Even that shouldn't matter. If a PC maker came out with a "MacPC", and runs "Mac" software, you honestly think Apple will pay them a single penny if that company sues Apple for the "MacBook"? Hell no, Apple will bury them before the PC maker could blink. And I hope Google does the same here, sues for the entire company's assets, and turns their offices and buildings into giant 3D rendition of the Chrome logo.
I'm pretty sure Google has the Chrome trademark. Since the maker is suing because their "Chromium" is too much like "Chrome", would it not suffice that Google could sue saying exactly the same thing. Sounds like a troll looking for a settlement. I think Google should spend the extra money and bury them legally.
... those who can't do, teach. Any idiot can support Windows 7-only wifi/vpn. Unfortunately, many people graduate college worse off than when they matriculated. At least they weren't so cocksure to begin with. And many of these people intern at the university itself first.
As I said, IANAL. And you are right, there is a difference. It is an infraction. But, the constitution protects any court case, including fines over $20, to allowing for jury. (Now, how courts today interpret $20, which was maybe months worth of wages back then, may differ. BUT, fines today are not simply $20, and may actually be months worth of wages still.) Also, how this applies to state law may differ too, but I'd assume you still retain rights to a jury (since all states do allow juries, and that may not necessarily be in their own constitutions).
But I do know one thing. Even in a civil suit, you may have a jury. However, I would hold serious doubts, regardless of it being criminal, misdemeanor, or infraction, that the burden of proof can be lowered in a State Vs. Individual cause. Civil is "[you] harmed [me], and [you] owes [me]". But an infraction is "[you] harmed [interests of the state], and [you] owe [a penalty] which the state will enforce and/or collect.
Alas, I don't know enough case law to say any of this for certain. Maybe we do have some lawyers here who know a bit more.
As a matter of course, though, I've been to traffic court. And I know that it was more informal, and the prosecution does have a powerful weapon... the word of the cop, himself. That's why most people lose when they go. But in this case, it's not someone's word, but a more abstract. And the problem here is also, who can you question about a photograph? The maker? The police? etc. And, because it may be open to interpretation, asking for a jury here, so that 12 reasonable people can review the photo, is surely arguable.
She was forced to compete against other companies reselling Verizon's own hardware/infrastructure cheaper than Verizon could because Verizon had more overhead as a larger company.
The problem with this argument is that overhead tends to shrink as companies grow in size as a percentage of net income. This is why Walmart has cheaper prices than Joe's General Store. Walmart's overhead, as a percentage, is far lower than Joe's.
To say that Verizon has more overhead than third parties is completely misleading. Third party overhead, as a percentage, was far more expensive on a per-service basis. True, Verizon may have had higher percentage overhead on advertising, but that is also part of their ability to out-compete a third party, even if a third party is at a lower cost. Verizon also has a much more well staffed service center. But this is a completely different "service" they can offer, but a third party could not. If a third party tried to compete with a support service center, their percentage of overhead would have been outrageously higher than Verizon.
Verizon nor AT&T are not "screwed" by selling their lines at cost any more than Walmart is screwed by Joe for selling the exact same products. Joe's overhead, as a percentage, and confined to "services" he offers is costlier. And second, Walmart can offer more "services" (more lanes, more selection, more locations, etc) than Joe ever could, and should Joe try to compete in those services, his costs will be a higher percentage than Walmart.
This makes complete economic sense, where-as your post does not. Because, if you were right, it would make no sense for Verizon or AT&T to want to purchase other providers or grow in any way. If it is more economically burdening to grow, then they would fight tooth and nail not to grow. Walmart and Costco wouldn't exist, nor would national brands. In fact, even the general store probably wouldn't exist in such a system.
But that's simply not how the economics work. While your libertarian leaning ideals may be well placed, your economic reasoning for them falls apart. Because, in fact, as a percentage, Verizon can sell its own services cheaper than a third party (at cost), because nowhere in the equation are they getting a free ride.
