The relevant Michigan statute Section 750.145c includes the following:
Sec. 145c.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:
(i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18.
(ii) It was not created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, but all of the following apply to that depiction:
(A) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the depiction, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(C) The depiction depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way.
[. ..]
(k) "Prurient interest" means a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.
-----
It's likely that under the "appears to include a child" standard, the issue will be:
Based on "community standards" would an "average individual" find the video to appeal to "a shameful or morbid interest in sex"?
That seems like a stretch - but the bigger issue (IMO) is the use of the prosecutorial resources for a situation that would be more appropriately handled through civil litigation than criminal prosecution.
If your mother is considered to be "elderly" (which could be as young as 60 depending on the state) there might be statutes that provide additional protection(s) against "fraud" or "deception" based on her age. You might want to check out the statutes for the state in which she lives. If the Earthlink billing was within the statute of limitations they might be interested in refunding the fees if the applicable statute(s) were pointed out to them.
If our corporations appropriately adjusted their strategies this would be happening in the U.S. economy, with 7-12 large companies working together to craft a standard. The tech sector is (mostly) successful with this model & manufacturing needs to get on board; it would benefit the entire U.S. economy and their stock can rise along with the country's. Unfortunately the concept of "winning together" went the way of crafting strategy beyond the next quarterly call.
Short-term planning + unhealthy greed is why Adam Smith is crying.
This past semester I interned at the Pro Bono Partnership of Atlanta which is modeled after the Pro Bono Partnership that covers New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The idea behind these groups is to provide transactional attorneys an opportunity to provide free legal services to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. The services provided vary widely and the attorneys are always presented with a wide variety of clients as well as issues. Transactional attorneys don't often have an easy way to provide pro bono work and these organizations are an excellent way for civic-minded attorneys to assist non-profit organizations.
Of course he could just contact the non-profit organization of choice directly but there are several advantages to the "clearinghouse" approach. A major advantage is that the work is task-based. This affords the attorney the opportunity to help out without having to worry about over committing. Also, if your friend is interested in IP and has no interest in redrafting bylaws the organization manages the process of having these other tasks covered by attorneys with the appropriate skill-set, desire, and available bandwidth.
As somebody who is soon to graduate law school after 12+ years in business / technology the experience at PBPATL was very encouraging. I met many wonderful attorneys who genuinely appreciate the opportunity to utilize their skills to assist non-profits with their missions. Some of these people work for HUGE companies and never get a chance to deal with the public one-on-one; it was genuinely touching to participate in their meetings and see the attorneys get just as much out of the relationship as the non-profits did.
Anyway... just a thought but if your friend is in the NY area or Atlanta area I'd suggest checking them out. The model is fairly new and so I'm not sure if it has been replicated elsewhere.
(First, IANAL but am on break before my final semester of law school)
When we're asking if something is a crime I believe that we're actually asking two things: (1) is it a crime, and (2) should it be a crime? Here, the answer to (1) is pretty straightforward because it's been addressed by the state legislature. The trickier issue is if it *should* be a crime, for example, if the statute is held to be unconstitutional then it would be invalidated; trickier still are public policy issues. In any case I'll focus on the straightforward aspect.
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. [note: the section of the Michigan constitution alluded to here relates to freedom of speech & the press]
As his actions were presumably intentional it appears that the issue is: Were his actions without authorization or did they exceed his valid authorization? According to the following article this is a fact-based issue that will be up to the jury to decide. Essentially "she" claims that the computer was hers alone and the password was a secret and "he" claims that he regularly used the computer and had easy access to the passwords. Ease of access to the password will likely be the determinative factor as to if he had "authorization" to access those emails.
Although his rationale for accessing those emails do not appear to be relevant per the statute, I imagine that it would be an issue when it comes time for sentencing. If instead of finding out that she was (presumably) engaged in adultery with an ex-spouse who (presumably) beat her, how would the prosecutor's office have reacted if he had accessed emails showing that:
- she was a drug dealer?
- she was a child pornographer?
- she was a terrorist?
