By its very definition, libel is always untruthful.
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.
Semantics aside, here is the actual explanation for the ruling:
Noonan appealed to a three-member panel for the First Circuit, which initially upheld the ruling by Lasker. But last month it reversed itself on the libel claim, saying Noonan could pursue that part of his lawsuit because of a relatively obscure 1902 [Massachusetts] law.
The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
In ordinary discussions of First Amendment law, "actual malice" refers to the standard established in the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
In that context, it means a plaintiff who is a public figure can win a libel suit only after proving that a journalist knew a published statement was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.
But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.
So we're talking about:
1) A state law.
2) A ruling that simply allows the guy to sue; it's not a final verdict by any means.
3) A very specific instance, that will eventually be settled in court anyway, as per 2).
So, I don't think this is anything for journalists to get overly anxious over, in truth.
Bah, that was easy. There was a limited number of questions, and I think four possible answers given for each one, so you just kept guessing away until you could map out all the answers to all the questions.
I find it quite interesting that while Iran gets lots of flak these days for their Sharia-based legislature and lack of democracy and liberty, Saudi Arabia, where conditions are actually quite similar, is almost never mentioned. I wonder why...
P.S. Saudi Arabia actually rates lower than Iran by some standards: Example.
4chan.org What's the story?
4chan.org is an increasingly popular hangout for those who call themselves 'Anonymous'. It breeds misfits, criminals, and The Internet Hate Machine, which is a term that is used to describe the collective processing power of the thousands of hackers on steroids who frequent the site. Did you know?
Disturbingly, 4chan.org is the source of almost every popular internet 'meme' that has surfaced since 2004 or so. What 4chan.org says about you
If your favorite site is 4chan.org, you're a terrorist who likes to blow up vans, and should be locked away for a very, very long time. You also like to say 'LULZ' a lot, which is a diabolical corruption of 'LOL', which means 'Let's Order Linguini'... 'Linguini' being a street term for crack cocaine.
If you read the article, you will see that forcing businesses to pay is what Microsoft started off by doing, quite unsuccessfully. Their usual heavy-handed strategy of suing businesses for pirating their software failed miserably, as the Chinese courts were not sympathetic towards Microsoft.
So, they finally changed their tactics, dropping prices dramatically. That's why they're finally making some headway in China. Oh, and some very active government lobbying seems to have played a big part as well. Microsoft seems to be best buddies with the Chinese government now, making deals with them, selling them software in huge quantities...
Gotta love free enterprise. Corporations don't care where the money comes from; this is proved time and again by Western corporations sucking up to the Chinese government.
I personally think that holding the user responsible is the most natural thing in the world. Why would the bank have to take the blame if the user's machine is compromised? As long as security is not breached on their side, their only responsibility is to process the requests given to them correctly. If these requests happen to be fraudulent, I don't see how that's the bank's fault.
Of course, if the perpetrator is caught, and it can be proven that he accessed an account that he didn't have the right to access, he can be punished accordingly and made to return the stolen money. But asking the bank to refund all money stolen through a compromised user account just spells disaster.
The bank should only need to worry about security on their end. The user is responsible only for his own system. Just my 2 cents.
However, some of these efforts can backfire, as the act to get it taken down can sometimes draw more attention than the offending content in the first place.
This is known as the Streisand Effect, the scourge of all Internet censors.
Interestingly, I note that this Wikipedia article is now being considered for deletion. Wouldn't it be ironic if it got deleted and then popped up somewhere else?
They're shareholders. Why should they concern themselves with anything other than the company's profit? I know this sounds harsh and cynical, but this is the simple truth behind the public company concept. Whatever lofty reasons they might give for their decision, the real reason is that losing business in China would mean losing profits.
Offtopic should be used sparingly... all too often I see it used in a way that only reveals the moderator's ignorance of the topic. Rant, rave, etc.....
Personally, I'd rather see us spend $120B on intelligence and get it RIGHT than only spend $60B and get it WRONG and end up going to war based on that faulty intelligence at a price tag of $82B up-front and more annually!
