"Jaynes' attorney, David A. Oblon, had argued that the spamming was not conducted in Virginia and that there was no evidence that e-mails were unsolicited."
What kind of evidence would you like, Mr. Attorney? Would you like to look through my Sent box to see if you see any requests for C!al!s or V!4gr4? What, you don't see any, but that doesn't prove anything, for I could have deleted the evidence?
I also happen to be not walking down the street soliciting strangers to punch me in the face. So if someone does that is his defense lawyer going to say, "look, there's no evidence that this punch was unsolicited"?
Yeah, the word "objective" has been corrupted to mean you allow Side A to lie and then you allow Side B to lie, and then you don't correct either lie, but hey you let both sides have their say! That way lies ignorance, in my opinion. I wish more journalists and news organizations would follow PJ's lead. I might get annoyed at the editorial slant if it differed from my own, but boy wouldn't it be nice to have news organizations quote Side A and then point out that they lied, here's where they lied, and here's how you can check for yourself?
And that's what makes Groklaw so great. You can get the facts anywhere, but PJ is able to translate law (and some tech) into language that is accessible to anyone. That allows the lightbulbs to go off for a lot more people than would be possible if people were just reading the court briefs.
And if ever there was a company and its actions that deserved "nasty language," it's SCO. And if ever a company inspired "conjectures on the motives of its executives," it's SCO. If ever there was a company that deserved "flat-out anti-" sentiment, it's SCO. I am so very grateful that PJ is not "objective." This was a case that called out for facts and interpretation of the law, not blind objectivity.
SATURN (Galactic News Agency) - The inhabitants of Saturn have announced that they have finally named the moon orbiting the third planet from the sun in their star system. The moon, named Xkeysdy, orbits the blue planet widely known as !3kd8dgh, which renders in Standard Galactic as "that wreteched place full of pushy peons."
When asked why they had named the moon now after millenia of observation, one student from Saturn's top university said, "Why not, you know? I mean, like, we had named everything else of importance, dude. Even the unimportant places. So like this was all that was left."
No comment could be received from inhabitants of !3kd8dgh, since they don't speak Standard Galactic. Moreover, they laughably think they are the only inhabitanted planet in the system, and it's considered taboo to disabuse them of this ignorance.
"Would you watch a TV station that played its ads over the show, cutting in at random moments so you miss key dialogue? Me neither. There are ways to host ads on Web sites that don't annoy the hell out of the user."
It already happens. You're watching a TV show and suddenly a swirling logo appears in a corner and then an ad for another show on that network appears. And then during the closing credits, the network will break in with obnoxious promos that block out anything you can see or hear on screen.
I disagree. It's illegal to sell the tapes to others, but there is nothing wrong with saying to your friends, "C'mon over, I taped Battlestar Gallactica. We'll watch it and hang out. Oh, you can't make it today? OK, here, take the tape and we'll talk about the show afterward."
"My neighbor makes the best apple pie. Problem is she doesn't sell it and stopped giving it out. So the only way for me to get it is to break into her house and steal it."
Sorry, that's, uh, apples and oranges. With the pie, you deprive your neighbor of a physical object that can only be in one person's possession. With a torrent of a TV show, you aren't taking anything physical from anyone. It was broadcast over the air for anyone to see freely. Lots of people taped it, and legally shared the tape with their friends. A torrent of the same is no different.
"Can we add a Nigerian email to this story, please?"
My most esteemed colleague,
I find myself so grateful in the knowledge that such persons as yourself exists and are willing to add such value to group conversations. I myself have been such a man, and it warms my hear to deal with a fellow man of honor.
It grieves me to say that such conversations are threatened by those who would profit from misfortune. I speak specifically of the president of my country who has forbidden the same. It is not easy in these troubling circumstances, but rest assured that I have powerful friends who are in a position to help. They lack on the means to a vast sum that can free up all such conversations. I know a professional man such as yourself will be in a position to help free my country from such dire matters, and reap a huge reward for your troubles.
I am contacting you because of a business concerning a huge sum of money from a deceased deposit in the Security and Finance company where a colleague of mine works in the Netherlands. Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude
will make any one apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that all will be well at the end of the day. I actually decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.