In the preliminary exam, Clara Walker testified that although Leon Walker had purchased the laptop for her, it was hers alone and she kept the password a secret.
Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.
"It was a family computer," he said. "I did work on it all the time."
My initial question was why the prosecutor's office pursued this case in the first place; the following article discusses Cooper's decision to stop supporting treatment courts due to its need to "deal with the surge in violent crime and the surge in technically complex cases." The pursuit of the case at hand doesn't fit with the purported need to focus on a "surge in violent crime...".
Knowledge Base > Completing the Application > General questions >
My text is cut off when I preview my application.
Not all answers that ‘fit’ on the online application will ‘fit’ on the PDF of the Common Application. While the answers you provide on the online application are below the character limit for a given field, it is possible that those answers may be truncated when the PDF of your Common App is generated. There is often very limited space on the PDF of the Common App. In these cases every attempt has been made to fit the maximum amount of text but still preserve the readability of the information.
It is critical that you preview your Common App and check for truncated information using the Preview link in the top menu bar and the Print Preview link on the Signature page. Because your colleges will see exactly what you see, if you preview the Common Application and find some of your text is missing, you should attempt to shorten your response to fit within the available space. If necessary, you can add more information in the Additional Information section of the Common Application. Colleges that use the Common Application are aware that there is limited space on the PDF.
This is an example of why the operator of a gripe site should avoid commercial activity; although parodies are protected under The First Amendment, the target of parody could argue that the gripe site is no longer parody and instead is a profit making venture. That doesn't mean that their argument will be successful, but it does provide some legal ammo and is not as cut-and-dried as the treatment of a non-commercial gripe site.
My guess is that it's mostly about initial perception of number of people vs the rate at which the lines are moving. (A) has five lanes with five customers in each queue; (B) has twenty-five customers in one queue.
When you arrive at (A) it looks moderately busy and by comparison at (B) you see a l-o-o-ong line. Obviously the collective queue (B) is processing around 5x the speed of each individual queue (A) but I guess this isn't as obvious (especially initially) as the number of people in each individual queue.
I actually thought that most people knew that single queues were better; I guess not!
IANAL (I'm currently on semester break from my last year of law school) but these types of websites are generally protected from many lawsuits due to their treatment as a form of free speech. Additionally under the CDA ( Communications Decency Act) ISPs are generally not considered the publishers of content posted by their users which provides them some degree of immunity.
Check out this Wired article for some highlights of the legal issues related to a "sucks" / "gripe" site: Legal Tips For Your 'Sucks' Site. Although it was written in 2000 and so might be a little outdated, it's worth reading for some interesting info.
Two important points: (1) The site operator should avoid any commercial activity (at all) on the gripe site and; (2) The site operator should ensure that visitors would never think that the site is in any way associated with the entity that is the focus of the gripe site. While a properly designed gripe site is generally safe from losing a lawsuit it's definitely best to check with an attorney to make sure that you're doing everything properly before heading down a potentially expensive road.
Sorry you live in a shit hole, and you didn't check your internet connectivity options before you moved there. Sucks to be you. Move somewhere else.
Hmm, very interesting. While it appears you read my post, apparently I wasn't clear when I said "I live in Atlanta and have a few options for broadband but realize that many people are not as fortunate." Perhaps if I clarify:
Me live in big city. Big city has options. Options = good. Me understand that other people exist. Me also understand that others no have options. No options = bad.
In any case I might take you up on your suggestion to move somewhere else; if nothing else I'd be interested to see if you're as charming a neighbor as you are a commenter.
"I did point you in the right direction. You are just are too lazy to use google."
I see you could not find one either. Considerung that currently I have at least 4 broadband choices, I find it hard to believe most don't have two.
Actually, from the first site returned by the search: "The FCC says that broadband is available via DSL to 79 percent of local telephone company subscribers, and via cable modem to 93 percent of cable television subscribers." It appears that around 20% would not have DSL as a (presumably secondary) broadband option.