It's been said before, but I guess I need to say it again: There was absolutely nothing wrong with the intelligence. The Bush administration just didn't care whether Iraq had WDMs or not (nor whether they had any links with Al-Qaida, etc.); they decided to invade, and so they did. All the 'intelligence' they submitted to justify their decision beforehand was stuff that the intelligence agencies had rejected as false or inaccurate again and again. That they say that the intelligence was bad afterwards is only adding insult to injury.
The company I work for doesn't offer royalties. But anyway, it's beside the point since I wasn't complaining about my own situation, which is quite acceptable to me. But yeah, you're right that the label has an obligation to protect the rights of the artists who signed up for royalties, but somehow one always gets the impression that the labels are mostly out to protect their own bottom line, not their artists. I probably misrepresented the issue by focusing on the musicians; what's mostly under threat is the labels' distribution scheme, which puts a hefty price on every copy sold, regardless of whether the artists get royalties or a flat rate. Of course, this is fair in that it's the label that does all the hard work of promoting the artists, producing the CDs, and distributing them, but as I've said, this is a system that's slowly being undermined.
What I think the future holds is more direct contact between artists and fans, and maybe even some sort of system where you can donate to those artists you like, just like charities etc. I know this sounds naive and idealistic (the counter-argument being that no one would bother to pay since they're getting the music for free), but hey, it might happen. All I know is that the Internet will continue to change old models.
Whether my arguments are any justification for piracy; well, that's a whole different topic. All I wanted to address was the (IMHO, slowly dying) idea that artists and/or labels should profit hugely from every copy of the art that's distributed.
The thing is... copyright royalties aren't just getting 'paid for your work'.
I'm a programmer. I get paid by the hour to write code that's used by tens of thousands of people every day. I don't get a share every time someone uses a piece of code that I wrote. Even if I was the one who designed that particular functionality too. Nope, just a flat fee for my creativity and hard work.
Now, music takes talent and a lot of hard work, but it's still just work. Why don't musicians just get paid by the hour for writing, recording, and performing? Why do people have to pay big bucks to listen to a recording of what they did? And please don't give me crap about the high cost of promoting bands, etc. The Internet is a wonderful and inexpensive way to promote music... at least that's where I've done most of my music dicovery lately - sites like last.fm are an absolute joy for music buffs, and technology and paradimgs like that will get increasingly more common and sophisticated in the future.
The advent of the Internet means that information will flow freely, no matter what anyone does to try to stop that. I know this is getting to be a tired debate, but the simple truth is that the record companies will simply need to come up with different models to adapt to changing times. The same applies to movie producers, etc.
I, for one, don't forsee a collapse of the creative industries just because the old business models are being undermined. There are ways to cope; the people in charge are just to stubborn to admit that they need to find them.
Yes, it's probably due to unpatched Windows. They use the term web server, which is ambiguous in that it can mean both the server software and the machine it runs on. In this case they most likely mean the machine. After all, isn't it common knowledge that it's important to keep all your software updated and patched, not least the OS?
That's not offtopic at all, IMHO. We have a Mr. Anderson and LOTR... so what's wrong with a little Hugo Weaving jest? My only criticism is that Elrond is the elf; the place he lives in is called Rivendell.
Since we're on the subject, Machinae Supremacy did a track called Hybrid, which opens with Weaving saying 'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson'... this is of course sampled and spliced together.
Oh crap, I'm gonna get modded offtopic now, right?
A very good question. I think some people simply can't cope with uncertainty. They need, on some fundamental level, to believe that the Bible has all the answers to everything; that as long as they follow everything exactly as dictated by the Bible, their lives will be simple and easy. Thus, the Bible, in their eyes, must not contain any factual errors or uncertainties. It is The Book, and none other is needed.
Why these people have this desperate need for certainty is a whole other question. Maybe it's because that to them, the alternative is chaos, and joining in with a society that they see as failed and filled with dangers and evil.
Slashdot Mirror
By its very definition, libel is always untruthful.
Semantics aside, here is the actual explanation for the ruling:
Noonan appealed to a three-member panel for the First Circuit, which initially upheld the ruling by Lasker. But last month it reversed itself on the libel claim, saying Noonan could pursue that part of his lawsuit because of a relatively obscure 1902 [Massachusetts] law.