I shall be compensating you with 30% of the total money while 10% will be for any expenses incurred
the rest will be mine on final conclusion of this project. Please note that your share stays while the rest shall before me for investment purposes.
If this proposal is acceptable by you, do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you, I await your urgent mail. Please reply
to my private and confidential email.
Ooh, good idea! OK, here is my second paragraph as translated by Systran into German and then back into English:
But, if you give a bundle human material to computers, in order to read, set the directories language, like them are really used, not out, even there the directory them have. If odd language consumption falls after us, how it rains cats and dogs, has it a data base of similar consumption to draw to on. He, is it a rising ascent, but this is a good avenue, to of of Cheerio to try from of computers and of of top side O ' mornin ' to ya.
I wish them luck (cuz they'll need it), but if anything is going to produce translation software that really works it will have to include learning elements of this nature. It's one thing to get dictionary translations. That's been around for decades, with its laughable results. Humans speak in metaphor and simile and slang and contractions and abbreviations of thought all the time. We're the cat's meow of language (try that, computer!).
But if you give computers a bunch of human stuff to read, you expose the dictionaries to language as it is actually used, not just as the dictionary has it. Then when odd language usage falls upon us like it's raining cats and dogs, they will have a database of similar usage to draw upon. Hey, it's an uphill climb, but this is a good avenue to try. Cheerio, computers, and a top o' the mornin' to ya.
I don't know who I angered, but I'm getting modded down more than usual, including at least three different moderators who voted the parent post a Troll. A troll? Anyone reading it can see I was making a joke based on what the submitter said. Not funny? OK, that's a valid criticism for everyone has their own view of humor, and I respect that. But a troll? Wow, What did I do to them?
"Coincidentally, the foundation is in the middle of a fundraising drive to pay for new servers."
So like PBS, they bring the service down to remind you they need the cash to provide you with the service you wanted to see but they just brought down.
You are probably right to an extent, although I suspect by now media buyers are web savvy enough to know about the popup ad issues. But maybe it is as simple as that: More eyeballs no matter how they get them.
"A lot of technically unsavvy people have their computers configured for them by technically savvy relatives (cousins, nephews, neighbor's kids, etc...). These folks are a desirable audience for the advertising industry and so getting around the blocks is a good way to get at them."
You know what, I never thought of that angle. But yeah, that has to be a real-world situation that comes up. Good point.
How clueless must advertising executives be? Serious question, so if anyone reading this works in advertsing, would you please explain this to me:
How does defeating a measure designed to block your ads make good business sense? Does forcing your ads upon someone known to hate your approach produce good results? Does irritation equal a higher rate of return because people who hate your ads see them and have a change of heart? Do they say, "Hey, I had no idea those hateful ads were so interesting and useful to me. I think I'll buy their product."
Cuz my instinct is that when a person takes active efforts to banish you from their lives, forcing your way into their living rooms isn't a cost-effective approach. But hey, I don't work in advertising, as anyone who reads my About page on the headlines site knows. I like advertising in its place, but c'mon, if I kick you out of my house, stay there, please.
""The idea that the Earth, a fairly small and tame planet, can be an accelerator of particles to ultrarelativistic energies is fascinating to me," said David Smith, an assistant professor of physics at UC Santa Cruz and first author of the paper.
"The energies we see are as high as those of gamma rays emitted from black holes and neutron stars," Smith said.
The exact mechanism that accelerates the electron beams to produce TGFs is still uncertain, he said, but it probably involves the build-up of electric charge at the tops of thunder clouds due to lightning discharges, resulting in a powerful electric field between the cloudtops and the ionosphere, the outer layer of Earth's atmosphere.
"Regardless of the exact mechanism, there is some enormous particle accelerator in the upper atmosphere that is accelerating electrons to these very high energies, so they emit gamma rays when they hit the sparse atoms of the upper atmosphere," Smith said. "What's exciting is that we are now getting data good enough for the theorists to really test their models."
Cool, huh? It's like having a free, giant, massively powerful particle accelerator for use by scientists, but without having to build a massive building and dealing with constructions costs, red tape, and NIMBY issues.
"Jenkins! I want to test some data. Run it up the flagpole* and tell me the results."
* For sufficiently large flagpole, that is. Hey, combine this with the space elevator and you really got something!)