Here's an excerpt from an article I wrote for my law school's paper about online security w/ some suggestions about passwords. (I doubt there's any interest in the whole article but here's the link if you are for some reason:
http://law.gsu.edu/thedocket/node/519 )
-----
1) Stop using the same password for everything. At a minimum come up with a base password and then append (or prepend) it with something unique for each application. If your base password is "fido" then for Twitter you could use "fidotwit" or "twitfido."
2) Don't use "Fido" as your password. One of the most common passwords is the name of the user's pet (Paris Hilton's Sidekick was hacked because the cracker knew her dog's name was Tinkerbell). Teenage guys often use the type of car they drive. Parents often use the names of their children. Law geeks often use the name of their favorite Justice.
3) Change your passwords occasionally. Just because you haven't noticed anything amiss doesn't mean that your emails aren't being accessed. If you have a base password of "fido" (which you won't because you're faithfully adhering to #2, you might change it to "fidomarch2010."
4) Avoid dictionary words (even non-English words). One fairly simple technique is to come up with a phrase that has some meaning to you and then use the first letter of each word. "I love taking Fido to the park when it's sunny" becomes "iltfttpwis" which could be used as your base password. Applications that allow you to use upper-case and lower-case characters as well as numbers and symbols exponentially increase the complexity of your password. "I love taking Fido 2 the park when it's sunny!" then becomes "IltF2tpwis!" and you have a fairly robust base password; when combined with a variation for each site and occasional changes you should have a decent password system.
Our corporate overlords will never allow it. Even judges are only as good as the corporations pay for.
Fortunately the Constitution has something to say about copyrights. Check out this Congressionally-mandated report about the feared impact of DMCA on the first sale doctrine.
DMCA Section 104 Report
A plausible argument can be made that section 1201 may have a negative effect on the operation of the first sale doctrine in the context of works tethered to a particular device. In the case of tethered works, even if the work is on removable media, the content cannot be accessed on any device other than the one on which it was originally made. This process effectively prevents disposition of the work. However, the practice of tethering a copy of a work to a particular hardware device does not appear to be widespread at this time, at least outside the context of electronic books. Should this practice become widespread, it could have serious consequences for the operation of the first sale doctrine, although the ultimate effect on consumers is unclear. (emphasis mine)
And here's an interesting law review article about the most significant obstacle to applying first sale to digital rights "digital exhaustion." Digital Exhaustion: UCLA Law Review, Vol. 58
Amazon (and publishers) are much better off if they can keep Congress from either creating legislation or the Courts from creating precedent about the first sale doctrine as it applies to digital media; one or the other is going to happen if they don't treat digital media more like traditional media.
And that's why Amazon is begrudgingly offering this "lending" feature.
If I were Amazon I would be doing more than this because the first-sale doctrine will eventually be held to include digital goods. The more that Amazon does now to treat ebooks like physical goods the longer that they'll be able to continue before they are explicitly required to do so. The fact that their current licensing scheme has lasted as long as it has surprises me; this has to be at the back of their minds.
And FYI, libraries around the world (in countries including the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, Mexico) are already offering ebooks online. Check out http://search.overdrive.com/ListLibraries.aspx
If the current network availability is poor and the new network availability is managed by the college then I'm assuming that the issue comes down to preventing the students from access the college's wi-fi during the exam period. The college's network might be able to block access to wi-fi for those students enrolled in your class during that exam period.
To bypass this roadblock your students might "borrow" the credentials of a friend not enrolled in your class to still gain access but this approach might still be fairly effective (and without expense).
In 2007 Verizon blocked text messages from Naral, an abortion rights group claiming they had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages. They reversed position quickly but not before a significant media backlash:
The move by Verizon Wireless to block--and then unblock--text messages from abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America is being cited as a key example of why the principles of "net neutrality" should be codified into law.
So in virtue of what is it true that there could have been Aliens when in fact there are none, and when, moreover, nothing that exists in fact could have been an Alien?
Although there might be some way of parsing this to make sense to somebody more familiar with Philosophy I'm inclined to think that it could just be a typo. The paragraphs that follow seemed much more approachable. Possibly it should read as:
"So in virtue of that, is it true that there could have been Aliens when in fact there are none, and when, moreover, nothing that exists in fact could have been an Alien?"
