He has to prove her statements are false and she knows they are false and that she meant to defame him.
That's not how libel works. The plaintiff only has to show that it was damaging. The person who made the statement has to show that it was true, otherwise she loses.
Huh? In both criminal and civil courts in common law systems (e.g. the UK and the US, including Virginia), the burden of proof is on the person bringing the suit - the state for criminal cases, and the plaintiff for civil cases.
You're certainly wrong in the UK. For libel the plaintiff has to prove they have been financially damaged by the statement. It is then up to the defendant to show that what they wrote was true. If they can't show it was true, the plaintiff wins.
In other words you can only publicly write damaging things about people if you can show them to be true.
It's not up to the person that has been defamed to show they are not true.
You will find that very few people are bold enough to take the risk to do illegal things in plain sight.
Where did that comment come from? The vast majority of offences are committed in plain sight.
On the other hand when the secret of whatever you did is protected by law you may do whatever you want.
Any illegal thing that closed source DID is not protected by law. You seem to be advocating the equivalent of pre-crime. Worse in fact. That closed source is guilty not for having done anything. But because you suspect it it might do at some unspecified point in the future.
Most people will go along without asking any questions, in many cases because they don't know what questions to ask.
Here's a clue. Virtually no one gives a damn about your stupid questions. Just like you probably don't give a damn what questions should be asked to endure a product is Halal.
One person is a muslim. They require that their products are Halal. One person is a follower of RMS. They require that their products are open source.
Both think their reasons are fundamental and unarguable. Both think that the whole world should think the same as them. But it doesn't, and there's no reason it should.
Or nothing at all. In your case. Yet. Which proves nothing.
It proves nothing to the insanely paranoid.
Likewise, there MIGHT be a tea-pot in orbit around the plant Mars.
That is the main problem with closed source, you just don't know [if there's some malware feature that hasn't been enabled yet]. Ever.
You probably don't know with open-source either. Because you're probably incapable of understanding all the code. And even if you are capable you don't have time to read it all. Despite the "many eyes" catechism of open source, the truth is that most open source has only ever had one pair of eyeballs on it. The eye-balls of the person that wrote it.
Currently Apple has inferior products, with far less convenient features than the competition
Not true. Apple's products are obviously superior. They just don't price to serve the bottom end of the market as Android does.
Amongst people who actually want to use smartphones for the "smart" part - web-browsing and running apps, iOS is more popular. Or at the very least more people are actually using them for those purposes than are using Androids.
Androids market share comes from selling to the cheap "feature phone" market.
That was sarcasm. This isn't: iPhones can only run web applications and applications created on a Mac
Nonsense. To to any standards compliant web app with Safari, and then tell it to add the web app to the home screen.
That web app could have been created on any computer.
and its web browser limits the capabilities of web applications.
All browsers limit the capabilities of web applications. Generally for security and stability purposes. Are you telling me that of I access a web page on an Android it can take a picture of me and record my voice?
The difference between the App Store model and Ubuntu is that on Ubuntu, you don't need to pay a recurring fee just to add a PPA.
Which: a) Doesn't matter to consumers. b) Is one of the lesser but real reasons that the Apple App Store is safer.
Back in the olden days you weren't cryptographically limited to one store, except in the video game console market. Stores would compete for your business.
Heck in the real old days you'd go to the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the green grocer, the chemist (drug store), all in a days shopping. These days people do most of their shopping at a single hypermarket. And that trend isn't finished. It is after all more convenient to have everything in one store.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but should we really be leaving those kind of decisions to corporations whose primary motive is profit? That's like making a 10 year old responsible for your grocery purchases.
Or basing computing choices on the philosophy of an insane man who's publicly eating scabs off his foot.
There are malware on the Android platform (no more so than on ios or win moble/8/whatever it's called this week)
I'm afraid blatant lying will get you nowhere. There's lots of malware Android, But they're almost unknown on iOS. And Windows Mobile isn't known for viruses either.
Thankfully we're not all the same, and the "highly libertarian" types are a vocal extremist minority.
All AC means is that readers can't match up one statement from an AC from another. People never know if they are discussing with the same person, of different people. And that can be annoying.
It has nothing to do with keeping their personal privacy, because of course the majority of the people that post using an account use a pseudonym.
Slashdot Mirror
He has to prove her statements are false and she knows they are false and that she meant to defame him.
That's not how libel works. The plaintiff only has to show that it was damaging. The person who made the statement has to show that it was true, otherwise she loses.
By "apparently" you mean "according to her in the disputed statement on Yelp."
Of course these things could only be substantiated if they were true.
Seems like it'll be an easy case to judge one way or the other.
Huh? In both criminal and civil courts in common law systems (e.g. the UK and the US, including Virginia), the burden of proof is on the person bringing the suit - the state for criminal cases, and the plaintiff for civil cases.
You're certainly wrong in the UK. For libel the plaintiff has to prove they have been financially damaged by the statement. It is then up to the defendant to show that what they wrote was true. If they can't show it was true, the plaintiff wins.
In other words you can only publicly write damaging things about people if you can show them to be true.
It's not up to the person that has been defamed to show they are not true.