/. moderators have become cowards, unable to face dissenting views they disagree with. My parent post got modded to a "5." This angered some moderators who didn't like my ironic comment about the debates that go on around here. Or maybe they are irony-challenged. Or just right-wingers who cannot stand any criticism.
So what do these cowards do? Right, pretend I was trolling. Says a lot more about them than about anything I wrote.
It's a shame. I remember/. before the Microsoft astroturfers began patrolling, and before the right-wing types began moderating.
Don't be silly. Those data points do not match the political talking points. Politics trumps science nowadays, so ignore this article. Put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly "America the Beautiful" until you forget this article.
Yes, you're right, I should have phrased it differently. I wrote "it seems" based on what EFF said, but as you note it wasn't that clear cut, and they certainly don't know for sure. I'm sure Apple did do in-house investigation, but the fact that they are now backing down a bit tells me there are other steps they could have done but didn't, and they know it.
"Newitz said that "Apple may have a case" in suing anonymous individuals for violations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the Act holds liable those who receive trade secrets that were knowingly misappropriated), "but the issue is how they're getting the information." She said that Apple's actions are following a "tortured route" and that the company seems to be attempting to "beat these journalists with litigation."
The EFF's position is that the Web sites in question are viable journalistic endeavors, which places their writers under reporter shield laws, both at the federal and state level.
The federal shield law, which is based on the First Amendment, guarantees the "free flow of information" and allows reporters to assure sources that they will remain anonymous.
"There is a loophole--it's not that a reporter never has to give up information," Newitz said. "They can be forced to reveal sources only if every other source is exhausted." Newitz said that she felt Apple has not come close to examining other potential methods of identifying the parties who leaked confidential information; she said that to her knowledge, Apple has never performed or admitted to performing an internal investigation into NDA (nondisclosure agreement) violations.
The facts of this case are a bit more nuanced than I have seen discussed so far. Does the First Amendment protect a reporter's right to withhold identify his or her anonymous sources? Yes. There are times when a reporter is asked to break this bond, and we are seeing a current case over the probable felony that resulted from revealing Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation where the issues are much more serious than this Apple business. In this more serious case, a crime was committed, and a couple of levels of courts have ordered the reporters to identify their sources or else face contempt charges. The New York Times, among others, continues to fight this pressure to reveal anonymous sources so as to protect the precendent for future anonymous sources.
This Apple case is not nearly as important, and no court is going to go around ordering reporters to reveal Apple news sources the way they are with those associated with the White House who may have committed a felony. And not only is the Apple case involving less serious information, it seems Apple hasn't even done the basics first: Conduct thorough in-house investigation into which employee is doing the leaking. Even the EFF says that once Apple has done everything else, forcing a news source to report the identity of an anonymous source might be on the table, from the legal perspective.
So for now, Apple is backing down. But this is not the clear-cut case that we've seen. It may yet come down to the Apple news sites being asked to reveal their sources, for it may well be that some Apple employees are violating the terms of their employment. And that's what Apple is really trying to do: Find employees who are violating contract rules. But first they have to do everything else to find out this information before they think of asking a reporter to give up his or her information. But that could yet happen.
What more could a geek want?
on
Tech Oscars Awarded
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Lots of tech goodness, awards handed to geeks while praising them, geeks getting to give speeches to other geeks who applaud them, and Scarlett Johansson struggling to pronounce what you do. What more could a geek want?
Oh, right, having Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of evidence would you like, Mr. Attorney? Would you like to look through my Sent box to see if you see any requests for C!al!s or V!4gr4? What, you don't see any, but that doesn't prove anything, for I could have deleted the evidence?
I also happen to be not walking down the street soliciting strangers to punch me in the face. So if someone does that is his defense lawyer going to say, "look, there's no evidence that this punch was unsolicited"?
Yeah, the word "objective" has been corrupted to mean you allow Side A to lie and then you allow Side B to lie, and then you don't correct either lie, but hey you let both sides have their say! That way lies ignorance, in my opinion. I wish more journalists and news organizations would follow PJ's lead. I might get annoyed at the editorial slant if it differed from my own, but boy wouldn't it be nice to have news organizations quote Side A and then point out that they lied, here's where they lied, and here's how you can check for yourself?
