If you are a Torrent user now, either stick with the version you have now (i.e. don't upgrade), or switch to Azureus. Azureus is a great client as long as you don't try to run games at the same time. But I've heard that if you run Azureus on Linux, you won't have speed issues because the GPL (is it GNU?) implementation of Java is apparently quite the speed demon.
And since Sun is about to (has already?) open-source Java, expect to see similar speed improvements in the Java client on Windows soon, and thus improvements in Azureus's speed as well.
But in America, juries do not need to know the law -- they don't decide matters of law. They only decide matters of fact. For example, in a civil suit, a jury will decide if someone in fact intentionally harmed another person. The judge will decide whether personal jurisdiction exists. In a criminal case, juries decide if someone committed murder or not. The judge will decide procedural elements.
Thus, juries do not decide matters of law in America either.
If this person wins this case it opens the doors for alot more. Once it can be shown in court that Kazaa either misled or outright lied to its users, it can then be shown that Kazaa was AIDING AND ABETTING the the criminal violation of copyright laws. Once that takes place, then Kazaa itself can be held liable for CRIMINAL actions.
It would not surprise me in THE SLIGHTEST that the RIAA is behind this themselves. Its all about "precedence". Once you win a small case, its only makes it that much easier to use that small case as a foothold in larger, farther reaching and far more serious cases.
Precedence is a theory used when dealing with matters of law, not matters of fact. You cannot cite a criminal case's outcome as proof in another criminal case.
Otherwise, if you testified that your brother did not commit a crime, and then then your brother was found guilty, you would automatically be guilty of perjury. Additionally, it would hold everyone hostage to the legal skills of unknown third parties. For example, suppose I want to convict you of accessory to murder. A accuses B of committing murder with you assisting, and B loses on purpose. Bam, you're guilty by precedent? I don't think so.
that idiot system in which you call a bunch off illiterate people from the streets, that know nothing about justice, and get them decide if someone is innocent or guilty
Holy crap, what country do you live in where you are not guaranteed the right to a trial by jury?
I think he means that, since uTorrent is closed-source, there will be no way (short of sniffing your packets) to know if the MPAA gets pingged whenever you run uTorrent. Hell, if someone had your IP address before you and downloaded a movie, now the MPAA knows (1) "you" downloaded a movie, and (2) you are running P2P software. Checkmate, man.
Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for sanctions and monetary punishment upon parties who sign on to lies, and upon counsel (which includes the entire law firm -- even uninvolved lawyers who are in the employ of the firm) in order to discourage this kind of behavior.
I'm sure the RIAA lawyers will play some kind of "I don't understand technology and thus misunderstood AOL's information" card, or will just say that the initial AOL contacts were misleading to them. The claims only have to be true to the best of the party's knowledge, so they could claim that to the best of their knowledge, what AOL was telling them was correct.
However, if they actually possessed the email and lied about its contents, then that is definitely grounds for sanction under Rule 11, and possibly many people could be held in contempt of court (I think) for it. I hope I'm right about this -- I have a test over Civil Procedure in 4 days:(
Just to let you know, it's Slashdot, not Dotslash. You made that mistake each time you referenced the site in your post. Might wanna watch out for something like that.;)
According to my understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2), you may serve notice by US postal mail. If the mail is sent certified, you could use your receipt (presumably) as proof of service to satisfy FRCP4(l) along with an affidavit signed by the server. But IJALS (I'm just a law student) -- and there's a lot of us in/. these days, isn't there? Furthermore, under FRCP4(e), you may leave process at their home with a person of "suitable age and discretion."
I don't mean to insinuate that Knoppix is corporate-owned. I misspake;)
Confusion
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Fedora the Linux that is developed as a community effort
Well what the hell do you call the other five billion Linuxes (Linuces?) out there? Aren't they community-developed as well? Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, DSL, FeatherLinux, etc. I mean, Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat, so if Fedora is a "community effort," then surely Knoppix, Mandriva, and other corporate-associated Linuces are "community-developed" as well!
Does this make DeCSS legal, and the "no breaking encryption" clause of the DMCA void?
It makes "I'm a professor breaking DeCSS for educational purposes" an affirmative defense to a violation of the DMCA. The whole point of these exceptions were to provide affirmative defenses to the breaking of a law.
This may be the funniest post I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. What a sublime reference, what beautiful kind-of iambic pentameter! I write a haiku for you:
O Post on Slashdot, Everything is bright now; The moon before dawn.
Whoops. I forgot to use < instead of <. Here is the correct post:
Sure, I'll take the karma hit.
For instance, most people scoff at the idea that idea that there should be evidence of God's existance before they believe in him, yet would demand just such evidence if I were to claim I had a dragon in my garage.
