didn't do anything wrong, you will be acquitted. The only difference between print and the internet is that in theory you can print 1000 flyers defaming McDonalds, not put your name on it, and no one will ever know who spread them around central park. You can "get away" with it. But similarly, you can go to a public library, make an internet post defaming McDonalds, and "get away" with it. The point is that I see no reason why the internet should be different than print, anonymous or not. That said, the court SHOULD AND MUST respect the difference between opinion and fact. I can say, "The resturant should have been cleaner" and that is an opinion.. and should be protected on both the internet and print. (Unless maybe they can prove it was a Level 3 clean room, I kid, I kid)
Oh, but I would be totally up in arms if we ever allowed something like the DMCA take down notices, i.e. -- all you have to do is ALLEGE that something is a lie to have it taken down. That would be BS.
I see your point, but that isn't how speech has worked for 100s of years. If you write something defamatory, presented as a fact, e.g. "there are rats in the kitchen here" you have always been liable for that speech. A business would spend a HELL of a lot of money on lawyers if they subpoenaed every forum out there on a daily basis. A hell of a lot, as in tens of millions of dollars a year.
As a law student, it seems *entirely* prudent to me that a business man should be able to get a subpoena to get the IPs and names of people who are posting defamatory comments on the internet (assuming they are in fact defamatory). That said, NOTHING should prevent a person from being able to make anonymous posts. It is only IF your posts break the law that you should be "discoverable". Likewise, a person should be able to rant and rave about the government as much as they want. But if they make a post advocating an assassination, they face discovery of their IP/name. Seems 100% reasonable.
I know that Verizon kept bluetooth off of many of its phones because it wanted to force users to use its pay-to-play "get it now" system. Maybe Google is aiming for something similar?
It seems to me that sending an operating room to Mars to serve a crew of 10 or less is a HUGE waste of taxpayer dollars. With all due respect to the astronauts, Lewis and Clark did not have a mobile OR robot, and they did just fine.
For the millions or billions this system would cost, we could build a couple Earthside hospitals and save some innocent kids or something.
The ONLY possible rationale for building this would be if it would lead to expanded capabilities here on Earth, but I still don't think we should send a CT scan to Mars.
Well, for some crimes, the mens rea can be the omission of a duty to act. So intentionally or negligently failing to secure your music could be enough. A mens rea can set a standard as low as simple negligence.
Basically, by saying that he did not have the intent to distribute, he is making a claim that he did not have a Mens Rea to break the law. However, I am not sure that this is a valid legal argument. It will depend on what the statute and case law have established as the mens rea for illegal music distribution. It is entirely possible that merely placing music on an unsecured network is enough to meet the "intent to distribute" mens rea, and in that case, he is SOL. IANL, yet.
A lot of people are saying this isnt an issue, but it sounds as if several people here are saying they DO get email intended for others. Does that suggest that at one point (or even now?) Google let people sign up both john.smith@ and johnsmith@ as different accounts?