And if ever there was a company and its actions that deserved "nasty language," it's SCO. And if ever a company inspired "conjectures on the motives of its executives," it's SCO. If ever there was a company that deserved "flat-out anti-" sentiment, it's SCO. I am so very grateful that PJ is not "objective." This was a case that called out for facts and interpretation of the law, not blind objectivity.
When asked why they had named the moon now after millenia of observation, one student from Saturn's top university said, "Why not, you know? I mean, like, we had named everything else of importance, dude. Even the unimportant places. So like this was all that was left."
No comment could be received from inhabitants of !3kd8dgh, since they don't speak Standard Galactic. Moreover, they laughably think they are the only inhabitanted planet in the system, and it's considered taboo to disabuse them of this ignorance.
It already happens. You're watching a TV show and suddenly a swirling logo appears in a corner and then an ad for another show on that network appears. And then during the closing credits, the network will break in with obnoxious promos that block out anything you can see or hear on screen.
It's a freely available program. It wasn't PPV.
Sorry, that's, uh, apples and oranges. With the pie, you deprive your neighbor of a physical object that can only be in one person's possession. With a torrent of a TV show, you aren't taking anything physical from anyone. It was broadcast over the air for anyone to see freely. Lots of people taped it, and legally shared the tape with their friends. A torrent of the same is no different.
My most esteemed colleague,
I find myself so grateful in the knowledge that such persons as yourself exists and are willing to add such value to group conversations. I myself have been such a man, and it warms my hear to deal with a fellow man of honor.
It grieves me to say that such conversations are threatened by those who would profit from misfortune. I speak specifically of the president of my country who has forbidden the same. It is not easy in these troubling circumstances, but rest assured that I have powerful friends who are in a position to help. They lack on the means to a vast sum that can free up all such conversations. I know a professional man such as yourself will be in a position to help free my country from such dire matters, and reap a huge reward for your troubles.
I am contacting you because of a business concerning a huge sum of money from a deceased deposit in the Security and Finance company where a colleague of mine works in the Netherlands. Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that all will be well at the end of the day. I actually decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.
I shall be compensating you with 30% of the total money while 10% will be for any expenses incurred the rest will be mine on final conclusion of this project. Please note that your share stays while the rest shall before me for investment purposes.
If this proposal is acceptable by you, do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you, I await your urgent mail. Please reply to my private and confidential email.
English: I think computers are great. -> Dog: Good doggie.
English: Aren't you paying attention to what I'm saying, you stupid mutt!? -> Dog: Good doggie.
LOL! And here's the same message translated from Cat to Dog and back into English:
"Bark!"
Wouldn't you be ready to eat and, uh, multiply if you had been without for 32,000 years?
But, if you give a bundle human material to computers, in order to read, set the directories language, like them are really used, not out, even there the directory them have. If odd language consumption falls after us, how it rains cats and dogs, has it a data base of similar consumption to draw to on. He, is it a rising ascent, but this is a good avenue, to of of Cheerio to try from of computers and of of top side O ' mornin ' to ya.
Cheerio, indeed! And how it rains cats and dogs!
/nt
But if you give computers a bunch of human stuff to read, you expose the dictionaries to language as it is actually used, not just as the dictionary has it. Then when odd language usage falls upon us like it's raining cats and dogs, they will have a database of similar usage to draw upon. Hey, it's an uphill climb, but this is a good avenue to try. Cheerio, computers, and a top o' the mornin' to ya.
I don't know who I angered, but I'm getting modded down more than usual, including at least three different moderators who voted the parent post a Troll. A troll? Anyone reading it can see I was making a joke based on what the submitter said. Not funny? OK, that's a valid criticism for everyone has their own view of humor, and I respect that. But a troll? Wow, What did I do to them?
So like PBS, they bring the service down to remind you they need the cash to provide you with the service you wanted to see but they just brought down.
You are probably right to an extent, although I suspect by now media buyers are web savvy enough to know about the popup ad issues. But maybe it is as simple as that: More eyeballs no matter how they get them.
You know what, I never thought of that angle. But yeah, that has to be a real-world situation that comes up. Good point.
How does defeating a measure designed to block your ads make good business sense? Does forcing your ads upon someone known to hate your approach produce good results? Does irritation equal a higher rate of return because people who hate your ads see them and have a change of heart? Do they say, "Hey, I had no idea those hateful ads were so interesting and useful to me. I think I'll buy their product."