There are those of us who have felt Him in our lives and thus have found evidence of his existence but lack that evidence for your dragon. Of course it could be merely a hallucination, but to me it makes more logical sense to believe it was God rather than a hallucination. Here are two arguments why one may choose the way I did, for those who care to read of them. The second argument was the important one for me, but I include both for the sake of completeness:
1. Argument by Fear: If I choose to interpret the sensation I had as a hallucination and choose to not believe in God, and I am wrong, then I may go to Hell (note that I said "may"). However, if I believe it was God and thus follow His will, I merely miss out on a few of the more "sinful" aspects of life (because in my brand of Christianity, science is not negated by my religious beliefs, so I don't miss out on science and rational thought). Taking either of these outcomes to be of any probability where an existence in God is even remotely, an eternity of torment is far worse than a lifetime of going to church (which, assuming the worst, would merely be 80-100 years of torment). This can be demonstrated by probability theory:
Let X be the probability of the correctness of my beliefs. Then (1-X) is the probability in my beliefs being wrong. Let B be the amount of torment I go through because of my beliefs. Let A be the amount of torment I avoid by believing the way I do. We now have the simple probabilistic equation to use in determining which belief system to choose (of course, assuming there are only two choices and one of them involves God not existing): AX < B(1-X). Now recall that B is an eternity of torment, so we have AX < infinity as long as X!=0. Since I have a finite lifespan, AX is indeed < infinity.
2. Argument by Trust: If I choose that I was merely hallucinating, then how can I assume anything I experience is real? I'd prefer that I assume as much of my experiences are real as is possible without encountering contradictory truths as opposed to believing my entire life to be a grand illusion. As I said in argument #1, I sure haven't encountered contradictory truths because of my belief in God, so choosing to believe in God has presented no problems in my life that not believing in God would not have (aside from debates with non-Christians, which doesn't really upset me at all).
I reject argument #1 because it gives me no reason to choose my religion over Islam or FSM worship.
Dawkins may ask me why I discount the flying spaghetti monster, and my answer is simple: I have not been touched by his noodly appendage, and thus there is less evidence for his existence in my mind than God's existence. While I believe evolution is the true explanation for what has happened on Earth, it has not been proven 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt (as most scientific theories never are). It is merely what most scientists believe to be true (perhaps 99% proven or whatnot -- I have a math degree, not a biology degree). Thus, Dawkins' acceptance of evolution is parallel to my acceptance of God. We both have strong evidence to support our choices.
For instance, most people scoff at the idea that idea that there should be evidence of God's existance before they believe in him, yet would demand just such evidence if I were to claim I had a dragon in my garage.
There are those of us who have felt Him in our lives and thus have found evidence of his existence but lack that evidence for your dragon. Of course it could be merely a hallucination, but to me it makes more logical sense to believe it was God rather than a hallucination. Here are two arguments why one may choose the way I did, for those who care to read of them. The second argument was the important one for me, but I include both for the sake of completeness:
1. Argument by Fear: If I choose to interpret the sensation I had as a hallucination and choose to not believe in God, and I am wrong, then I may go to Hell (note that I said "may"). However, if I believe it was God and thus follow His will, I merely miss out on a few of the more "sinful" aspects of life (because in my brand of Christianity, science is not negated by my religious beliefs, so I don't miss out on science and rational thought). Taking either of these outcomes to be of any probability where an existence in God is even remotely, an eternity of torment is far worse than a lifetime of going to church (which, assuming the worst, would merely be 80-100 years of torment). This can be demonstrated by probability theory:
Let X be the probability of the correctness of my beliefs. Then (1-X) is the probability in my beliefs being wrong. Let B be the amount of torment I go through because of my beliefs. Let A be the amount of torment I avoid by believing the way I do. We now have the simple probabilistic equation to use in determining which belief system to choose (of course, assuming there are only two choices and one of them involves God not existing): AX
2. Argument by Trust: If I choose that I was merely hallucinating, then how can I assume anything I experience is real? I'd prefer that I assume as much of my experiences are real as is possible without encountering contradictory truths as opposed to believing my entire life to be a grand illusion. As I said in argument #1, I sure haven't encountered contradictory truths because of my belief in God, so choosing to believe in God has presented no problems in my life that not believing in God would not have (aside from debates with non-Christians, which doesn't really upset me at all).
I reject argument #1 because it gives me no reason to choose my religion over Islam or FSM worship.
Dawkins may ask me why I discount the flying spaghetti monster, and my answer is simple: I have not been touched by his noodly appendage, and thus there is less evidence for his existence in my mind than God's existence. While I believe evolution is the true explanation for what has happened on Earth, it has not been proven 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt (as most scientific theories never are). It is merely what most scientists believe to be true (perhaps 99% proven or whatnot -- I have a math degree, not a biology degree). Thus, Dawkins' acceptance of evolution is parallel to my acceptance of God. We both have strong evidence to support our choices.