My non-profit has run a contest for the past three years. Maybe I've not been doing things the "right" way but it's only after an entry has actually won a prize that the developer assigns any rights to my organization. If they don't win then I get nothing. If they do win they always have the option of not assigning the rights (and concomitantly not receiving a cash prize!).
I'm not sure why somebody would willingly assign away their rights just for a chance to win and frankly I question the value of what a non-winning developer is receiving in exchange for the rights assignment. A "chance" doesn't seem like it would be adequate consideration.
I agree that the question would benefit from some clarification.
The criteria in determining the success of a creative work would depend on one's perspective:
Artist / Author / "creator": Although each "creator" may have their own, private definition of success, I would imagine that common criteria include an ability to earn a living income through the creative work, the respect of their peers, awards, etc.
Society: Once society is exposed to any creative work theoretically society has been affected to some degree; it could be plausibly argued that any impact to society is a "success." If so, the only "failure" that comes to mind is a creative work that never saw the light of day and so will never have any impact on society whatsoever.
RIAA: A successful creative work is that which is profitable. (But is a work still successful if it returns a profit lower than industry standards? How about if it's hugely profitable - breaking every record - but pirating is reducing the potential profits by 20%?)
Here, the question is about creative works that were "a financial failure" with respect to the RIAA and their claims of financial impacts from piracy so we should look to how a success would be defined from RIAA's perspective. Interestingly, a failure in the eyes of the RIAA might still be a success from the viewpoint of both the artists who created that work and from society in general.
This is not like "[...] used book retailers, music traders, software peddlers, refurbished computer sellers."
While concert promoters may have some of the same issues with scalpers that a book publisher has with resale of a book at a used book store their distinctions are far far greater than any commonalities:
1) Supply: books, music, software, and hardware are generally all materials that are in (nearly) unlimited supply, the tickets to a concert that has a finite # of seats and a finite # of performances is by-its-nature limited. When there are shortages of new hardware (e.g. game consoles at launch) that is a more apt analogy but again there is an inherent difference in that although production will ramp up and one can eventually buy a Wii, the same is unlikely true of seeing a specific performer in concert in your city or town; the scarcity of supply is what drives the profits of professional "ticket resellers."
2) Value: whereas a book that's already been read could still have the same amount of value to a second purchaser as did the first, the same is obviously not true of a concert ticket purchaser. Sure, somebody might want a used concert ticket to frame and hang on their wall but this is clearly not the same value as the person using the ticket to attend the concert.
The only thing that I imagine a concert promoter and a book publisher would have in common here is a perceived mentality that "nobody should make money off of this but me." Outside of that how in the world does a concert compare to software or a book? In a world of bad Slashdot analogies this may be the worst I've seen that received a +5 "interesting."
Slashdot Mirror
Sec. 145c.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:
(i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18.
(ii) It was not created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, but all of the following apply to that depiction:
(A) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the depiction, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(C) The depiction depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way.
[. . .]
(k) "Prurient interest" means a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.
-----
It's likely that under the "appears to include a child" standard, the issue will be:
Based on "community standards" would an "average individual" find the video to appeal to "a shameful or morbid interest in sex"?
That seems like a stretch - but the bigger issue (IMO) is the use of the prosecutorial resources for a situation that would be more appropriately handled through civil litigation than criminal prosecution.
If your mother is considered to be "elderly" (which could be as young as 60 depending on the state) there might be statutes that provide additional protection(s) against "fraud" or "deception" based on her age. You might want to check out the statutes for the state in which she lives. If the Earthlink billing was within the statute of limitations they might be interested in refunding the fees if the applicable statute(s) were pointed out to them.
Short-term planning + unhealthy greed is why Adam Smith is crying.
Of course he could just contact the non-profit organization of choice directly but there are several advantages to the "clearinghouse" approach. A major advantage is that the work is task-based. This affords the attorney the opportunity to help out without having to worry about over committing. Also, if your friend is interested in IP and has no interest in redrafting bylaws the organization manages the process of having these other tasks covered by attorneys with the appropriate skill-set, desire, and available bandwidth.