The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
In ordinary discussions of First Amendment law, "actual malice" refers to the standard established in the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
In that context, it means a plaintiff who is a public figure can win a libel suit only after proving that a journalist knew a published statement was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.
But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.
So we're talking about:
1) A state law.
2) A ruling that simply allows the guy to sue; it's not a final verdict by any means.
3) A very specific instance, that will eventually be settled in court anyway, as per 2).
So, I don't think this is anything for journalists to get overly anxious over, in truth.
Bah, that was easy. There was a limited number of questions, and I think four possible answers given for each one, so you just kept guessing away until you could map out all the answers to all the questions.
There's a nerdy solution to every problem.
Of course not. People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?
I find it quite interesting that while Iran gets lots of flak these days for their Sharia-based legislature and lack of democracy and liberty, Saudi Arabia, where conditions are actually quite similar, is almost never mentioned. I wonder why ...
P.S. Saudi Arabia actually rates lower than Iran by some standards: Example.
4chan.org ... 'Linguini' being a street term for crack cocaine.
What's the story?
4chan.org is an increasingly popular hangout for those who call themselves 'Anonymous'. It breeds misfits, criminals, and The Internet Hate Machine, which is a term that is used to describe the collective processing power of the thousands of hackers on steroids who frequent the site.
Did you know?
Disturbingly, 4chan.org is the source of almost every popular internet 'meme' that has surfaced since 2004 or so.
What 4chan.org says about you
If your favorite site is 4chan.org, you're a terrorist who likes to blow up vans, and should be locked away for a very, very long time. You also like to say 'LULZ' a lot, which is a diabolical corruption of 'LOL', which means 'Let's Order Linguini'
If you read the article, you will see that forcing businesses to pay is what Microsoft started off by doing, quite unsuccessfully. Their usual heavy-handed strategy of suing businesses for pirating their software failed miserably, as the Chinese courts were not sympathetic towards Microsoft.
So, they finally changed their tactics, dropping prices dramatically. That's why they're finally making some headway in China. Oh, and some very active government lobbying seems to have played a big part as well. Microsoft seems to be best buddies with the Chinese government now, making deals with them, selling them software in huge quantities ...
Gotta love free enterprise. Corporations don't care where the money comes from; this is proved time and again by Western corporations sucking up to the Chinese government.
Well, that's always your choice, of course.
I personally think that holding the user responsible is the most natural thing in the world. Why would the bank have to take the blame if the user's machine is compromised? As long as security is not breached on their side, their only responsibility is to process the requests given to them correctly. If these requests happen to be fraudulent, I don't see how that's the bank's fault.
Of course, if the perpetrator is caught, and it can be proven that he accessed an account that he didn't have the right to access, he can be punished accordingly and made to return the stolen money. But asking the bank to refund all money stolen through a compromised user account just spells disaster.
The bank should only need to worry about security on their end. The user is responsible only for his own system. Just my 2 cents.
I bet they do a lot of TPS reports.
Only on Discworld. On Discworld, cubes are the powerful numbers. On Earth it's the primes.
Well, I have some very reliable evidence that the seventh son is the most powerful, but only if it's a seventh son of a seventh son.
Firstborn Get the Brains would be an awesome name for a zombie movie!
(Pardon my stupid ramblings - I'm not an eldest son, you see)
On the other hand, if they got Rocco Siffredi for Iron Man, at least he would be portrayed well hung ...
Elvira was quite the franchise in them days ... there was even a computer game made in 1990. Take that, Lara Croft!
One of these does not belong ...
This is known as the Streisand Effect, the scourge of all Internet censors.
Interestingly, I note that this Wikipedia article is now being considered for deletion. Wouldn't it be ironic if it got deleted and then popped up somewhere else?
They're shareholders. Why should they concern themselves with anything other than the company's profit? I know this sounds harsh and cynical, but this is the simple truth behind the public company concept. Whatever lofty reasons they might give for their decision, the real reason is that losing business in China would mean losing profits.
Nope, not offtopic, you ignoramuses
Offtopic should be used sparingly ... all too often I see it used in a way that only reveals the moderator's ignorance of the topic. Rant, rave, etc. ....
