A U.S. federal court in California has issued a summary judgment against Canadian-based isoHunt (and its [Canadian] owner Gary Fung)
Why is a US Court adjudicating a case involving a Canadian citizen and his Canadian website?
You forgot to add, "on behalf of predominately foreign owned companies".
My interpretation of the summary judgement is that this Canadian was facilitating copyright infringement that occurred on US soil - ie the clients doing the downloading.
Those web sites are guilty as hell. The evidence is that the sites specifically advertised copyrighted torrents, openly declared the intent of the site as facilitating infringing downloads, and 95% of the available torrents were for copyrighted material. It's the jurisdiction and enforceability that are in question. At least Pirate Bay could claim ignorance and lack of control over the torrents on their site.
You can charge them at night if your power company has lower rates at night. It's pointless though as any savings in the cost disappear in the inefficiencies of the ac->dc for charging, the heat losses during charging, and the dc->ac conversion to use that power again. A 10% savings in the power cost is stupid when you give up %15 of the energy trying to save it.
Okay, hop off that pedestal of superior knowledge for a moment. There are a lot of small businesses running exchange. A significant portion of whom are running consumer or small-business versions of antivirus including those intended for servers. Now realize that their IT guy is usually only part time and probably not an expert. A recipe for disaster I know, but small businesses can't devote much resources to IT.
As for antivirus vendors, Symantec Endpoint Protection client for servers installs just fine and doesn't automatically exclude the exchange stores or other critical files. Hence one reason for MS issuing the KB article. Yeah Symantec is crap but it is very prevalent in the corp environment (including mine). So even experience IT guys can get bit by this.
The MS Article also gives specific recommendations for domain controllers and servers, which make good sense as well. The files they list include startup scripts and GPOs which get heavy use. AV can induce severe problems if it kept locking the files. On the flip side, you should keep an eye on those files as a compromise (not necessary a generic detectable virus) could compromise your entire domain. Also note that you should exclude the database files on an Exchange server. Aside from the huge performance hit, you really don't want the a/v software deleting or screwing up the entire exchange store if it sees a virus buried way down in a single email.
Some of the nonsense here is the pharmaceutical companies resisting making drugs OTC. Once the drug goes OTC, the profit margin drops quite a bit. The demand may also drop as the insurance companies are no longer subsidizing the purchase. Or in some cases like Claritin, sales may go up and balance out or exceed the lower profit margin.
True, but they can prescribe the same limitations as these online Docs can. Actually, now that I think about it, it's likely that the online "docs" may be PAs anyway. Plus you get the added benefit that they can look at you and make a reasonably educated diagnosis.
If it's not a controlled substance you can prescribe it for yourself. What's the point? I don't need a doctor to buy aspirin or cold medicine. If I need an antibiotic I need a real visit to a real doctor.
Control substance != requires prescription. Control substances require additional accounting and verifications before they can be dispensed. Good examples would be vicodin, codeine, etc. Mostly the stuff that can be abused or has a street value. There are different schedules that dictate the amount of controls and accountability required. For example some of the drugs must be kept in a safe at the pharmacy.
From Wikipedia: "A controlled substance is generally a drug or chemical whose manufacture, possession, and use are regulated by a government. This may include illegal drugs and prescription medications".
That's the trouble with all anti-abortion groups: they only care about babies being born, after wards, the mother is on her own - even if it means they starve and are homeless. And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian.
Your ignorance of the anti-abortion movement is hilarious. My parents/family have (for 20+ years, now) been very involved in supporting multiple organizations in SoCal whose primary concern is taking care of single mothers who choose not to have an abortion - providing a home for them (often for the first couple years), while also helping them find a job, including providing professional skills training and support for taking college courses, as well as paying for food, baby needs, medical expenses, etc. Here's a link to one of them. The website quality is kinda crappy because they spend all monetary donations on supporting the women. But don't let a google search of "home for unwed mothers", or "home for single mothers", get in the way of your hate.
I would not consider those organizations necessarily "anti-abortion" groups. To me they sound like support organizations, some of whom could be pro or anti abortion, or not express an official stance in either direction. Many don't want to put forth an official stance as it brings up some heated political issues and risks polarizing their donors and reducing their ability to provide said support. Kudos on providing support to a needy group, btw.
If that's Chase's policy, they should just explain that and be consistent about it, and far fewer people would be complaining.
Chase did explain their policy, both upfront and after these groups started whining. They simply weren't eligible in the first place and got culled out after the first round of voting. Wikipedia describes SSDP as a "non-profit advocacy group", which is not the same thing as a charity. Below are some relevant quotes from the articles.
Chase opened its contest to any charity whose operating budget was less than $10 million and whose mission “aligned” with the bank’s corporate social responsibility guidelines. "Chase’s eligibility rules make it clear that the bank can disqualify any participant."
