Why should downloaders be an exception? For that matter, why should uploaders be singled out in particular?
Because the uploader is the supplier, they are the one infringing the copyright. You might be creating the copy because I'm asking you to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's you making the copy, and that is the part of the transaction that is copyright infringement.
>'Others', as in SHORT SIGHTED 'ACTIVIST' SHAREHOLDERS who want that quarterly price target hit, were the ones who pushed back.
Not buying this. The majority of Google is closely held, and if the people who held it kept their originally articulated vision for the company (starting with "Don't be evil") then people like Carl Icahn could go pound sand. That said, the push back is likely because "Oh, crap, this is much harder and more expensive than we thought it would be" coupled with the fact that Google has the attention span of a Golden Retriever with ADHD. Viewed in that light, the objections are likely reasonable.
First is that the vast majority of our spending is on social programs and the military. The Democrats (generally) want to cut military spending and increase social spending. The Republicans (generally) want to cut social spending and increase military spending. Neither of them wants to actually spend on infrastructure unless there is a direct intersection with their primary objectives. Most of our national infrastructure that wasn't built by private parties is a result of those intersections (i.e. PWA in the 1930s trying to spend our way out of the Great Depression, or WW2/Cold War era military spending). They'll talk a good game at election time, or during a State of the Union speech, but when the time comes to allocate funds, it rarely seems to happen unless one of the intersections above is in play, or something just exploded and the politicians are afraid of looking like it's their fault. I don't expect this to change meaningfully in my lifetime.
Second is that we can't do anything as a society anymore because we're a culture of blaming (so we're incredibly risk averse). The lawyers and insurance people run the show on all major projects, and things cost much more, and take much longer to build (and the longer build times make things cost even more). The Empire State Building took 13 1/2 months to build. 1WTC took about eight years, which is two years longer than the first transcontinental railroad (which went through two mountain ranges with nothing more than dynamite and hand tools). I DO expect this one to change meaningfully in my lifetime, though I expect it to get worse instead of better.
You're still (probably quite a bit) low. Your $20/hr is definitely short of the fully loaded cost of those guys (these are usually not day laborers picked up outside Home Depot, but skilled professionals in their own right, and even the flaggers are probably members of CWA) and your time calc is also probably just to "pass" the house. It costs more time to put the peds/dog houses in at each house, then to string or bury the cable to the house itself. All in all, your labor cost "per house" is probably pushing 10x the above number.
If you're going to be pedantic and point out that the slippers were "ruby" instead of "red" then I'll point out that they were only "ruby" slippers because it looked good in Technicolor. The shoes in the book are silver.
Voting for the (R) or the (D), especially when both of them are downright horrible candidates, only ensures that we'll have more of the same into the future.
To put it another way, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."
The worst part is that a former 4-star general just pled guilty to lying to the FBI when he was being investigated for possibly leaking classified information.
They should definitely keep using the old stuff until they figure out how to build something that is actually a useful replacement. I've never managed an aircraft carrier flight deck, but I imagine it would be pretty useful (and probably have some good knock on effects) if you could see more than just the deck RIGHT NOW. What if you could see it ten minutes ago, yesterday, trend out what moves where and when, have pre-loaded configurations (including least cost pathfinding) to respot equipment...
Yeah, I don't have any trouble believing that whatever LockMart delivered was a piece of shit, but "nuts and bolts on a board" is not the end all be all.
Based on what I've seen in other cases, it seems to me like those fees are broken out so that a finger can be pointed at someone else and used for leverage. In other words, "Don't like that cost? It's all the FCC's fault", or something like that.
FWIW, the finger needs pointing. There was an issue with Viacom vs Dish a couple of years ago where Dish stopped carrying CBS. Huge screams in the media and from customers, finger pointing by both sides, but in the end it comes down to this:
In the past, the FCC mandated that cable and satellite companies carry broadcast stations in the local markets (not too big a problem on the cable side, but a big PITA on the satellite side). The deal was mandated carriage vs no license fees, and it was (in general) a fair one. Fast forward and the networks decided that since they were now entrenched, it was time to get paid by the evil cable/satellite companies "free riding" on their content.