1. Its not a picture of you. Its a picture of a car and its license plate.
I do not know of USA, but here if the driver cannot be identified then the owner is legally responsible of the fines. Of course, if he can prove that someone else was the driver it then gets passed to the driver. Apart from theft, it is pretty sure to say that the owner knows who was driving the car and can discuss the matter with him.
In the USA, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". The defense is under no obligation to prove anything. Most defenses consist simply or raising doubt. Here, there is a presumption of innocence. "Innocent until proven guilty."
Therefore, any "reasonable doubts" raised and believed by even one reasonable person on a jury of peers, usually 12 people total, (and here, a jury can be called for any matter more than $20) will fail to result in a guilty verdict.
So, if the prosecution cannot prove that I am the driver, they would have a harder time winning a case if I took it to jury (IANAL). If I had an alibi, or even the suggestion that "I leave my keys on the counter and often let my neighbor borrow my truck," and have no recollection of what happened on that particular day, I could use such information to sow doubt to be found not guilty without even proving that I'm innocent. I'm sure 1001 explanations could be found, none of which I have to prove, but my lawyer can merely suggest as "reasonable doubts".
... the law's authors were/. users who found moderation to be too soft of a vehicle for penalizing Anonymous posters of goatse pictures.;)
But I do have a serious point.
While none of us could say that something like goatse has a necessarily positive net benefit, and it is certainly "offensive", some of the most ground breaking art is by its very nature meant to be offensive.
The picture of a naked woman on the cross like Christ could be seen as offensive. But it makes a strong social statement, whether a particular person agrees with it or not. While I think certain images negatively impact society, the problem with laws such as this are interpretation. And in rational thinking, a naked man on the cross should be just as offensive. Yet, nobody would think much of it, because of exposure. In fact, entire populations of people would extol what they perceive as the positive impact it has had, while other entire populations would decry its negative impacts.
The problem is the chilling effect. It forces minority works of art to be censored by others afraid of the law. This runs contrary to the laws of social evolution, because it prohibits and artificially restrains that evolution, even from potentially positive impacts of controversial works that could lead us to greater freedom and equality.
Goatse will not do this, which the laws authors would cite being used as a psychological weapon. But who is to say Rick Rolling couldn't be seen as distressing? If someone posted a youtube of "Pope is killed!" and it was re-broadcast of the death of the previous Pope, but editted so as to seem to apply to the current pope, and then Rick Rolled. Both the Rick Roll would be a "shock", the edit would be a "shock", etc. etc. Then, we see pranking outlawed if we take this to its logical conclusion.
I believe that we will always see that laws hastily written and poorly implemented will fail, we should encourage our government to explore game theory more. This would lead to actually considering future consequences on future activities, and the iterations of those impacts. Short term solutions to short term problems are just as likely to become future long term problems themselves.
Anyone remember finger? I never liked it, because I don't want anyone knowing the status of my email, not even way back then. "Georgia Tech researcher" my ass; this is a tech historian/preservationist.
What I can't understand is that (I may be wrong), Google said it came from "China", physically. They did NOT say it came from the "Chinese Government". That may be the implication, but that's not what they said. For instance, the Sony hack may have come from the "United States", physically, but that is not the same as saying that Sony was hacked by the "United States Government". This misinformation is just flamebait.
If the reboot speed is fast enough, and they have auto resume, might be a mute issue for them. It would be nice if they added this to the server side, though. I just wish they could get through an iTunes update without reboot.
When you install Windows 7 or a new Linux kernel, do you have to restart? Why? OS X Lion don't require that.
We haven't "had" to reboot linux for more than 3 years now, where have you been?
But I think what you say about Lion is incorrect. "Mac OS X Lion's new Resume feature lets users get back to where they left off after a shutdown or restart" - CNet
That is significant, but it's not the same as not having to rebooting. If you didn't reboot, then it's just sleep/hybernate, and Windows has done that for many years. So, where are you getting that info that it never has to reboot, even with new kernel? If you've run Snow Leopard, you will be familiar with restarting after updates, desktop AND server (I run both, btw, and I have a server asking for reboot right now, and it's not even a kernel update). Linux usually never needs a restart unless you specifically update the kernel. But even then, you don't have to. It will continue to run on the previous kernel until you decide to restart. With other tools like KSplice, we don't have to ever reboot. But, I highly doubt you can do all updates, including kernel, without restarting Lion.