As somebody who is soon to graduate law school after 12+ years in business / technology the experience at PBPATL was very encouraging. I met many wonderful attorneys who genuinely appreciate the opportunity to utilize their skills to assist non-profits with their missions. Some of these people work for HUGE companies and never get a chance to deal with the public one-on-one; it was genuinely touching to participate in their meetings and see the attorneys get just as much out of the relationship as the non-profits did.
Anyway... just a thought but if your friend is in the NY area or Atlanta area I'd suggest checking them out. The model is fairly new and so I'm not sure if it has been replicated elsewhere.
When we're asking if something is a crime I believe that we're actually asking two things: (1) is it a crime, and (2) should it be a crime? Here, the answer to (1) is pretty straightforward because it's been addressed by the state legislature. The trickier issue is if it *should* be a crime, for example, if the statute is held to be unconstitutional then it would be invalidated; trickier still are public policy issues. In any case I'll focus on the straightforward aspect.
Here's, the Michigan statute in question: Section 752.795 FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.
(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. [note: the section of the Michigan constitution alluded to here relates to freedom of speech & the press]
History: 1979, Act 53, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 326, Eff. Apr. 1, 1997
As his actions were presumably intentional it appears that the issue is: Were his actions without authorization or did they exceed his valid authorization? According to the following article this is a fact-based issue that will be up to the jury to decide. Essentially "she" claims that the computer was hers alone and the password was a secret and "he" claims that he regularly used the computer and had easy access to the passwords. Ease of access to the password will likely be the determinative factor as to if he had "authorization" to access those emails.
Although his rationale for accessing those emails do not appear to be relevant per the statute, I imagine that it would be an issue when it comes time for sentencing. If instead of finding out that she was (presumably) engaged in adultery with an ex-spouse who (presumably) beat her, how would the prosecutor's office have reacted if he had accessed emails showing that:
- she was a drug dealer?
- she was a child pornographer?
- she was a terrorist?
Is reading wife's e-mail a crime? Rochester Hills man faces trial
In the preliminary exam, Clara Walker testified that although Leon Walker had purchased the laptop for her, it was hers alone and she kept the password a secret.
Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.
"It was a family computer," he said. "I did work on it all the time."
My initial question was why the prosecutor's office pursued this case in the first place; the following article discusses Cooper's decision to stop supporting treatment courts due to its need to "deal with the surge in violent crime and the surge in technically complex cases." The pursuit of the case at hand doesn't fit with the purported need to focus on a "surge in violent crime...".
Knowledge Base > Completing the Application > General questions >
My text is cut off when I preview my application.
Not all answers that ‘fit’ on the online application will ‘fit’ on the PDF of the Common Application. While the answers you provide on the online application are below the character limit for a given field, it is possible that those answers may be truncated when the PDF of your Common App is generated. There is often very limited space on the PDF of the Common App. In these cases every attempt has been made to fit the maximum amount of text but still preserve the readability of the information.
It is critical that you preview your Common App and check for truncated information using the Preview link in the top menu bar and the Print Preview link on the Signature page. Because your colleges will see exactly what you see, if you preview the Common Application and find some of your text is missing, you should attempt to shorten your response to fit within the available space. If necessary, you can add more information in the Additional Information section of the Common Application. Colleges that use the Common Application are aware that there is limited space on the PDF.
Tell that to Facebook in regard to Lamebook.
This is an example of why the operator of a gripe site should avoid commercial activity; although parodies are protected under The First Amendment, the target of parody could argue that the gripe site is no longer parody and instead is a profit making venture. That doesn't mean that their argument will be successful, but it does provide some legal ammo and is not as cut-and-dried as the treatment of a non-commercial gripe site.
Here's a good write-up on parody as it relates to free speech and copyright: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire .
When you arrive at (A) it looks moderately busy and by comparison at (B) you see a l-o-o-ong line. Obviously the collective queue (B) is processing around 5x the speed of each individual queue (A) but I guess this isn't as obvious (especially initially) as the number of people in each individual queue.