The fact that it's a hidden fee is bullshit (the total should match the advertised rate + tax) but the fee definitely needs to be broken out separately, because charging to rebroadcast an advertising supported network in the very area they're giving the signal away for free is also complete bullshit.
The "State Actor" here, if you will, would have been the US leaning on Ecuador to take these actions, but I agree that a conversation like the above almost certainly happened. The conspiracy theories around this are just amazing.
Water costs a buck a bottle in a convenience store, where it's nice and chilled and waiting to be consumed right now. Water costs less than $0.10 a bottle when you buy it by the case at the supermarket. It's even cheaper when you buy it in 2.5 gallon jugs.
While that may be true in the literal sense (one could use a knife, or a vegetable peeler, or a melon baller, etc) in the general sense, I'm reasonably certain there is only one (removal of the epidermis from the underlying muscle, bone, etc).
Yahoo knew, and didn't disclose. Presumably, they also didn't disclose the NSA stuff, either (though something tells me that, being a telecom, Verizon wouldn't actually have a problem with that one). The email platform (and associated user base) is one of the few things that Yahoo still has that is worth anything, and its value has likely been irreparably damaged. Verizon should definitely be able to walk away clean from this.
The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.
Welcome to the real world. Wikileaks has ALWAYS had an agenda, but that was fine for some people when Assange was targeting those they disagreed with. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's suddenly a problem.
In any case, the failure to redact phone numbers and other personal information suggests that Wikileaks cannot really be regarded as a reasonable way to leak data.
You're kidding, right? If you're leaking data, you should redact it before you give it to someone else to do with whatever they please, because who is to say that the non-redacted data won't accidentally leak, much less purposefully?
Finally, I suspect that the one-sided nature of the leaks is upsetting many people who would otherwise support Wikileaks.
See point one above. There are plenty on the right these days cheering them on, because many of those people are hypocrites, too.
The statute you cite is for physical information. E-mail may not necessarily be covered unless the meaning was litigated?
Here you go. "Floppy disks" are not email, but your analog would be the hard drives in the Clinton email server. John Deutch is probably an even better example (he was pardoned after a VERY similar set of circumstances). Finding more than this is a bit difficult, given that most cases are military related, and military justice is not the same thing as civilian justice, but I think the above is close enough for government work.
And the other problem with the "prosecutions" case is the timing of the classification. If it came after the original messages were sent/received then there is no violation.
While this is not public, so I can only speculate, the comments along the lines of "strip off the markings and transmit it anyway" show that at least some information was classified at the time. I'll agree that if this was data from State that she had the authority to do that, however the claim is that there was compartmentalized information (from multiple different programs) as well, and while I can imagine that something at that level of secrecy might be retroactively classified, if strains credulity to think that "lots of things of this nature" were retroactively classified.
And.... intent is always a part of criminal law. It has been since the origin of the USA.
It's a sad fact that mens rea has been under attack in the US for the last several decades, and there are MANY crimes that you and I can be convicted of that do not require criminal intent. I find that to be repugnant, so I find your argument in this regard to be fairly persuasive. That said, the issue we are discussing is the negligent acts of someone entrusted with a responsibility to keep information secure. It's hard to argue that we should not hold people accountable for their negligence because they did not intend to do harm.
Further, these people have to accept this fact before they are entrusted with classified data, get regular refreshers on what their responsibilities (and the punishments for failing in those responsibilities) are. As such "she really didn't mean it" does not hold water.
So you may not like Hilary but leave the interpretation to the professionals like the FBI... and oh by the way Congress in the Benghazi hearings where they couldn't find any criminal actions.
I did not bring up Benghazi, nor do I believe it has any relationship to the email scandal that we are discussing. In response to your "let the professionals handle it," I will point out that those professionals did, in fact, conclude she broke the law but that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges." I'll again ask the question that led you to reply to me: in what way does "extremely careless" differ from "grossly negligent" other than in the "politically expedient" sense?
By the way: you're correct that I do not like Hillary (for the record, I actually like Trump even less) but that does not prevent me from being objective about this issue.
Because no crime was committed. She did not intentionally leak any information
18 USC 783(f) does not require intent.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Of course, Comey said she wasn't "grossly negligent" only "extremely careless." If you can spot the difference between the two, I'd love to hear it.
Imagine that the comments were by an anonymous individual (for example, an employee). They really can't challenge this without creating a paper trail that potentially exposes them. For the scumbags using these pretext lawsuits, that's win-win--either the comment stays down, or they smoke out their enemy.
In that context, it is pretty slick. Reprehensible, but slick.
What she's essentially said is to voters "I will fight against X" and to bank representatives "I will do everything to get X adopted".
That isn't what happened at all, and I'd be very surprised if you could find any evidence that could even be twisted massively to suggest that's what she did.
You're correct that there is no evidence. Hillary could release the transcripts and end the speculation if she chose, but chooses not to do so, which effectively translates as "no comment." When some information does appear, she does not state it's false, but questions whether or not the information is accurate, as if she's really not in a position to judge its veracity.
When someone bends over backward to avoid saying something damaging to them is false, it is typically so that they will not later be proven to be lying.
FWIW, Bill Clinton was not at all punished for anything he said WRT sexual harassment and/or rape. He did lose his license to practice law (after leaving office) as a result of obstructing justice and perjuring himself in connection with one sexual harassment case, which was also the reason he was impeached. The trial itself broke along party lines, and he was acquitted. He was not, in any sense, punished by the congress. To this day, many people believe that he was impeached for getting a blowjob.
Oddly enough, obstructing justice is the same charge that Nixon resigned (and was pardoned by Ford) to avoid. We've come quite a long way in the last 40 years--many still revile Nixon as a corrupt practitioner of political dirty tricks, and many still vehemently disagree with Ford's pardoning him. Meanwhile, they laud people who have done at least as much if not more.
In answer to your question about the nexus to Hillary (FWIW, I agree with you that Bill's actions should have no bearing on her) it would probably have to do with the hypocrisy inherent in her recent conversion to the "believe the victim regardless of facts in evidence" when she did her level best to the destroy the women who had the nerve to accuse her husband of harassing and/or raping them.
I further agree with your stance WRT Trump. The man is entirely indefensible and anyone who stands up in support of him should have serious difficulty looking in the mirror. Of course, anyone defending Hillary should have the same problem. In a just world, we'd exclude both of them from polite society.
You sound like one of those people who say that something isn't censorship because only the government can violate the first amendment.
Yes, bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct--the best kind of correct--when you say that stating "you can't say that" is indeed part and parcel of free speech. That doesn't change that these thought police are hell bent on gutting the notion of what free speech actually is. Being an asshole is protected speech. It's not in any way socially valuable, but we protect that speech (or at least we USED to) because protecting it protects speech that truly is valuable.
The past: "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Today: "YOU MISOGYNIST BASTARD, YOUR MICROAGGRESSIONS HAVE GIVEN ME PTSD."
Slashdot Mirror
I doesn't appear by magic. I (or my bittorrent, http, ftp, gopher, etc client) say "give me a copy of that" and you provide me the bits.
Why should downloaders be an exception? For that matter, why should uploaders be singled out in particular?
Because the uploader is the supplier, they are the one infringing the copyright. You might be creating the copy because I'm asking you to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's you making the copy, and that is the part of the transaction that is copyright infringement.
>'Others', as in SHORT SIGHTED 'ACTIVIST' SHAREHOLDERS who want that quarterly price target hit, were the ones who pushed back.
Not buying this. The majority of Google is closely held, and if the people who held it kept their originally articulated vision for the company (starting with "Don't be evil") then people like Carl Icahn could go pound sand. That said, the push back is likely because "Oh, crap, this is much harder and more expensive than we thought it would be" coupled with the fact that Google has the attention span of a Golden Retriever with ADHD. Viewed in that light, the objections are likely reasonable.
There are two problems:
First is that the vast majority of our spending is on social programs and the military. The Democrats (generally) want to cut military spending and increase social spending. The Republicans (generally) want to cut social spending and increase military spending. Neither of them wants to actually spend on infrastructure unless there is a direct intersection with their primary objectives. Most of our national infrastructure that wasn't built by private parties is a result of those intersections (i.e. PWA in the 1930s trying to spend our way out of the Great Depression, or WW2/Cold War era military spending). They'll talk a good game at election time, or during a State of the Union speech, but when the time comes to allocate funds, it rarely seems to happen unless one of the intersections above is in play, or something just exploded and the politicians are afraid of looking like it's their fault. I don't expect this to change meaningfully in my lifetime.
Second is that we can't do anything as a society anymore because we're a culture of blaming (so we're incredibly risk averse). The lawyers and insurance people run the show on all major projects, and things cost much more, and take much longer to build (and the longer build times make things cost even more). The Empire State Building took 13 1/2 months to build. 1WTC took about eight years, which is two years longer than the first transcontinental railroad (which went through two mountain ranges with nothing more than dynamite and hand tools). I DO expect this one to change meaningfully in my lifetime, though I expect it to get worse instead of better.
Oops I mean $560/house.
You're still (probably quite a bit) low. Your $20/hr is definitely short of the fully loaded cost of those guys (these are usually not day laborers picked up outside Home Depot, but skilled professionals in their own right, and even the flaggers are probably members of CWA) and your time calc is also probably just to "pass" the house. It costs more time to put the peds/dog houses in at each house, then to string or bury the cable to the house itself. All in all, your labor cost "per house" is probably pushing 10x the above number.
FYI, Dorothy's slippers were ruby.
If you're going to be pedantic and point out that the slippers were "ruby" instead of "red" then I'll point out that they were only "ruby" slippers because it looked good in Technicolor. The shoes in the book are silver.
Voting for the (R) or the (D), especially when both of them are downright horrible candidates, only ensures that we'll have more of the same into the future.
To put it another way, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."
Your link says the word is non-standard and suggests you use regardless instead.
The worst part is that a former 4-star general just pled guilty to lying to the FBI when he was being investigated for possibly leaking classified information.
TANJ.
They should definitely keep using the old stuff until they figure out how to build something that is actually a useful replacement. I've never managed an aircraft carrier flight deck, but I imagine it would be pretty useful (and probably have some good knock on effects) if you could see more than just the deck RIGHT NOW. What if you could see it ten minutes ago, yesterday, trend out what moves where and when, have pre-loaded configurations (including least cost pathfinding) to respot equipment...
Yeah, I don't have any trouble believing that whatever LockMart delivered was a piece of shit, but "nuts and bolts on a board" is not the end all be all.
Based on what I've seen in other cases, it seems to me like those fees are broken out so that a finger can be pointed at someone else and used for leverage. In other words, "Don't like that cost? It's all the FCC's fault", or something like that.
FWIW, the finger needs pointing. There was an issue with Viacom vs Dish a couple of years ago where Dish stopped carrying CBS. Huge screams in the media and from customers, finger pointing by both sides, but in the end it comes down to this:
In the past, the FCC mandated that cable and satellite companies carry broadcast stations in the local markets (not too big a problem on the cable side, but a big PITA on the satellite side). The deal was mandated carriage vs no license fees, and it was (in general) a fair one. Fast forward and the networks decided that since they were now entrenched, it was time to get paid by the evil cable/satellite companies "free riding" on their content.
