Nobody denied him his rights, he just didn't know how to exercise them, apparently.
Anyway, SCC is a real court. Now, do you have a right to appeal to the supreme court for your jurisdiction? Likely so (even if it is eventually, through other layers of court.)
It's a mistake anyway. Just because you have to basically be a lawyer to know what the correct move is doesn't mean that anything else is less incorrect.
I've dealt with small claims court matters before; court staff will help you formulate it, sure, but they can't (and won't) give you legal advice.
The best advice, as always- if you are being sued, consult a lawyer. The dollar amount is irrelevant. Even if your lawyer spends thirty minutes to look over the filing and tells you everything you've done is fine, it's worth it.
Yes. That was Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 (S.C.C.)
In it, the the Quebec court ruled that publication of her photograph without her permission was a fault, and granted her $2,000 in damages.
The Supreme Court upheld it, under certain conditions:
"It is generally recognized that certain aspects of the private life of a person who is engaged in a public activity or has acquired a certain notoriety can become matters of public interest..."
And further, "It is also recognized that a photographer is exempt from liability, as are those who publish the photograph, when an individual's own action, albeit unwittingly, accidentally places him or her in the photograph in an incidental matter..." (as at a sporting event)
and also: "Another situation where the public interest prevails is where a person appears in an incidental manner in a photograph of a public place..." (as in the background of a photograph of a the Eiffel Tower, for example)
I don't know what's going on in the jurisdiction where he took the case to court, but in many jurisdictions, including my own, there's no reason you can't use lawyers in Small Claims Court. You might piss off the judge, but if you're a corporation, it's entirely expected.
Presumably, given that they didn't have the encryption key in the first instance, having an encryption key in the second that begins deletion is irrelevant. It's still illegal to destroy evidence. Instead of being thrown in jail for what they thought you did originally, they'll just throw you in for contempt and destruction of evidence.
There are two reasons for this to be done, usually, and Slashdot is often guilty of the former- A) because they can't see past who commissioned the research, and b) because there IS nothing to attack in the research.
This applies to ALL research which is attacked this way, but Slashdot is enormously guilty of it. Another good example of the former is the whole "climate change" tempest, pardon the pun.
Have fun with having any possible income you may ever in the future make secured automatically for Microsoft. Doesn't that sound like fun, being permanently poor with little to no chance to ever get out of it?
Perhaps not the right place to put this question, but I've always wondered why Lynx doesn't dynamically render images in ASCII on the fly. I know, for example, VLC can render video as ASCII on the fly.
I think it'd be awesome to have a totally text-based browser that converts images to ASCII.
There was something vaguely similar that happened when I was in University.
I found that, rather than booting into SuSe, I was better off just grabbing firefox and telling the User Agent Switcher to represent me as a Mac or Linux, or anything else, really. I never had a problem after, never needed to download the software, and I passed on this tip to dozens of individuals. Six weeks after the beginning of the semester, Network Operations came to me (I had intervewed for a part-time position there) and asked me quietly to stop passing around the tip. They said that while it was fine if someone came up with it on their own (because it indicated a sufficient grasp of understanding network security, I imagine), they did not want it passed around to those who didn't understand security principles.
I have a laserjet 2600n, and can second this, most emphatically. At home, it's plugged into my network, and I've never had a problem with it at all (except for the fact that it seems to do its autocalibration routines in the middle of the night, which can be very startling the first few times).
Plus, I did the cost per cartridge analysis, and it was half the cost per page of an inkjet printer. Absolutely great. Even if the initial outlay was 399 or so, it was still totally worth it.
I've never had an outlook PST file corrupt on me. That said, Outlook Search has drastically improved (2003 was lightyears ahead of XP, 2007 is far ahead of 2003) and, while I can unequivocally opine that using Outlook XP was a nightmare on the usability side (even though most of the features were there) Outlook 2007 is, in my not-so-humble opinion, much, much improved on that front.
The last time I used Outlook 2000 was a long time ago, so I can't comment, but I went from Outlook XP (still used on about 1/2 the machines around here) to Outlook 2003, (which I used at home) to Office 2007 (everywhere). Office 2007 is a dream compared to the others. The ribbon takes a bit of getting used to, though.
This is a smart idea (storing encrypted archives on video DVDs) but I'd be concerned that possibly those archives might become decryptable sometime in the future (Hence the provision in my will that my computer hard-drives are to be shredded and doused in acid or destroyed with thermite or something equally destructive and violent immediately upon my death before, and as a condition of, the distrobution of my estate).
Very well. It's not true anymore. How's that? When the dollar was tied to the gold standard, it may have been true that the government could take your dollars and give you gold for them instead.