I think you discovered a new trick: come up with an insightful comment, and post half of it in each of two posts. Or one third in each of three posts. You will get +5 for each post! Brilliant!
'Ninety percent of violent cases start with verbal aggression,' Van der Vorst said.
But what percent of verbal aggression leads to violence? That would be the important statistic.
For example, it is wet every time it rains, but that doesn't mean that every time it is wet it has rained. Or, to maintain crime statistics in the analogy, Every time there is a drunk driving accident, someone has gotten in a car. Therefore, should we monitor every home's garage for warning about drunk driving?
I don't have a specific opinion about police monitoring public areas with cameras, but I worry that these cameras (police-controlled cameras) will make their way into restaurants and other semi-public places, and then make their way into private homes to "prevent domestic abuse."
No, he's saying that his customers can be assured that Microsoft won't sue. As displayed by SCO, one does not need a valid claim of intellectual property infringement to cause massive litigation costs. This deal assures Novell customers that nothing like that will happen to them.
I'm not saying the deal was good; I'm just pointing out the error in your reasoning.
The submission appears to be saying that the RIAA doesn't like being countersued.
No, the submitter is saying that the RIAA fears countersuits. There is a huge difference between "fear" and "dislike" or "be annoyed by." For example, I dislike spinach, but I don't fear it. (cue Popeye jokes)
Just wanted to chime in that I'm another first-year law student, and I hope to specialize in international and/or IP law. Rest assured that the actions of the RIAA have taught me how not to practice law. Thank you for what you are doing, too. NewYorkCountryLawyer, Larry Lessig, and a few others are quite inspiring to us lowly law students.:)
Slashdot Mirror
If you are a Torrent user now, either stick with the version you have now (i.e. don't upgrade), or switch to Azureus. Azureus is a great client as long as you don't try to run games at the same time. But I've heard that if you run Azureus on Linux, you won't have speed issues because the GPL (is it GNU?) implementation of Java is apparently quite the speed demon.
And since Sun is about to (has already?) open-source Java, expect to see similar speed improvements in the Java client on Windows soon, and thus improvements in Azureus's speed as well.
But in America, juries do not need to know the law -- they don't decide matters of law. They only decide matters of fact. For example, in a civil suit, a jury will decide if someone in fact intentionally harmed another person. The judge will decide whether personal jurisdiction exists. In a criminal case, juries decide if someone committed murder or not. The judge will decide procedural elements.
Thus, juries do not decide matters of law in America either.
Hess v. State of Alaska
Krueger v. Board of Professional Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Medicine
Otherwise, if you testified that your brother did not commit a crime, and then then your brother was found guilty, you would automatically be guilty of perjury. Additionally, it would hold everyone hostage to the legal skills of unknown third parties. For example, suppose I want to convict you of accessory to murder. A accuses B of committing murder with you assisting, and B loses on purpose. Bam, you're guilty by precedent? I don't think so.
I think he means that, since uTorrent is closed-source, there will be no way (short of sniffing your packets) to know if the MPAA gets pingged whenever you run uTorrent. Hell, if someone had your IP address before you and downloaded a movie, now the MPAA knows (1) "you" downloaded a movie, and (2) you are running P2P software. Checkmate, man.
Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for sanctions and monetary punishment upon parties who sign on to lies, and upon counsel (which includes the entire law firm -- even uninvolved lawyers who are in the employ of the firm) in order to discourage this kind of behavior.
:(
I'm sure the RIAA lawyers will play some kind of "I don't understand technology and thus misunderstood AOL's information" card, or will just say that the initial AOL contacts were misleading to them. The claims only have to be true to the best of the party's knowledge, so they could claim that to the best of their knowledge, what AOL was telling them was correct.
However, if they actually possessed the email and lied about its contents, then that is definitely grounds for sanction under Rule 11, and possibly many people could be held in contempt of court (I think) for it. I hope I'm right about this -- I have a test over Civil Procedure in 4 days
Just to let you know, it's Slashdot, not Dotslash. You made that mistake each time you referenced the site in your post. Might wanna watch out for something like that. ;)
Speaking of Janet Reno, is it just me, or do Bill Gates and Janet Reno look like they're the same person?
According to my understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2), you may serve notice by US postal mail. If the mail is sent certified, you could use your receipt (presumably) as proof of service to satisfy FRCP4(l) along with an affidavit signed by the server. But IJALS (I'm just a law student) -- and there's a lot of us in /. these days, isn't there? Furthermore, under FRCP4(e), you may leave process at their home with a person of "suitable age and discretion."