What's preventing me is that the person at the other end doesn't use Skype...
What are they using?
You will find that very few people are bold enough to take the risk to do illegal things in plain sight.
Where did that comment come from? The vast majority of offences are committed in plain sight.
On the other hand when the secret of whatever you did is protected by law you may do whatever you want.
Any illegal thing that closed source DID is not protected by law. You seem to be advocating the equivalent of pre-crime. Worse in fact. That closed source is guilty not for having done anything. But because you suspect it it might do at some unspecified point in the future.
Insane.
As I said, you have a truly closed mind.
Ah the sign of a truly closed mind. The notion that anyone with different ideas must be paid to have them.
Yes I have a TV. It doesn't run Linux.
If the iPhone hadn't been locked down (eg. it's jailbroken), you could easily install additional printer drivers or support
The entire premise of you comment debunked:
http://intelliborn.com/truprint.html
Most people will go along without asking any questions, in many cases because they don't know what questions to ask.
Here's a clue. Virtually no one gives a damn about your stupid questions. Just like you probably don't give a damn what questions should be asked to endure a product is Halal.
One person is a muslim. They require that their products are Halal.
One person is a follower of RMS. They require that their products are open source.
Both think their reasons are fundamental and unarguable. Both think that the whole world should think the same as them. But it doesn't, and there's no reason it should.
Or nothing at all. In your case. Yet. Which proves nothing.
It proves nothing to the insanely paranoid.
Likewise, there MIGHT be a tea-pot in orbit around the plant Mars.
That is the main problem with closed source, you just don't know [if there's some malware feature that hasn't been enabled yet]. Ever.
You probably don't know with open-source either. Because you're probably incapable of understanding all the code. And even if you are capable you don't have time to read it all. Despite the "many eyes" catechism of open source, the truth is that most open source has only ever had one pair of eyeballs on it. The eye-balls of the person that wrote it.
Currently Apple has inferior products, with far less convenient features than the competition
Not true. Apple's products are obviously superior. They just don't price to serve the bottom end of the market as Android does.
Amongst people who actually want to use smartphones for the "smart" part - web-browsing and running apps, iOS is more popular. Or at the very least more people are actually using them for those purposes than are using Androids.
Androids market share comes from selling to the cheap "feature phone" market.
Or how iTunes music is DRMed and locked to only Apple products.
No it's not.
Or how the iDevices are locked and limited to only the apps that Apple deems okay.
That's why it doesn't have the malware that Android does. As a result, amongst people that want to run apps, iOS is more popular than Android.
That was sarcasm. This isn't: iPhones can only run web applications and applications created on a Mac
Nonsense. To to any standards compliant web app with Safari, and then tell it to add the web app to the home screen.
That web app could have been created on any computer.
and its web browser limits the capabilities of web applications.
All browsers limit the capabilities of web applications. Generally for security and stability purposes. Are you telling me that of I access a web page on an Android it can take a picture of me and record my voice?
iPhone supports Skype. Now what's preventing you?
Ah, I see your belief in the RMS religion has progressed to where you want to enforce it on others. Truly you are a cultist.
How long before you progress to terrorism against the non-believers?
No, people in general don't care about the things RMS does. In fact if they'd ever come across him they'd mostly think he was insane.
And it's no illusion when people find their gadgets are doing the things they bought them for.
Fortune tellers and futurologists are usually wrong. So you've got the RMS religion, and believe his prognostications.
You believe something I think is stupid.
It's isn't ignorant to not belong to a cult.
The difference between the App Store model and Ubuntu is that on Ubuntu, you don't need to pay a recurring fee just to add a PPA.
Which:
a) Doesn't matter to consumers.
b) Is one of the lesser but real reasons that the Apple App Store is safer.
Back in the olden days you weren't cryptographically limited to one store, except in the video game console market. Stores would compete for your business.
Heck in the real old days you'd go to the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the green grocer, the chemist (drug store), all in a days shopping. These days people do most of their shopping at a single hypermarket. And that trend isn't finished. It is after all more convenient to have everything in one store.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but should we really be leaving those kind of decisions to corporations whose primary motive is profit? That's like making a 10 year old responsible for your grocery purchases.
Or basing computing choices on the philosophy of an insane man who's publicly eating scabs off his foot.
It only the massive marketing campaign by Apple/Microsoft that they fuck you over for your own good.
Ahem. The main Android device supplier? Samsung.
Samsung alone spend more than 10 times as much on marketing as Apple does. So much for the Apple is only successful because of the marketing myth.
Apple is successful because their products are better.
It doesn't power any of the devices I own.
There are malware on the Android platform (no more so than on ios or win moble/8/whatever it's called this week)
I'm afraid blatant lying will get you nowhere. There's lots of malware Android, But they're almost unknown on iOS. And Windows Mobile isn't known for viruses either.
No.
Thankfully we're not all the same, and the "highly libertarian" types are a vocal extremist minority.
All AC means is that readers can't match up one statement from an AC from another. People never know if they are discussing with the same person, of different people. And that can be annoying.
It has nothing to do with keeping their personal privacy, because of course the majority of the people that post using an account use a pseudonym.