Cuz my instinct is that when a person takes active efforts to banish you from their lives, forcing your way into their living rooms isn't a cost-effective approach. But hey, I don't work in advertising, as anyone who reads my About page on the headlines site knows. I like advertising in its place, but c'mon, if I kick you out of my house, stay there, please.
"The energies we see are as high as those of gamma rays emitted from black holes and neutron stars," Smith said.
The exact mechanism that accelerates the electron beams to produce TGFs is still uncertain, he said, but it probably involves the build-up of electric charge at the tops of thunder clouds due to lightning discharges, resulting in a powerful electric field between the cloudtops and the ionosphere, the outer layer of Earth's atmosphere.
"Regardless of the exact mechanism, there is some enormous particle accelerator in the upper atmosphere that is accelerating electrons to these very high energies, so they emit gamma rays when they hit the sparse atoms of the upper atmosphere," Smith said. "What's exciting is that we are now getting data good enough for the theorists to really test their models."
Cool, huh? It's like having a free, giant, massively powerful particle accelerator for use by scientists, but without having to build a massive building and dealing with constructions costs, red tape, and NIMBY issues.
"Jenkins! I want to test some data. Run it up the flagpole* and tell me the results."
* For sufficiently large flagpole, that is. Hey, combine this with the space elevator and you really got something!)
So what do these cowards do? Right, pretend I was trolling. Says a lot more about them than about anything I wrote.
It's a shame. I remember /. before the Microsoft astroturfers began patrolling, and before the right-wing types began moderating.
Don't be silly. Those data points do not match the political talking points. Politics trumps science nowadays, so ignore this article. Put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly "America the Beautiful" until you forget this article.
Yes, you're right, I should have phrased it differently. I wrote "it seems" based on what EFF said, but as you note it wasn't that clear cut, and they certainly don't know for sure. I'm sure Apple did do in-house investigation, but the fact that they are now backing down a bit tells me there are other steps they could have done but didn't, and they know it.
"Newitz said that "Apple may have a case" in suing anonymous individuals for violations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the Act holds liable those who receive trade secrets that were knowingly misappropriated), "but the issue is how they're getting the information." She said that Apple's actions are following a "tortured route" and that the company seems to be attempting to "beat these journalists with litigation."
The EFF's position is that the Web sites in question are viable journalistic endeavors, which places their writers under reporter shield laws, both at the federal and state level.
The federal shield law, which is based on the First Amendment, guarantees the "free flow of information" and allows reporters to assure sources that they will remain anonymous.
"There is a loophole--it's not that a reporter never has to give up information," Newitz said. "They can be forced to reveal sources only if every other source is exhausted." Newitz said that she felt Apple has not come close to examining other potential methods of identifying the parties who leaked confidential information; she said that to her knowledge, Apple has never performed or admitted to performing an internal investigation into NDA (nondisclosure agreement) violations.
The facts of this case are a bit more nuanced than I have seen discussed so far. Does the First Amendment protect a reporter's right to withhold identify his or her anonymous sources? Yes. There are times when a reporter is asked to break this bond, and we are seeing a current case over the probable felony that resulted from revealing Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation where the issues are much more serious than this Apple business. In this more serious case, a crime was committed, and a couple of levels of courts have ordered the reporters to identify their sources or else face contempt charges. The New York Times, among others, continues to fight this pressure to reveal anonymous sources so as to protect the precendent for future anonymous sources.
This Apple case is not nearly as important, and no court is going to go around ordering reporters to reveal Apple news sources the way they are with those associated with the White House who may have committed a felony. And not only is the Apple case involving less serious information, it seems Apple hasn't even done the basics first: Conduct thorough in-house investigation into which employee is doing the leaking. Even the EFF says that once Apple has done everything else, forcing a news source to report the identity of an anonymous source might be on the table, from the legal perspective.
So for now, Apple is backing down. But this is not the clear-cut case that we've seen. It may yet come down to the Apple news sites being asked to reveal their sources, for it may well be that some Apple employees are violating the terms of their employment. And that's what Apple is really trying to do: Find employees who are violating contract rules. But first they have to do everything else to find out this information before they think of asking a reporter to give up his or her information. But that could yet happen.
Oh, right, having Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman.