In most countries, isn't it illegal to not report a crime that you're aware of?
NO. Not unless your a police officer or agent of the court or such. Private citizens are not required to report any crime.
There was no crime here. The plaintiff was said to be involved with a fraudulent mortgage not that he committed the fraud. The person responsible was tried and convicted. This was already public knowledge.
1. This is a civil case the first amendment has no play here. The first amendment gives you the right to speak it DOES NOT however protect you from the consequences of that speech. Fact is The first amendment protects your right to tell lies and make defamatory statements.
2. What was in question here is the bloggers intent. Was it to show light, protect public interests or to fuck with somebody he didn't like. The jury chose the third choice.
3. You have the right to say what you want but if you use that right not as a torch to bring light but a a torch to burn down the house, you are responsable. Think of it this way. If you call a 13 year old girl dumb and ugly 100 times and she kills herself well it's ok is she was dumb and ugly right. you only told the truth.
4. In this case speech was used not as a tool for justice but as a weapon of anger.
not a chance. there is no basis for appeal here. An appeal must be based on an error of law or of fact. The key element of this case is the jury determining Northsides intentions. That is a judgement call by the jury and can not be appealed.
If you think government employees can't get fired for talking smack about there employer go ask someone in the armed forces what happens to them if they call their boss an ass hat. No free speech issue here it's pretty much a standard clause in any employment contract.
The real question may be legally is Facebook public or private. There's a lot of grey area there.
Negligent infliction of emotional distress. False Light. Plaintiff is a 11 year old autistic boy, defendant is corporation raking in billions. I like the kids odds in front of a jury.
He should be the FORMER head. Doing something as stupid as labeling someone a cheater (hello libel suit) in a public forum would get you fired anywhere else. You never ever do that. You simply state the the user was flagged by your fraud detection procedures. Note MS's use of the "cheater" label is actionable even if he did cheat. Saying something true about someone for the sole intent of causing them harm is still actionable. The "cheater" tag any serves only as a method of humiliating the user.
this allows Amazon to undercut any competitors price by 80 % $10 app on Amazon and competing store. on sale for $5 at competitor (50% off) - $3.50 to dev Amazon can sell for $1 and still break even.
I cant see any serious developer giving Amazon control of its cash flow
Thanks to this cluster f%^k I wont have to listen to people whine about the Apple Store for a while. Seriously if Apple said we're gonna give you 70% of whatever we decide is good or 20% of what ever you decide what do you think would happen.
Amazon is saying they can discount your app up to 70% any time they like an you have to give up the same amount from your cut.
Your selling an app for $10 and selling 100 a week earning a decent $1000 a week income for your hard work. Amazon decides dump YOUR app on the market for $3 and they sell 1000 in a week making you $2100 nice right. Now it goes back to regular price and your selling 10 a week for months because the sale wiped out the market. You lost $4900 in future income in one week because of Amazon.
Is a news story even copyrightable? an Opinion piece is of course. and so are works of fiction but a news story is only a collection and presentation of facts. Does the text of a news story really contain enough artistic content to be considered copyrightable? I have to say not much I've read in any newspaper lately has any artistic content.
One can also pose the question could anyone make any effective profit from an old news article. You'd have to be able to get thousands if not tens of thousands of hits to an article to show any return at all from advertising. And as far as I know only the music and film industry has been granted the ability to sue for more than actual damages.
That's why were lucky that there are no real terrorists. Terror is easy. 9/11 wasn't terror they picked a big public visible target to get noticed. Thats a statement not terrorism. The DC sniper random meaningless targets. Thats terrorism.
Do terrorists really care what plane they blow up. No dummy they're terrorists!! so the only real risk is a hit man might use a missle to blow up a plane instead on using a gun. Not likely.
Well actually, they are all criminals. Thats sort of why they are called illegals. and any economist will tell you every one of them takes money out of your pocket. Simple supply and demand.
Am I the only one looking at those numbers and saying "Damn what the hell did all those people do". Maybe privatization is good. 1200 people to produce a fuel tank every few months. There is a light bulb joke in there somewhere.
Yeah right. Plug your generic usb cable in and drag'n'drop as if onto a usb stick.
To bad thats not the way it works. You forgot step one, turn on USB mass storage device mode on the phone. At which point the average consumer eyes gloss over and you've lost them.
Fact is every average joe I've met with a droid hates it. Every Android sale is a future iPhone sale.
Same piece of crap now 100% larger. That will come in handy when your tossing the POS against the wall.
And Guys get with it consumers are never going to go for android tablets. This is for the same reasons people on this site will and the same reason windows tablets failed. Its just general purpose linux computer. Its not designed as a device. The iPad is a hit because -yes- it is a big iPod touch. Consumers don't have to deal with all the issues they have on their computers. Push the button it works. Filesystem whats that. I push music my music comes up. Thats all the consumer wants and the iPad delivers. Show the average consumer what they have to do to get there music onto a galaxy s phone and they'll look at you dumbfounded and just use their iPod. Trust me I did it yesterday.
Face the truth why didn't Google use a full implementation of java as they are required by the patent grants. Because they wanted people to write for there platform and not simply port software. Just like Apple not wanting Flash for the same reason.
Hey lawyers do any of you even know what a trademark is anymore. Its a mark used in your trade.
YOUR TRADE.
Unless they are claiming he is using faith healing to fix computers (more effective then the geek squad yes) They have no business complaining. If I want to open up geek squad plumbing there is nothing they can do about it.
There not getting sued for using java. they're getting sued for not using Java.
The Tech world should be behind this what it is really about is using open standards technology to damage the standard. Java is useless if its not universal. Thats sort of the whole point of the language.
Android is built almost entirely on Java but doesn't run it.
$149 is expensive for a 7 inch picture frame. And that is all this piece of sh!t is good for. To under powered for web or video and the screen is unacceptable for ebook reading.
Slashdot Mirror
In most countries, isn't it illegal to not report a crime that you're aware of?
NO. Not unless your a police officer or agent of the court or such. Private citizens are not required to report any crime.
There was no crime here. The plaintiff was said to be involved with a fraudulent mortgage not that he committed the fraud. The person responsible was tried and convicted. This was already public knowledge.
you can't appeal a jury error. That's sort of the point of a jury.
And exactly what would JN counter sue for? Pretty much impossible to pull off a frivolous lawsuit claim after you actually lose in a jury trial.
1. This is a civil case the first amendment has no play here. The first amendment gives you the right to speak it DOES NOT however protect you from the consequences of that speech. Fact is The first amendment protects your right to tell lies and make defamatory statements.
2. What was in question here is the bloggers intent. Was it to show light, protect public interests or to fuck with somebody he didn't like. The jury chose the third choice.
3. You have the right to say what you want but if you use that right not as a torch to bring light but a a torch to burn down the house, you are responsable.
Think of it this way. If you call a 13 year old girl dumb and ugly 100 times and she kills herself well it's ok is she was dumb and ugly right. you only told the truth.
4. In this case speech was used not as a tool for justice but as a weapon of anger.
Political speech falls under absolute first amendment protection it can not be considered obscene or tortious.
not a chance. there is no basis for appeal here. An appeal must be based on an error of law or of fact. The key element of this case is the jury determining Northsides intentions. That is a judgement call by the jury and can not be appealed.
Why can they give us the ability to have a preferred sites list. I'd love it if wikipedia and new egg always popped to the top of my list.
If you think government employees can't get fired for talking smack about there employer go ask someone in the armed forces what happens to them if they call their boss an ass hat. No free speech issue here it's pretty much a standard clause in any employment contract.
The real question may be legally is Facebook public or private. There's a lot of grey area there.
Negligent infliction of emotional distress. False Light. Plaintiff is a 11 year old autistic boy, defendant is corporation raking in billions. I like the kids odds in front of a jury.
He should be the FORMER head. Doing something as stupid as labeling someone a cheater (hello libel suit) in a public forum would get you fired anywhere else. You never ever do that. You simply state the the user was flagged by your fraud detection procedures. Note MS's use of the "cheater" label is actionable even if he did cheat. Saying something true about someone for the sole intent of causing them harm is still actionable. The "cheater" tag any serves only as a method of humiliating the user.
this allows Amazon to undercut any competitors price by 80 %
$10 app on Amazon and competing store.
on sale for $5 at competitor (50% off) - $3.50 to dev
Amazon can sell for $1 and still break even.
I cant see any serious developer giving Amazon control of its cash flow
Thanks to this cluster f%^k I wont have to listen to people whine about the Apple Store for a while. Seriously if Apple said we're gonna give you 70% of whatever we decide is good or 20% of what ever you decide what do you think would happen.
Amazon is saying they can discount your app up to 70% any time they like an you have to give up the same amount from your cut.
Your selling an app for $10 and selling 100 a week earning a decent $1000 a week income for your hard work.
Amazon decides dump YOUR app on the market for $3 and they sell 1000 in a week making you $2100 nice right.
Now it goes back to regular price and your selling 10 a week for months because the sale wiped out the market.
You lost $4900 in future income in one week because of Amazon.
Is a news story even copyrightable? an Opinion piece is of course. and so are works of fiction but a news story is only a collection and presentation of facts. Does the text of a news story really contain enough artistic content to be considered copyrightable? I have to say not much I've read in any newspaper lately has any artistic content.
One can also pose the question could anyone make any effective profit from an old news article. You'd have to be able to get thousands if not tens of thousands of hits to an article to show any return at all from advertising. And as far as I know only the music and film industry has been granted the ability to sue for more than actual damages.
Flash BAD. ClickToFlash GOOD !!!!!!
He he
That's why were lucky that there are no real terrorists. Terror is easy. 9/11 wasn't terror they picked a big public visible target to get noticed. Thats a statement not terrorism. The DC sniper random meaningless targets. Thats terrorism.
Do terrorists really care what plane they blow up. No dummy they're terrorists!! so the only real risk is a hit man might use a missle to blow up a plane instead on using a gun. Not likely.
Well actually, they are all criminals. Thats sort of why they are called illegals. and any economist will tell you every one of them takes money out of your pocket. Simple supply and demand.
Am I the only one looking at those numbers and saying "Damn what the hell did all those people do". Maybe privatization is good. 1200 people to produce a fuel tank every few months. There is a light bulb joke in there somewhere.
Awww you beat me to it. Seriously, no one has cared about second life in years.
Yeah right. Plug your generic usb cable in and drag'n'drop as if onto a usb stick.
To bad thats not the way it works. You forgot step one, turn on USB mass storage device mode on the phone. At which point the average consumer eyes gloss over and you've lost them.
Fact is every average joe I've met with a droid hates it. Every Android sale is a future iPhone sale.
Same piece of crap now 100% larger. That will come in handy when your tossing the POS against the wall.
And Guys get with it consumers are never going to go for android tablets. This is for the same reasons people on this site will and the same reason windows tablets failed. Its just general purpose linux computer. Its not designed as a device. The iPad is a hit because -yes- it is a big iPod touch. Consumers don't have to deal with all the issues they have on their computers. Push the button it works. Filesystem whats that. I push music my music comes up. Thats all the consumer wants and the iPad delivers. Show the average consumer what they have to do to get there music onto a galaxy s phone and they'll look at you dumbfounded and just use their iPod. Trust me I did it yesterday.
Face the truth why didn't Google use a full implementation of java as they are required by the patent grants. Because they wanted people to write for there platform and not simply port software. Just like Apple not wanting Flash for the same reason.
Hey lawyers do any of you even know what a trademark is anymore. Its a mark used in your trade.
YOUR TRADE.
Unless they are claiming he is using faith healing to fix computers (more effective then the geek squad yes) They have no business complaining. If I want to open up geek squad plumbing there is nothing they can do about it.
There not getting sued for using java. they're getting sued for not using Java.
The Tech world should be behind this what it is really about is using open standards technology to damage the standard. Java is useless if its not universal. Thats sort of the whole point of the language.
Android is built almost entirely on Java but doesn't run it.
$149 is expensive for a 7 inch picture frame. And that is all this piece of sh!t is good for. To under powered for web or video and the screen is unacceptable for ebook reading.