The fact that it's a hidden fee is bullshit (the total should match the advertised rate + tax) but the fee definitely needs to be broken out separately, because charging to rebroadcast an advertising supported network in the very area they're giving the signal away for free is also complete bullshit.
I just looked. It's $0.30/bottle at Wallmart. That's much better, but still a bit pricy compared to the actual cost.
If you want a link, Sam's Club. Local supermarkets are in the $0.10-0.15 range, but I can't link to those.
So what's the excuse for $0.50 cent shirts going for $50 and $5.00 shoes going for $100?
Gouging. :)
The "State Actor" here, if you will, would have been the US leaning on Ecuador to take these actions, but I agree that a conversation like the above almost certainly happened. The conspiracy theories around this are just amazing.
Thats 3 K after 2 car payments for cheap sedans
Thats 1 K after buying food , non food Groceries and clothes at Costco
Not that I'm jumping into the middle of your argument, but if you're spending $2000 a month on groceries and clothes, that's your problem right there.
Water costs a buck a bottle in a convenience store, where it's nice and chilled and waiting to be consumed right now. Water costs less than $0.10 a bottle when you buy it by the case at the supermarket. It's even cheaper when you buy it in 2.5 gallon jugs.
It's convenience pricing, and nothing more.
there are many ways to skin a cat.
While that may be true in the literal sense (one could use a knife, or a vegetable peeler, or a melon baller, etc) in the general sense, I'm reasonably certain there is only one (removal of the epidermis from the underlying muscle, bone, etc).
<insert "The More You Know" star here>
Yahoo knew, and didn't disclose. Presumably, they also didn't disclose the NSA stuff, either (though something tells me that, being a telecom, Verizon wouldn't actually have a problem with that one). The email platform (and associated user base) is one of the few things that Yahoo still has that is worth anything, and its value has likely been irreparably damaged. Verizon should definitely be able to walk away clean from this.
The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.
Welcome to the real world. Wikileaks has ALWAYS had an agenda, but that was fine for some people when Assange was targeting those they disagreed with. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's suddenly a problem.
In any case, the failure to redact phone numbers and other personal information suggests that Wikileaks cannot really be regarded as a reasonable way to leak data.
You're kidding, right? If you're leaking data, you should redact it before you give it to someone else to do with whatever they please, because who is to say that the non-redacted data won't accidentally leak, much less purposefully?
Finally, I suspect that the one-sided nature of the leaks is upsetting many people who would otherwise support Wikileaks.
See point one above. There are plenty on the right these days cheering them on, because many of those people are hypocrites, too.
The statute you cite is for physical information. E-mail may not necessarily be covered unless the meaning was litigated?
Here you go. "Floppy disks" are not email, but your analog would be the hard drives in the Clinton email server. John Deutch is probably an even better example (he was pardoned after a VERY similar set of circumstances). Finding more than this is a bit difficult, given that most cases are military related, and military justice is not the same thing as civilian justice, but I think the above is close enough for government work.
And the other problem with the "prosecutions" case is the timing of the classification. If it came after the original messages were sent/received then there is no violation.
While this is not public, so I can only speculate, the comments along the lines of "strip off the markings and transmit it anyway" show that at least some information was classified at the time. I'll agree that if this was data from State that she had the authority to do that, however the claim is that there was compartmentalized information (from multiple different programs) as well, and while I can imagine that something at that level of secrecy might be retroactively classified, if strains credulity to think that "lots of things of this nature" were retroactively classified.
And.... intent is always a part of criminal law. It has been since the origin of the USA.
It's a sad fact that mens rea has been under attack in the US for the last several decades, and there are MANY crimes that you and I can be convicted of that do not require criminal intent. I find that to be repugnant, so I find your argument in this regard to be fairly persuasive. That said, the issue we are discussing is the negligent acts of someone entrusted with a responsibility to keep information secure. It's hard to argue that we should not hold people accountable for their negligence because they did not intend to do harm.