Mr. Evangelisti said the 100 finalists “reflect those organizations that received the most votes among eligible participants.”
I'm an atheist myself, but you, sir, are begging the question. Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.
He's got a point. The Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, and Atheists all have their differing views of a higher power. They all can't be right, and the majority will be wrong. I wouldn't label them as deceptive though, as I don't think they are knowingly telling falsehoods. Well, except maybe the Scientology kooks and a few of the other cults out there. I have no problem if someone want's to believe differently than I do, but I do get annoyed when they keep shoving it down my throat and insisting that they're better because they are religious (or at least pretend to be).
Personally, I'd have to call myself agnostic. I don't believe in a god with full blown personality that gives a crap about me as an individual as depicted by most religions. But I also won't completely rule out some form of higher power or lifeform that we don't see or understand.
Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant? How can that be deemed reasonable?
Yes. In Ohio, a closed container found on the arrestee or within reach can be searched without a warrant. The argument being made is that a cell phone is more like a computer which would require a warrant to search, and not a box containing physical items.
It might have been in writing, just not from someone with the authority to set formal policy. I can easily see an email saying if you go over the limit, expect to pay the overage charge. Otherwise, be prepared to have the messages reviewed to make sure its truly business related.
How many offices have an "unwritten" policy that you can use your deskphone for personal during lunch, maybe even going so far as to say use a calling card for personal long dist? How does that change your expectation of privacy? Can they fire you for using the phone during lunch and talking dirty to your girlfriend (assumes you're not creating a hostile workplace)?
Besides, wouldn't the issue be the person _sending_ these questionable text pages?
I'm not excusing it by any means, but rather pointing out that he probably didn't intend to murder the guy.
I agree with you that tasers are frequently misused, as its simply too easy. I do feel that cops need a non-lethal means of subduing someone such as the taser at their disposal, provided they are held accountable for their use.
apparently you haven't seen the video of a bart police officer shooting in the back a man who was being held face down on the ground by other officers, or the more recent case where a bart police officer grabbed someone [who did need to be taken off the train], walked the poor guy across the platform and smashed a glass barrier with the guy's face.
The BART shooting incident appears to have been incompetence in that the officer thought he pulled his taser. You'd have to be pretty brazen to shoot on purpose while surrounded by the public. The cop that threw the guy at the wall probably didn't realize that the glass would break. The guy was resisting and trying to attack the cop.
No doubt the privacy concerns are real, although I honestly don't know how bad MS will get with data mining. I suspect this statement from Mozilla was motivated by Google becoming a viable competitor in the browser market. Making this statement certainly attempts to sow the seeds of doubt about Google invading your privacy.
There are laws that can be applied to suppress classified information. The issue here is that the info was not classified, but sensitive unclassified. Unless it was privacy act information, there's virtually no laws that can be applied. There's not much that can be done to suppress it after it's become public knowledge in any case. At this point supressing the document itself is only part of the problem, as some many news agencies have posted summaries of the sensitive info.
Do you even know how linux works and what is meant with the kernel tree? Just type lsmod to see your modules, and do man modprobe to see how modules are loaded and unloaded.
Obviously the distribution must compile the entire kernel, with all modules, detect your requirements, and then load automatically those pieces that are needed for you at startup.
Yes I do. I am well aware that the kernel supports modules, and that most distros include that feature when they build they kernels. I am also aware that drivers can be included into the static kernel itself instead of as a standalone loadable module. You can compile a kernel without the module support, trimmed down to just what you need. I see this quite a bit in embedded systems, and sometimes higher security systems under the belief that disabling dynamic module loading improves security. I supposed initrd might also be an example.
So when the title says "included in" I incorrectly thought the support was not being added as a module, but that at least part of it was to be included in the kernel binary itself by default.
For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.
Source, please? Or are you mindlessly throwing baseless accusations?
Just cruise Slashdot for examples of people picking on MS for included features and support that few folks need. Particularly when they turn into vulnerabilities (doesn't help when those features are enabled by default). I blame MS for that, as I get to go disable all those features like remote dcom and posix support when I harden boxes. Or I simply use something like nlite to trim all the fluff away. Microsoft is getting better, mostly on the server side, of disabling or not installing all the features unless actually needed.
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine that suing in Canada would be the first step to getting it shut down in Canada.
Same here. The Berne Convention would be merely used to establish that copyright existed in Canada.
What I find curious is that the judgement refers to Does 1-10. Are those additional parties in the US?
A U.S. federal court in California has issued a summary judgment against Canadian-based isoHunt (and its [Canadian] owner Gary Fung)
Why is a US Court adjudicating a case involving a Canadian citizen and his Canadian website?
You forgot to add, "on behalf of predominately foreign owned companies".
