Of course it isn't just as telling someone that there is a book that says Hitler is a bad guy isn't saying it yourself even if it's true.
It's informing someone of a resource not defaming someone.
Let me suggest that you read all the way to the end of the decision -- context is everything. The judge essentially said that the context in which you put the link is the critical factor:
[34] I do not wish to be misunderstood. It is not my decision that hyperlinking can
never make a person liable for the contents of the remote site. For example, if Mr.
Newton had written "the truth about Wayne Crookes is found here" and "here" is
hyperlinked to the specific defamatory words, this might lead to a different
conclusion.
Judging by my squid analysis (using Calamaris), Squid will only save about 10% of a small network's bandwidth -- even if it is setup with a reasonably large (5GB) cache and a large size (100MB) for the maximum size of cached objects.
"Once the parents spend over $600, the students do slightly better,"
And their costs for home school versus public schooling are highly lop-sided, not taking into consideration the cost of parent's time donated, subsidized meals, etc., etc.
Absolutely, once you take into account the potential loss of income for the parent who teaches the kids at home rather than works (hey, it works for the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc.), for smaller families, this makes homeschooling typically very expensive per child.
I believe the issue was largely that it blocked most online gambling but left online bets on horse-racing intact. This was deemed discriminatory. Had the US outlawed all online gambling, it would likely not have been subject to sanction.
I don't think this is quite right. The US has an obligation to allow on-line gambling under WTO treaties. The only way to avoid requirements of the WTO treaties is under moral grounds. If you allow any kind of gambling, you can't object to on-line gambling as "immoral".
I'm early '50s and I think I dream in B&W, but.... my memories are largely B&W also. I don't really remember colors, although I can attach a color tag to a memory. For example, when remebering a car, I might not visualize the color of a car -- only the shape, but I could associate the word red with the memory of the car.
Exactly. They claim that the can search "every document attached to an e-mail.. -- to see if it matches a list of illegal images. Apparently, they have never heard of SMTP-TLS, POP3S, etc.. Or perhaps they have and they are just like many others -- selling snake oil.
With SSL access to gmail and increasing use of SMTP-TLS providing encrypted MTA-to-MTA communications, email is more often only accessible in clear text on the server. Since Google is a US-based company, does it provide access to people's mailboxes to the UK government. I am assuming that warrants for every gmail user in the UK would not be granted, so we are talking about warrantless access.
Or perhaps the UK government thinks that everyone in the UK uses a UK-based email provider?
The UK had its own domestic terrorists for decades: the IRA. Yet the government did not feel that such pervasive monitoring was necessary. Now, largely because of something that happened 3000 miles away, the UK feels that such pervasive monitoring is necessary.
I say BS: every agency is wetting themselves hoping to get their hands on this data so that they can pursue their own petty agendas in the same way as RIPA powers have been used for trivial reasons.
Everyone has something to hide. Not necessarily illegal, but enough to coerce behavior.
They solved the technical issue (and built a better mousetrap), but could not convince the world to use it.
I don't know about "could not" -- FreeS/WAN was closed down very shortly after OE was released to production -- perhaps only 6 months, maybe a year. I had implemented OE and was disappointed to see the project die.
Opportunistic encryption was the original goal of the FreeS/WAN [freeswan.org] project. It was not realised,
That depends on your definition of "not realized". Before the FreeS/WAN project was abandoned, opportunistic encryption had been implemented and was in use. Adoption was probably quite small, but it existed.
You are missing the much more important other side.... if parents think it is good to limit performance while kids are driving, what if your government thinks it is a good idea to limit performance for all drivers?
If there are verifiable facts that support Merkey's claims, then I might start to believe them. However, I would be extremely careful to ensure that all his claims are verified. Using your example above I would want proof of causality -- in other words, proof that Jimbo did X BECAUSE Merkey did Y.
What amazes me, though is that there are still people in the WP community who think that Merkey can be a valuable contributor and not be a massive disruption to the WP community. I have to note, however, that I have a lot of distain for the WP community.
I have seen this story for a while now. I my mind however, you blew your credibility with this post
You do know that a Judge wrote an opinion in which he described Merkey as inhabiting his own alternate reality, don't you? If Merkey told me on a mid-summer's day that the sky was blue, I would not believe it without looking for myself.
or is it hard to believe that this and other judges are highly influenced by their own prejudices, to the point that they issue rulings that are legally unsound?
It's likely clear that not only a fault was identified, but a relatively easy to exploit one, and in the light of the short time between now and the election, he's basically got to place a gag order to avoid any potential for abuse of the voting systems 4 weeks from now.
An unfortunate situation that we are in now - in no small part because the majority of election officials have been playing the three wise monkeys over issues with voting systems.
With a 750GB [newegg.com] hard drive selling under $100, what has changed?
The relative speeds of disks and memory have changed.
I am thinking of reducing the amount of swap on my primary compute server -- the reason is simple: if the machine starts using appreciable amounts of swap, it becomes so slow, it is unusable. So, really, by reducing the swap, what I do is get the OOM killer to take action and kill some processes sooner. I may have an unusual situation that when my machine is out of memory, the cause is almost certainly due to a proces that I want killed anyway.
So, if there's a chance that an employee is going to come up with something that's worth $100M per year for the next 15 years, do you give that, or even a seemingly insignificant 1% of that, to the employee, or do you hold it for yourself?