But you mistake what I mean by ownership- I mean the government 'owns' the dollar in much the same way that I 'own' the copyright on this post. You could walk off with the words, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. If you make an illegal copy of this post, I could prosecute you for copyright infringement. What do you wanna bet will happen if you make an illegal copy of the US Dollar? Yes, that's right, the US Treasury Board (or its investigative/police arm, the Secret Service) will come after your ass and throw it in prison.
What you have to remember is that, especially where the government is concerned, 'ownership' can mean many different things.
Yes, that's true- but that's not what's happening in Blizard's case. In Blizard's case, arguably, value is being acrued. (realize I'm not a tax lawyer here.)
People are putting in effort, for some material gain, as transient as that gain is; and the medium of exchange they're using, rather than being US Treasury-owned dollar bills, is Blizzard-owned faux-gold coins. The fact that Blizard acts as the mediator of the account is irrelevant.
All the money in the United States is legally owned by the United States Government. But it represents value of goods and services changing hands, as does virtual money in MMORGs. That's what's taxable.
An argument that seems to make sense but is logically fallacious. 'money' itself is nothing but a medium of value exchange. 'Money' is indeed changing hands.
You should be. There's no reason, for example, why you wouldn't pay taxes on garage sale items; the government (IRS, whatever) simply decides to overlook that because it'd take far too much effort to enforce reliably. But believe me, they're entitled to.
Your second point is more valid, and it's a good point indeed. However, if I'm a 747 pilot flying for the Luftwaffe, does that mean I shouldn't be taxed because the Luftwaffe owns the plane?
(terrible analogy, I know, but I trust you get my point.)
You mean you don't realize that money is taxed at every step where it changes hands? This is how it has always worked- why should the internet be any different?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody denied him his rights, he just didn't know how to exercise them, apparently.
Anyway, SCC is a real court. Now, do you have a right to appeal to the supreme court for your jurisdiction? Likely so (even if it is eventually, through other layers of court.)
It's a mistake anyway. Just because you have to basically be a lawyer to know what the correct move is doesn't mean that anything else is less incorrect.
I've dealt with small claims court matters before; court staff will help you formulate it, sure, but they can't (and won't) give you legal advice.
The best advice, as always- if you are being sued, consult a lawyer. The dollar amount is irrelevant. Even if your lawyer spends thirty minutes to look over the filing and tells you everything you've done is fine, it's worth it.
Yes. That was Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591 (S.C.C.)
In it, the the Quebec court ruled that publication of her photograph without her permission was a fault, and granted her $2,000 in damages.
The Supreme Court upheld it, under certain conditions:
"It is generally recognized that certain aspects of the private life of a person who is engaged in a public activity or has acquired a certain notoriety can become matters of public interest..."
And further,
"It is also recognized that a photographer is exempt from liability, as are those who publish the photograph, when an individual's own action, albeit unwittingly, accidentally places him or her in the photograph in an incidental matter..." (as at a sporting event)
and also:
"Another situation where the public interest prevails is where a person appears in an incidental manner in a photograph of a public place..." (as in the background of a photograph of a the Eiffel Tower, for example)
I don't know what's going on in the jurisdiction where he took the case to court, but in many jurisdictions, including my own, there's no reason you can't use lawyers in Small Claims Court. You might piss off the judge, but if you're a corporation, it's entirely expected.
It's a problem with the Mac, but printers are cheaper than desktops, for most people. ;p
Presumably, given that they didn't have the encryption key in the first instance, having an encryption key in the second that begins deletion is irrelevant. It's still illegal to destroy evidence. Instead of being thrown in jail for what they thought you did originally, they'll just throw you in for contempt and destruction of evidence.
Aaaand then they toss you in prison for failure to provide your encryption key. Too lazy? Forgot? How sad.
There's nothing scientifically invalid about eugenics and directed breeding. It may be morally reprehensible, but that's a whole other story entirely.
Amen. I wish I had mod points.
There are two reasons for this to be done, usually, and Slashdot is often guilty of the former-
A) because they can't see past who commissioned the research, and
b) because there IS nothing to attack in the research.
This applies to ALL research which is attacked this way, but Slashdot is enormously guilty of it. Another good example of the former is the whole "climate change" tempest, pardon the pun.
Have fun with having any possible income you may ever in the future make secured automatically for Microsoft. Doesn't that sound like fun, being permanently poor with little to no chance to ever get out of it?
Perhaps not the right place to put this question, but I've always wondered why Lynx doesn't dynamically render images in ASCII on the fly. I know, for example, VLC can render video as ASCII on the fly.