My interpretation of the summary judgement is that this Canadian was facilitating copyright infringement that occurred on US soil - ie the clients doing the downloading.
Those web sites are guilty as hell. The evidence is that the sites specifically advertised copyrighted torrents, openly declared the intent of the site as facilitating infringing downloads, and 95% of the available torrents were for copyrighted material. It's the jurisdiction and enforceability that are in question. At least Pirate Bay could claim ignorance and lack of control over the torrents on their site.
Also, you can buy energy when it is cheapest
You can charge them at night if your power company has lower rates at night. It's pointless though as any savings in the cost disappear in the inefficiencies of the ac->dc for charging, the heat losses during charging, and the dc->ac conversion to use that power again. A 10% savings in the power cost is stupid when you give up %15 of the energy trying to save it.
The disadvantage is cost. There are many battery technologies more suitable for this application than lithium.
Yup. Lithium supply is marginal at present and future pricing is expected to keep climbing.
http://www.prlog.org/10207569-lithium-demand-pricing-supply-forecast-with-case-study-of-mountain-capitals-lithium-brines.html
Okay, hop off that pedestal of superior knowledge for a moment. There are a lot of small businesses running exchange. A significant portion of whom are running consumer or small-business versions of antivirus including those intended for servers. Now realize that their IT guy is usually only part time and probably not an expert. A recipe for disaster I know, but small businesses can't devote much resources to IT.
As for antivirus vendors, Symantec Endpoint Protection client for servers installs just fine and doesn't automatically exclude the exchange stores or other critical files. Hence one reason for MS issuing the KB article. Yeah Symantec is crap but it is very prevalent in the corp environment (including mine). So even experience IT guys can get bit by this.
The MS Article also gives specific recommendations for domain controllers and servers, which make good sense as well. The files they list include startup scripts and GPOs which get heavy use. AV can induce severe problems if it kept locking the files. On the flip side, you should keep an eye on those files as a compromise (not necessary a generic detectable virus) could compromise your entire domain. Also note that you should exclude the database files on an Exchange server. Aside from the huge performance hit, you really don't want the a/v software deleting or screwing up the entire exchange store if it sees a virus buried way down in a single email.
Well, the motivation for claritin was that it went generic.
Good point there. That's also a movitation for releasing a new and better drug, that is "so much better you need a prescription for it!"
Some of the nonsense here is the pharmaceutical companies resisting making drugs OTC. Once the drug goes OTC, the profit margin drops quite a bit. The demand may also drop as the insurance companies are no longer subsidizing the purchase. Or in some cases like Claritin, sales may go up and balance out or exceed the lower profit margin.
True, but they can prescribe the same limitations as these online Docs can. Actually, now that I think about it, it's likely that the online "docs" may be PAs anyway. Plus you get the added benefit that they can look at you and make a reasonably educated diagnosis.
If it's not a controlled substance you can prescribe it for yourself. What's the point? I don't need a doctor to buy aspirin or cold medicine. If I need an antibiotic I need a real visit to a real doctor.
Control substance != requires prescription. Control substances require additional accounting and verifications before they can be dispensed. Good examples would be vicodin, codeine, etc. Mostly the stuff that can be abused or has a street value. There are different schedules that dictate the amount of controls and accountability required. For example some of the drugs must be kept in a safe at the pharmacy.
From Wikipedia: "A controlled substance is generally a drug or chemical whose manufacture, possession, and use are regulated by a government. This may include illegal drugs and prescription medications".
So when did you go back and install Windows so he could play his favorite games again?
while these quiet activists choose an activity less in-your-face.
I'm convinced it's these quiet, in-the-background groups that are making the most difference too.
That's the trouble with all anti-abortion groups: they only care about babies being born, after wards, the mother is on her own - even if it means they starve and are homeless. And many of them have the audacity to call themselves Christian.
Your ignorance of the anti-abortion movement is hilarious. My parents/family have (for 20+ years, now) been very involved in supporting multiple organizations in SoCal whose primary concern is taking care of single mothers who choose not to have an abortion - providing a home for them (often for the first couple years), while also helping them find a job, including providing professional skills training and support for taking college courses, as well as paying for food, baby needs, medical expenses, etc. Here's a link to one of them. The website quality is kinda crappy because they spend all monetary donations on supporting the women. But don't let a google search of "home for unwed mothers", or "home for single mothers", get in the way of your hate.
I would not consider those organizations necessarily "anti-abortion" groups. To me they sound like support organizations, some of whom could be pro or anti abortion, or not express an official stance in either direction. Many don't want to put forth an official stance as it brings up some heated political issues and risks polarizing their donors and reducing their ability to provide said support. Kudos on providing support to a needy group, btw.
If that's Chase's policy, they should just explain that and be consistent about it, and far fewer people would be complaining.