No, infringement is a criminal offense as well.
Yeah, well in the US our taxes help pay for PBS (TV) and NPR (radio).
I don't mean to insinuate that Knoppix is corporate-owned. I misspake ;)
This may be the funniest post I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. What a sublime reference, what beautiful kind-of iambic pentameter! I write a haiku for you:
O Post on Slashdot,
Everything is bright now;
The moon before dawn.
Sure, I'll take the karma hit.
There are those of us who have felt Him in our lives and thus have found evidence of his existence but lack that evidence for your dragon. Of course it could be merely a hallucination, but to me it makes more logical sense to believe it was God rather than a hallucination. Here are two arguments why one may choose the way I did, for those who care to read of them. The second argument was the important one for me, but I include both for the sake of completeness:
1. Argument by Fear: If I choose to interpret the sensation I had as a hallucination and choose to not believe in God, and I am wrong, then I may go to Hell (note that I said "may"). However, if I believe it was God and thus follow His will, I merely miss out on a few of the more "sinful" aspects of life (because in my brand of Christianity, science is not negated by my religious beliefs, so I don't miss out on science and rational thought). Taking either of these outcomes to be of any probability where an existence in God is even remotely, an eternity of torment is far worse than a lifetime of going to church (which, assuming the worst, would merely be 80-100 years of torment). This can be demonstrated by probability theory:
2. Argument by Trust: If I choose that I was merely hallucinating, then how can I assume anything I experience is real? I'd prefer that I assume as much of my experiences are real as is possible without encountering contradictory truths as opposed to believing my entire life to be a grand illusion. As I said in argument #1, I sure haven't encountered contradictory truths because of my belief in God, so choosing to believe in God has presented no problems in my life that not believing in God would not have (aside from debates with non-Christians, which doesn't really upset me at all).
I reject argument #1 because it gives me no reason to choose my religion over Islam or FSM worship.
Dawkins may ask me why I discount the flying spaghetti monster, and my answer is simple: I have not been touched by his noodly appendage, and thus there is less evidence for his existence in my mind than God's existence. While I believe evolution is the true explanation for what has happened on Earth, it has not been proven 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt (as most scientific theories never are). It is merely what most scientists believe to be true (perhaps 99% proven or whatnot -- I have a math degree, not a biology degree). Thus, Dawkins' acceptance of evolution is parallel to my acceptance of God. We both have strong evidence to support our choices.
It's just that darn second argument for me.
There are those of us who have felt Him in our lives and thus have found evidence of his existence but lack that evidence for your dragon. Of course it could be merely a hallucination, but to me it makes more logical sense to believe it was God rather than a hallucination. Here are two arguments why one may choose the way I did, for those who care to read of them. The second argument was the important one for me, but I include both for the sake of completeness:
1. Argument by Fear: If I choose to interpret the sensation I had as a hallucination and choose to not believe in God, and I am wrong, then I may go to Hell (note that I said "may"). However, if I believe it was God and thus follow His will, I merely miss out on a few of the more "sinful" aspects of life (because in my brand of Christianity, science is not negated by my religious beliefs, so I don't miss out on science and rational thought). Taking either of these outcomes to be of any probability where an existence in God is even remotely, an eternity of torment is far worse than a lifetime of going to church (which, assuming the worst, would merely be 80-100 years of torment). This can be demonstrated by probability theory:
I think you discovered a new trick: come up with an insightful comment, and post half of it in each of two posts. Or one third in each of three posts. You will get +5 for each post! Brilliant!
For example, it is wet every time it rains, but that doesn't mean that every time it is wet it has rained. Or, to maintain crime statistics in the analogy, Every time there is a drunk driving accident, someone has gotten in a car. Therefore, should we monitor every home's garage for warning about drunk driving?
I don't have a specific opinion about police monitoring public areas with cameras, but I worry that these cameras (police-controlled cameras) will make their way into restaurants and other semi-public places, and then make their way into private homes to "prevent domestic abuse."
Remember, remember the fifth of November.
No, he's saying that his customers can be assured that Microsoft won't sue. As displayed by SCO, one does not need a valid claim of intellectual property infringement to cause massive litigation costs. This deal assures Novell customers that nothing like that will happen to them.
I'm not saying the deal was good; I'm just pointing out the error in your reasoning.
Just wanted to chime in that I'm another first-year law student, and I hope to specialize in international and/or IP law. Rest assured that the actions of the RIAA have taught me how not to practice law. Thank you for what you are doing, too. NewYorkCountryLawyer, Larry Lessig, and a few others are quite inspiring to us lowly law students. :)