I think it'd be awesome to have a totally text-based browser that converts images to ASCII.
So what do you think a megaton is, boy? A megaton is indeed a million tonnes! Usually of TNT-equivalent explosive, by the by.
There was something vaguely similar that happened when I was in University.
I found that, rather than booting into SuSe, I was better off just grabbing firefox and telling the User Agent Switcher to represent me as a Mac or Linux, or anything else, really. I never had a problem after, never needed to download the software, and I passed on this tip to dozens of individuals. Six weeks after the beginning of the semester, Network Operations came to me (I had intervewed for a part-time position there) and asked me quietly to stop passing around the tip. They said that while it was fine if someone came up with it on their own (because it indicated a sufficient grasp of understanding network security, I imagine), they did not want it passed around to those who didn't understand security principles.
I stopped passing it around, and that was that.
I have a laserjet 2600n, and can second this, most emphatically. At home, it's plugged into my network, and I've never had a problem with it at all (except for the fact that it seems to do its autocalibration routines in the middle of the night, which can be very startling the first few times).
Plus, I did the cost per cartridge analysis, and it was half the cost per page of an inkjet printer. Absolutely great. Even if the initial outlay was 399 or so, it was still totally worth it.
When did firefox get a patent on tabbed browsing, pray tell?
Because there's TONS of prior art there. I would hardly call that 'patent infringement', as any patent so issued is obviously defective.
I've never had an outlook PST file corrupt on me. That said, Outlook Search has drastically improved (2003 was lightyears ahead of XP, 2007 is far ahead of 2003) and, while I can unequivocally opine that using Outlook XP was a nightmare on the usability side (even though most of the features were there) Outlook 2007 is, in my not-so-humble opinion, much, much improved on that front.
The last time I used Outlook 2000 was a long time ago, so I can't comment, but I went from Outlook XP (still used on about 1/2 the machines around here) to Outlook 2003, (which I used at home) to Office 2007 (everywhere). Office 2007 is a dream compared to the others. The ribbon takes a bit of getting used to, though.
Um... really. I think an enormous percentage of those using the full Microsoft Office suite (with Exchange etc) would disagree with you.
There's nothing out there that can match the usability of Exchange/Office. It's a sad reality, because Exchange/Office is fucking expensive.
This is a smart idea (storing encrypted archives on video DVDs) but I'd be concerned that possibly those archives might become decryptable sometime in the future (Hence the provision in my will that my computer hard-drives are to be shredded and doused in acid or destroyed with thermite or something equally destructive and violent immediately upon my death before, and as a condition of, the distrobution of my estate).
Even so, I might think about taking it up too.
Or a citizenry which has been indoctrinated to believe exactly the opposite.
Moreover, I can't see your system working at all. If you truely believe in those ideals, enforcing the opposite on others is morally reprehensible.
Very well. It's not true anymore. How's that? When the dollar was tied to the gold standard, it may have been true that the government could take your dollars and give you gold for them instead.
But you mistake what I mean by ownership- I mean the government 'owns' the dollar in much the same way that I 'own' the copyright on this post. You could walk off with the words, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. If you make an illegal copy of this post, I could prosecute you for copyright infringement. What do you wanna bet will happen if you make an illegal copy of the US Dollar? Yes, that's right, the US Treasury Board (or its investigative/police arm, the Secret Service) will come after your ass and throw it in prison.
What you have to remember is that, especially where the government is concerned, 'ownership' can mean many different things.
Yes, that's true- but that's not what's happening in Blizard's case. In Blizard's case, arguably, value is being acrued. (realize I'm not a tax lawyer here.)
People are putting in effort, for some material gain, as transient as that gain is; and the medium of exchange they're using, rather than being US Treasury-owned dollar bills, is Blizzard-owned faux-gold coins. The fact that Blizard acts as the mediator of the account is irrelevant.
All the money in the United States is legally owned by the United States Government. But it represents value of goods and services changing hands, as does virtual money in MMORGs. That's what's taxable.
An argument that seems to make sense but is logically fallacious. 'money' itself is nothing but a medium of value exchange. 'Money' is indeed changing hands.
You should be. There's no reason, for example, why you wouldn't pay taxes on garage sale items; the government (IRS, whatever) simply decides to overlook that because it'd take far too much effort to enforce reliably. But believe me, they're entitled to.
Your second point is more valid, and it's a good point indeed. However, if I'm a 747 pilot flying for the Luftwaffe, does that mean I shouldn't be taxed because the Luftwaffe owns the plane?
(terrible analogy, I know, but I trust you get my point.)
You mean you don't realize that money is taxed at every step where it changes hands? This is how it has always worked- why should the internet be any different?