I actually thought that most people knew that single queues were better; I guess not!
Check out this Wired article for some highlights of the legal issues related to a "sucks" / "gripe" site: Legal Tips For Your 'Sucks' Site. Although it was written in 2000 and so might be a little outdated, it's worth reading for some interesting info.
Two important points: (1) The site operator should avoid any commercial activity (at all) on the gripe site and; (2) The site operator should ensure that visitors would never think that the site is in any way associated with the entity that is the focus of the gripe site. While a properly designed gripe site is generally safe from losing a lawsuit it's definitely best to check with an attorney to make sure that you're doing everything properly before heading down a potentially expensive road.
Sorry you live in a shit hole, and you didn't check your internet connectivity options before you moved there. Sucks to be you. Move somewhere else.
Hmm, very interesting. While it appears you read my post, apparently I wasn't clear when I said "I live in Atlanta and have a few options for broadband but realize that many people are not as fortunate." Perhaps if I clarify:
Me live in big city. Big city has options. Options = good. Me understand that other people exist. Me also understand that others no have options. No options = bad.
In any case I might take you up on your suggestion to move somewhere else; if nothing else I'd be interested to see if you're as charming a neighbor as you are a commenter.
"I did point you in the right direction. You are just are too lazy to use google."
I see you could not find one either. Considerung that currently I have at least 4 broadband choices, I find it hard to believe most don't have two.
Actually, from the first site returned by the search: "The FCC says that broadband is available via DSL to 79 percent of local telephone company subscribers, and via cable modem to 93 percent of cable television subscribers." It appears that around 20% would not have DSL as a (presumably secondary) broadband option.
I live in Atlanta and have a few options for broadband but realize that many people are not as fortunate. Here's a study which finds that at the state level about 1/2 have a duopoly and some states arguably have a monopoly: http://www.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_11783501/151286677State_of_Broadband_Competition_in_America_2010.pdf
since most of us do not have multiple options for broadband
Citation needed.
http://www.google.com/search?q=broadband+availability
Here's an excerpt from an article I wrote for my law school's paper about online security w/ some suggestions about passwords. (I doubt there's any interest in the whole article but here's the link if you are for some reason: http://law.gsu.edu/thedocket/node/519 )
-----
1) Stop using the same password for everything. At a minimum come up with a base password and then append (or prepend) it with something unique for each application. If your base password is "fido" then for Twitter you could use "fidotwit" or "twitfido."
2) Don't use "Fido" as your password. One of the most common passwords is the name of the user's pet (Paris Hilton's Sidekick was hacked because the cracker knew her dog's name was Tinkerbell). Teenage guys often use the type of car they drive. Parents often use the names of their children. Law geeks often use the name of their favorite Justice.
3) Change your passwords occasionally. Just because you haven't noticed anything amiss doesn't mean that your emails aren't being accessed. If you have a base password of "fido" (which you won't because you're faithfully adhering to #2, you might change it to "fidomarch2010."
4) Avoid dictionary words (even non-English words). One fairly simple technique is to come up with a phrase that has some meaning to you and then use the first letter of each word. "I love taking Fido to the park when it's sunny" becomes "iltfttpwis" which could be used as your base password. Applications that allow you to use upper-case and lower-case characters as well as numbers and symbols exponentially increase the complexity of your password. "I love taking Fido 2 the park when it's sunny!" then becomes "IltF2tpwis!" and you have a fairly robust base password; when combined with a variation for each site and occasional changes you should have a decent password system.
Fortunately the Constitution has something to say about copyrights. Check out this Congressionally-mandated report about the feared impact of DMCA on the first sale doctrine.
DMCA Section 104 Report
And here's an interesting law review article about the most significant obstacle to applying first sale to digital rights "digital exhaustion." Digital Exhaustion: UCLA Law Review, Vol. 58
Amazon (and publishers) are much better off if they can keep Congress from either creating legislation or the Courts from creating precedent about the first sale doctrine as it applies to digital media; one or the other is going to happen if they don't treat digital media more like traditional media.