You're forgetting that substituting 'of' for 'for' means 'multiply the following by 10,000'.
I know, grammar is complicated ...
It's been said before, but I guess I need to say it again: There was absolutely nothing wrong with the intelligence. The Bush administration just didn't care whether Iraq had WDMs or not (nor whether they had any links with Al-Qaida, etc.); they decided to invade, and so they did. All the 'intelligence' they submitted to justify their decision beforehand was stuff that the intelligence agencies had rejected as false or inaccurate again and again. That they say that the intelligence was bad afterwards is only adding insult to injury.
The company I work for doesn't offer royalties. But anyway, it's beside the point since I wasn't complaining about my own situation, which is quite acceptable to me. But yeah, you're right that the label has an obligation to protect the rights of the artists who signed up for royalties, but somehow one always gets the impression that the labels are mostly out to protect their own bottom line, not their artists. I probably misrepresented the issue by focusing on the musicians; what's mostly under threat is the labels' distribution scheme, which puts a hefty price on every copy sold, regardless of whether the artists get royalties or a flat rate. Of course, this is fair in that it's the label that does all the hard work of promoting the artists, producing the CDs, and distributing them, but as I've said, this is a system that's slowly being undermined.
What I think the future holds is more direct contact between artists and fans, and maybe even some sort of system where you can donate to those artists you like, just like charities etc. I know this sounds naive and idealistic (the counter-argument being that no one would bother to pay since they're getting the music for free), but hey, it might happen. All I know is that the Internet will continue to change old models.
Whether my arguments are any justification for piracy; well, that's a whole different topic. All I wanted to address was the (IMHO, slowly dying) idea that artists and/or labels should profit hugely from every copy of the art that's distributed.
The thing is ... copyright royalties aren't just getting 'paid for your work'.
I'm a programmer. I get paid by the hour to write code that's used by tens of thousands of people every day. I don't get a share every time someone uses a piece of code that I wrote. Even if I was the one who designed that particular functionality too. Nope, just a flat fee for my creativity and hard work.
Now, music takes talent and a lot of hard work, but it's still just work. Why don't musicians just get paid by the hour for writing, recording, and performing? Why do people have to pay big bucks to listen to a recording of what they did? And please don't give me crap about the high cost of promoting bands, etc. The Internet is a wonderful and inexpensive way to promote music ... at least that's where I've done most of my music dicovery lately - sites like last.fm are an absolute joy for music buffs, and technology and paradimgs like that will get increasingly more common and sophisticated in the future.
The advent of the Internet means that information will flow freely, no matter what anyone does to try to stop that. I know this is getting to be a tired debate, but the simple truth is that the record companies will simply need to come up with different models to adapt to changing times. The same applies to movie producers, etc.
I, for one, don't forsee a collapse of the creative industries just because the old business models are being undermined. There are ways to cope; the people in charge are just to stubborn to admit that they need to find them.
Yes, it's probably due to unpatched Windows. They use the term web server, which is ambiguous in that it can mean both the server software and the machine it runs on. In this case they most likely mean the machine. After all, isn't it common knowledge that it's important to keep all your software updated and patched, not least the OS?
That's not offtopic at all, IMHO. We have a Mr. Anderson and LOTR ... so what's wrong with a little Hugo Weaving jest? My only criticism is that Elrond is the elf; the place he lives in is called Rivendell.
Since we're on the subject, Machinae Supremacy did a track called Hybrid, which opens with Weaving saying 'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson' ... this is of course sampled and spliced together.
Oh crap, I'm gonna get modded offtopic now, right?
A very good question. I think some people simply can't cope with uncertainty. They need, on some fundamental level, to believe that the Bible has all the answers to everything; that as long as they follow everything exactly as dictated by the Bible, their lives will be simple and easy. Thus, the Bible, in their eyes, must not contain any factual errors or uncertainties. It is The Book, and none other is needed.
Why these people have this desperate need for certainty is a whole other question. Maybe it's because that to them, the alternative is chaos, and joining in with a society that they see as failed and filled with dangers and evil.
You got me pegged. Curse you!
Can I have my privacy violation lawsuit settlement, please?