Further, these people have to accept this fact before they are entrusted with classified data, get regular refreshers on what their responsibilities (and the punishments for failing in those responsibilities) are. As such "she really didn't mean it" does not hold water.
So you may not like Hilary but leave the interpretation to the professionals like the FBI... and oh by the way Congress in the Benghazi hearings where they couldn't find any criminal actions.
I did not bring up Benghazi, nor do I believe it has any relationship to the email scandal that we are discussing. In response to your "let the professionals handle it," I will point out that those professionals did, in fact, conclude she broke the law but that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges." I'll again ask the question that led you to reply to me: in what way does "extremely careless" differ from "grossly negligent" other than in the "politically expedient" sense?
By the way: you're correct that I do not like Hillary (for the record, I actually like Trump even less) but that does not prevent me from being objective about this issue.
793, not 783. Sorry for the typo.
Because no crime was committed. She did not intentionally leak any information
18 USC 783(f) does not require intent.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Of course, Comey said she wasn't "grossly negligent" only "extremely careless." If you can spot the difference between the two, I'd love to hear it.
Imagine that the comments were by an anonymous individual (for example, an employee). They really can't challenge this without creating a paper trail that potentially exposes them. For the scumbags using these pretext lawsuits, that's win-win--either the comment stays down, or they smoke out their enemy.
In that context, it is pretty slick. Reprehensible, but slick.
What she's essentially said is to voters "I will fight against X" and to bank representatives "I will do everything to get X adopted".
That isn't what happened at all, and I'd be very surprised if you could find any evidence that could even be twisted massively to suggest that's what she did.
You're correct that there is no evidence. Hillary could release the transcripts and end the speculation if she chose, but chooses not to do so, which effectively translates as "no comment." When some information does appear, she does not state it's false, but questions whether or not the information is accurate, as if she's really not in a position to judge its veracity.
When someone bends over backward to avoid saying something damaging to them is false, it is typically so that they will not later be proven to be lying.
FWIW, Bill Clinton was not at all punished for anything he said WRT sexual harassment and/or rape. He did lose his license to practice law (after leaving office) as a result of obstructing justice and perjuring himself in connection with one sexual harassment case, which was also the reason he was impeached. The trial itself broke along party lines, and he was acquitted. He was not, in any sense, punished by the congress. To this day, many people believe that he was impeached for getting a blowjob.
Oddly enough, obstructing justice is the same charge that Nixon resigned (and was pardoned by Ford) to avoid. We've come quite a long way in the last 40 years--many still revile Nixon as a corrupt practitioner of political dirty tricks, and many still vehemently disagree with Ford's pardoning him. Meanwhile, they laud people who have done at least as much if not more.
In answer to your question about the nexus to Hillary (FWIW, I agree with you that Bill's actions should have no bearing on her) it would probably have to do with the hypocrisy inherent in her recent conversion to the "believe the victim regardless of facts in evidence" when she did her level best to the destroy the women who had the nerve to accuse her husband of harassing and/or raping them.
I further agree with your stance WRT Trump. The man is entirely indefensible and anyone who stands up in support of him should have serious difficulty looking in the mirror. Of course, anyone defending Hillary should have the same problem. In a just world, we'd exclude both of them from polite society.
You sound like one of those people who say that something isn't censorship because only the government can violate the first amendment.
Yes, bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct--the best kind of correct--when you say that stating "you can't say that" is indeed part and parcel of free speech. That doesn't change that these thought police are hell bent on gutting the notion of what free speech actually is. Being an asshole is protected speech. It's not in any way socially valuable, but we protect that speech (or at least we USED to) because protecting it protects speech that truly is valuable.
The past: "I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Today: "YOU MISOGYNIST BASTARD, YOUR MICROAGGRESSIONS HAVE GIVEN ME PTSD."
I know which world I prefer(ed) living in.