And that's why Amazon is begrudgingly offering this "lending" feature.
If I were Amazon I would be doing more than this because the first-sale doctrine will eventually be held to include digital goods. The more that Amazon does now to treat ebooks like physical goods the longer that they'll be able to continue before they are explicitly required to do so. The fact that their current licensing scheme has lasted as long as it has surprises me; this has to be at the back of their minds.
And FYI, libraries around the world (in countries including the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, Mexico) are already offering ebooks online. Check out http://search.overdrive.com/ListLibraries.aspx
If the current network availability is poor and the new network availability is managed by the college then I'm assuming that the issue comes down to preventing the students from access the college's wi-fi during the exam period. The college's network might be able to block access to wi-fi for those students enrolled in your class during that exam period.
To bypass this roadblock your students might "borrow" the credentials of a friend not enrolled in your class to still gain access but this approach might still be fairly effective (and without expense).
The move by Verizon Wireless to block--and then unblock--text messages from abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America is being cited as a key example of why the principles of "net neutrality" should be codified into law.
ConsumerAffairs article: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/verizon_abortion.html
So in virtue of what is it true that there could have been Aliens when in fact there are none, and when, moreover, nothing that exists in fact could have been an Alien?
Although there might be some way of parsing this to make sense to somebody more familiar with Philosophy I'm inclined to think that it could just be a typo. The paragraphs that follow seemed much more approachable. Possibly it should read as:
"So in virtue of that, is it true that there could have been Aliens when in fact there are none, and when, moreover, nothing that exists in fact could have been an Alien?"
Well... maybe this could be the result that Bilski should have been and SCOTUS will hold that software is not patentable subject matter.
(fingers crossed)
The charges have been dropped. "In a brief statement Saturday, chief prosecutor Eva Finne says: 'I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.'" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9HNV4A00
My non-profit has run a contest for the past three years. Maybe I've not been doing things the "right" way but it's only after an entry has actually won a prize that the developer assigns any rights to my organization. If they don't win then I get nothing. If they do win they always have the option of not assigning the rights (and concomitantly not receiving a cash prize!).
I'm not sure why somebody would willingly assign away their rights just for a chance to win and frankly I question the value of what a non-winning developer is receiving in exchange for the rights assignment. A "chance" doesn't seem like it would be adequate consideration.
Interesting - I thought they only lived in gardens and TV commercials.
You're right but Marketing shot down the name "fundamentally flawed."
Didn't test well.
The criteria in determining the success of a creative work would depend on one's perspective:
Here, the question is about creative works that were "a financial failure" with respect to the RIAA and their claims of financial impacts from piracy so we should look to how a success would be defined from RIAA's perspective. Interestingly, a failure in the eyes of the RIAA might still be a success from the viewpoint of both the artists who created that work and from society in general.
While concert promoters may have some of the same issues with scalpers that a book publisher has with resale of a book at a used book store their distinctions are far far greater than any commonalities:
1) Supply: books, music, software, and hardware are generally all materials that are in (nearly) unlimited supply, the tickets to a concert that has a finite # of seats and a finite # of performances is by-its-nature limited. When there are shortages of new hardware (e.g. game consoles at launch) that is a more apt analogy but again there is an inherent difference in that although production will ramp up and one can eventually buy a Wii, the same is unlikely true of seeing a specific performer in concert in your city or town; the scarcity of supply is what drives the profits of professional "ticket resellers."
2) Value: whereas a book that's already been read could still have the same amount of value to a second purchaser as did the first, the same is obviously not true of a concert ticket purchaser. Sure, somebody might want a used concert ticket to frame and hang on their wall but this is clearly not the same value as the person using the ticket to attend the concert.
The only thing that I imagine a concert promoter and a book publisher would have in common here is a perceived mentality that "nobody should make money off of this but me." Outside of that how in the world does a concert compare to software or a book? In a world of bad Slashdot analogies this may be the worst I've seen that received a +5 "interesting."