The same goes for iPhone/iPad. If it updates the kernel, you're going to have to reboot the device. But, maybe they are changing this, just wanna know where you read it?
FTA: "The two senators have written to the US Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration asking them to shut down and investigate the site."
Crypto-anarchists have been working on the e-currency issues for years. They strive to make it more like Freenet, and everyone is well aware that Freenet is as seedy as it gets (I refuse to run it). Just like Napster, shutting it down could work against their goals by pushing for more decentralized solutions. Nobody will ever shut down Freenet.
We should all consider this as a knee jerk reaction as well. Many of us remember "trading" boards, BBSs, and chat rooms. Images, stories, music (midi) and software. And not much of that was legal. 20 years later, and you have iTunes. Just as pornography has pushed technology, so has illicit activities.
Take advantage, and you can reap the benefits and make it legitimate. Strike out at it, and you will only drive it further underground.
Pre-Investment Zuckerberg: j00 sux0r! 4ll ur B4ss R b3long 2 Z!
"On October 24, 2007, Microsoft announced that it had purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook for $240 million, giving Facebook a total implied value of around $15 billion." - Wikipedia
Post-Investment Zuckerberg: I, Mr. Zuckerberg, am sorry to inform you that you are inadequate for consideration. Hence force, I will purchase all of your base. To wit I declare, "For great justice."
But it's the newness that they aren't supporting. You can still get to the sites. What they are saying is, new features will not be backwards compatible. And that is for obvious reasons, not because they are mean. You will always be able to get the HTML-only version of Gmail. But if you want it to integrate some new AJAX drag and drop video file editor within new messages while teleconferencing to Mars... IE6 ain't gonna cut it, and they're just making it known: If you want all the new features, you need to at least run version X.
He can't reliably reproduce Jar Jar Binks and his other computer generated characters every week on a realistic budget. Apparently, Farscape animatronics/muppets are too good for George now that he retired Yoda's puppet. I personally think he should switch to clay animation just to screw with us some more.
... he just means that market apps can't compare to the awesomeness of bundled apps, like their bundled Blockbuster app, the crippled Skype VZW-only app, or the VZW Navigator app, which were hand picked by them. Besides, why would you want free apps when you can pay and get less?
This is streisand effect to the Nth degree. This is just begging for people to find the offending information, causes public backlash for requiring someone to spam, and for generally making themselves (plaintiffs) look like asses.
I look forward to reading this story months from now: In other news, lawyers find new way to have Twitter accounts shut down without a court order or asking Twitter. The method, known as "using crowd sourcing to get accounts flagged as spammers by forcing the account holder to spam" may have other applications, such as email defamation cases whereby the email account holder will lose their account with their ISP and will possibly be prosecution by CAN-SPAM style laws making spamming illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Even that shouldn't matter. If a PC maker came out with a "MacPC", and runs "Mac" software, you honestly think Apple will pay them a single penny if that company sues Apple for the "MacBook"? Hell no, Apple will bury them before the PC maker could blink. And I hope Google does the same here, sues for the entire company's assets, and turns their offices and buildings into giant 3D rendition of the Chrome logo.
I'm pretty sure Google has the Chrome trademark. Since the maker is suing because their "Chromium" is too much like "Chrome", would it not suffice that Google could sue saying exactly the same thing. Sounds like a troll looking for a settlement. I think Google should spend the extra money and bury them legally.
... those who can't do, teach. Any idiot can support Windows 7-only wifi/vpn. Unfortunately, many people graduate college worse off than when they matriculated. At least they weren't so cocksure to begin with. And many of these people intern at the university itself first.
Someone has a friend in the printing business and awarded a contract as a political payment. Electronic files can't be used as payment to anyone.