Chase did explain their policy, both upfront and after these groups started whining. They simply weren't eligible in the first place and got culled out after the first round of voting. Wikipedia describes SSDP as a "non-profit advocacy group", which is not the same thing as a charity. Below are some relevant quotes from the articles.
Chase opened its contest to any charity whose operating budget was less than $10 million and whose mission “aligned” with the bank’s corporate social responsibility guidelines.
"Chase’s eligibility rules make it clear that the bank can disqualify any participant."
Mr. Evangelisti said the 100 finalists “reflect those organizations that received the most votes among eligible participants.”
I'm an atheist myself, but you, sir, are begging the question. Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.
He's got a point. The Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, and Atheists all have their differing views of a higher power. They all can't be right, and the majority will be wrong. I wouldn't label them as deceptive though, as I don't think they are knowingly telling falsehoods. Well, except maybe the Scientology kooks and a few of the other cults out there. I have no problem if someone want's to believe differently than I do, but I do get annoyed when they keep shoving it down my throat and insisting that they're better because they are religious (or at least pretend to be).
Personally, I'd have to call myself agnostic. I don't believe in a god with full blown personality that gives a crap about me as an individual as depicted by most religions. But I also won't completely rule out some form of higher power or lifeform that we don't see or understand.
Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant? How can that be deemed reasonable?
Yes. In Ohio, a closed container found on the arrestee or within reach can be searched without a warrant. The argument being made is that a cell phone is more like a computer which would require a warrant to search, and not a box containing physical items.
It might have been in writing, just not from someone with the authority to set formal policy. I can easily see an email saying if you go over the limit, expect to pay the overage charge. Otherwise, be prepared to have the messages reviewed to make sure its truly business related.
How many offices have an "unwritten" policy that you can use your deskphone for personal during lunch, maybe even going so far as to say use a calling card for personal long dist? How does that change your expectation of privacy? Can they fire you for using the phone during lunch and talking dirty to your girlfriend (assumes you're not creating a hostile workplace)?
Besides, wouldn't the issue be the person _sending_ these questionable text pages?
Whups. Looks like I typed scroogle.com which is an adult search engine. My mistake.
I'm not excusing it by any means, but rather pointing out that he probably didn't intend to murder the guy.
I agree with you that tasers are frequently misused, as its simply too easy. I do feel that cops need a non-lethal means of subduing someone such as the taser at their disposal, provided they are held accountable for their use.
apparently you haven't seen the video of a bart police officer shooting in the back a man who was being held face down on the ground by other officers, or the more recent case where a bart police officer grabbed someone [who did need to be taken off the train], walked the poor guy across the platform and smashed a glass barrier with the guy's face.
The BART shooting incident appears to have been incompetence in that the officer thought he pulled his taser. You'd have to be pretty brazen to shoot on purpose while surrounded by the public. The cop that threw the guy at the wall probably didn't realize that the glass would break. The guy was resisting and trying to attack the cop.
Or use scroogle.org which proxies your google searches
You might at least warn people this site is NSFW. It's an adult movies serach engine
No doubt the privacy concerns are real, although I honestly don't know how bad MS will get with data mining. I suspect this statement from Mozilla was motivated by Google becoming a viable competitor in the browser market. Making this statement certainly attempts to sow the seeds of doubt about Google invading your privacy.
There are laws that can be applied to suppress classified information. The issue here is that the info was not classified, but sensitive unclassified. Unless it was privacy act information, there's virtually no laws that can be applied. There's not much that can be done to suppress it after it's become public knowledge in any case. At this point supressing the document itself is only part of the problem, as some many news agencies have posted summaries of the sensitive info.
Do you even know how linux works and what is meant with the kernel tree? Just type lsmod to see your modules, and do man modprobe to see how modules are loaded and unloaded.
Obviously the distribution must compile the entire kernel, with all modules, detect your requirements, and then load automatically those pieces that are needed for you at startup.
Yes I do. I am well aware that the kernel supports modules, and that most distros include that feature when they build they kernels. I am also aware that drivers can be included into the static kernel itself instead of as a standalone loadable module. You can compile a kernel without the module support, trimmed down to just what you need. I see this quite a bit in embedded systems, and sometimes higher security systems under the belief that disabling dynamic module loading improves security. I supposed initrd might also be an example.
So when the title says "included in" I incorrectly thought the support was not being added as a module, but that at least part of it was to be included in the kernel binary itself by default.
For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.
Source, please? Or are you mindlessly throwing baseless accusations?
Just cruise Slashdot for examples of people picking on MS for included features and support that few folks need. Particularly when they turn into vulnerabilities (doesn't help when those features are enabled by default). I blame MS for that, as I get to go disable all those features like remote dcom and posix support when I harden boxes. Or I simply use something like nlite to trim all the fluff away. Microsoft is getting better, mostly on the server side, of disabling or not installing all the features unless actually needed.