Employees have options. They can work for someone else. They may be able to set up their own company. So, let me re-phrase your question differently: As an employer, would you prefer to keep 99% of $100M or 0%? Giving away an insignificant amount may be the smart move in the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me suggest that you read all the way to the end of the decision -- context is everything. The judge essentially said that the context in which you put the link is the critical factor:
Judging by my squid analysis (using Calamaris), Squid will only save about 10% of a small network's bandwidth -- even if it is setup with a reasonably large (5GB) cache and a large size (100MB) for the maximum size of cached objects.
Absolutely, once you take into account the potential loss of income for the parent who teaches the kids at home rather than works (hey, it works for the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc.), for smaller families, this makes homeschooling typically very expensive per child.
This is just another example of how the FBI is failing the people of the USA. There is no way this should have taken 3 years to shut down.
It's not even an example where the FBI helped a company but would not help individuals. Most (if not all) of the victims were companies.
I don't think this is quite right. The US has an obligation to allow on-line gambling under WTO treaties. The only way to avoid requirements of the WTO treaties is under moral grounds. If you allow any kind of gambling, you can't object to on-line gambling as "immoral".
I'm early '50s and I think I dream in B&W, but .... my memories are largely B&W also. I don't really remember colors, although I can attach a color tag to a memory. For example, when remebering a car, I might not visualize the color of a car -- only the shape, but I could associate the word red with the memory of the car.
Exactly. They claim that the can search "every document attached to an e-mail .. -- to see if it matches a list of illegal images. Apparently, they have never heard of SMTP-TLS, POP3S, etc.. Or perhaps they have and they are just like many others -- selling snake oil.
Did we not discuss this just 2 days ago.
IMHO, letting an interviewer think that you have to learn anything in order to do the job is the kiss of death for any interview.
With SSL access to gmail and increasing use of SMTP-TLS providing encrypted MTA-to-MTA communications, email is more often only accessible in clear text on the server. Since Google is a US-based company, does it provide access to people's mailboxes to the UK government. I am assuming that warrants for every gmail user in the UK would not be granted, so we are talking about warrantless access.
Or perhaps the UK government thinks that everyone in the UK uses a UK-based email provider?
The UK had its own domestic terrorists for decades: the IRA. Yet the government did not feel that such pervasive monitoring was necessary. Now, largely because of something that happened 3000 miles away, the UK feels that such pervasive monitoring is necessary.
I say BS: every agency is wetting themselves hoping to get their hands on this data so that they can pursue their own petty agendas in the same way as RIPA powers have been used for trivial reasons.
Everyone has something to hide. Not necessarily illegal, but enough to coerce behavior.
I don't know about "could not" -- FreeS/WAN was closed down very shortly after OE was released to production -- perhaps only 6 months, maybe a year. I had implemented OE and was disappointed to see the project die.
No.
That depends on your definition of "not realized". Before the FreeS/WAN project was abandoned, opportunistic encryption had been implemented and was in use. Adoption was probably quite small, but it existed.
You are missing the much more important other side .... if parents think it is good to limit performance while kids are driving, what if your government thinks it is a good idea to limit performance for all drivers?
Shocked indeed.
Unfortunately, there are far too many (largely former) artists, who would prefer to sit back and let the record labels pull in the money for them.
If there are verifiable facts that support Merkey's claims, then I might start to believe them. However, I would be extremely careful to ensure that all his claims are verified. Using your example above I would want proof of causality -- in other words, proof that Jimbo did X BECAUSE Merkey did Y.
What amazes me, though is that there are still people in the WP community who think that Merkey can be a valuable contributor and not be a massive disruption to the WP community. I have to note, however, that I have a lot of distain for the WP community.
Judd,
I have seen this story for a while now. I my mind however, you blew your credibility with this post
You do know that a Judge wrote an opinion in which he described Merkey as inhabiting his own alternate reality, don't you? If Merkey told me on a mid-summer's day that the sky was blue, I would not believe it without looking for myself.
Your entire post is an Ad Hominem argument. It says nothing about the truth or otherwise of the accusations against Gary Weiss and others.
Why believe that Windows 7 will be better? Wasn't that the promise of Vista?
MS has not delivered its promised features so many times that it makes no sense to believe that Windows 7 will be any different.
or is it hard to believe that this and other judges are highly influenced by their own prejudices, to the point that they issue rulings that are legally unsound?
Didn't Linspire get $20M from Microsoft for changing its name from Lindows?
An unfortunate situation that we are in now - in no small part because the majority of election officials have been playing the three wise monkeys over issues with voting systems.
The relative speeds of disks and memory have changed.
I am thinking of reducing the amount of swap on my primary compute server -- the reason is simple: if the machine starts using appreciable amounts of swap, it becomes so slow, it is unusable. So, really, by reducing the swap, what I do is get the OOM killer to take action and kill some processes sooner. I may have an unusual situation that when my machine is out of memory, the cause is almost certainly due to a proces that I want killed anyway.
Employees have options. They can work for someone else. They may be able to set up their own company. So, let me re-phrase your question differently:
As an employer, would you prefer to keep 99% of $100M or 0%?
Giving away an insignificant amount may be the smart move in the long term.