As I said, IANAL. And you are right, there is a difference. It is an infraction. But, the constitution protects any court case, including fines over $20, to allowing for jury. (Now, how courts today interpret $20, which was maybe months worth of wages back then, may differ. BUT, fines today are not simply $20, and may actually be months worth of wages still.) Also, how this applies to state law may differ too, but I'd assume you still retain rights to a jury (since all states do allow juries, and that may not necessarily be in their own constitutions).
But I do know one thing. Even in a civil suit, you may have a jury. However, I would hold serious doubts, regardless of it being criminal, misdemeanor, or infraction, that the burden of proof can be lowered in a State Vs. Individual cause. Civil is "[you] harmed [me], and [you] owes [me]". But an infraction is "[you] harmed [interests of the state], and [you] owe [a penalty] which the state will enforce and/or collect.
Alas, I don't know enough case law to say any of this for certain. Maybe we do have some lawyers here who know a bit more.
As a matter of course, though, I've been to traffic court. And I know that it was more informal, and the prosecution does have a powerful weapon... the word of the cop, himself. That's why most people lose when they go. But in this case, it's not someone's word, but a more abstract. And the problem here is also, who can you question about a photograph? The maker? The police? etc. And, because it may be open to interpretation, asking for a jury here, so that 12 reasonable people can review the photo, is surely arguable.
She was forced to compete against other companies reselling Verizon's own hardware/infrastructure cheaper than Verizon could because Verizon had more overhead as a larger company.
The problem with this argument is that overhead tends to shrink as companies grow in size as a percentage of net income. This is why Walmart has cheaper prices than Joe's General Store. Walmart's overhead, as a percentage, is far lower than Joe's.
To say that Verizon has more overhead than third parties is completely misleading. Third party overhead, as a percentage, was far more expensive on a per-service basis. True, Verizon may have had higher percentage overhead on advertising, but that is also part of their ability to out-compete a third party, even if a third party is at a lower cost. Verizon also has a much more well staffed service center. But this is a completely different "service" they can offer, but a third party could not. If a third party tried to compete with a support service center, their percentage of overhead would have been outrageously higher than Verizon.
Verizon nor AT&T are not "screwed" by selling their lines at cost any more than Walmart is screwed by Joe for selling the exact same products. Joe's overhead, as a percentage, and confined to "services" he offers is costlier. And second, Walmart can offer more "services" (more lanes, more selection, more locations, etc) than Joe ever could, and should Joe try to compete in those services, his costs will be a higher percentage than Walmart.
This makes complete economic sense, where-as your post does not. Because, if you were right, it would make no sense for Verizon or AT&T to want to purchase other providers or grow in any way. If it is more economically burdening to grow, then they would fight tooth and nail not to grow. Walmart and Costco wouldn't exist, nor would national brands. In fact, even the general store probably wouldn't exist in such a system.
But that's simply not how the economics work. While your libertarian leaning ideals may be well placed, your economic reasoning for them falls apart. Because, in fact, as a percentage, Verizon can sell its own services cheaper than a third party (at cost), because nowhere in the equation are they getting a free ride.
1. Its not a picture of you. Its a picture of a car and its license plate.
I do not know of USA, but here if the driver cannot be identified then the owner is legally responsible of the fines. Of course, if he can prove that someone else was the driver it then gets passed to the driver. Apart from theft, it is pretty sure to say that the owner knows who was driving the car and can discuss the matter with him.
In the USA, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". The defense is under no obligation to prove anything. Most defenses consist simply or raising doubt. Here, there is a presumption of innocence. "Innocent until proven guilty."
Therefore, any "reasonable doubts" raised and believed by even one reasonable person on a jury of peers, usually 12 people total, (and here, a jury can be called for any matter more than $20) will fail to result in a guilty verdict.
So, if the prosecution cannot prove that I am the driver, they would have a harder time winning a case if I took it to jury (IANAL). If I had an alibi, or even the suggestion that "I leave my keys on the counter and often let my neighbor borrow my truck," and have no recollection of what happened on that particular day, I could use such information to sow doubt to be found not guilty without even proving that I'm innocent. I'm sure 1001 explanations could be found, none of which I have to prove, but my lawyer can merely suggest as "reasonable doubts".
Ironic that such a comment was from an Anonymous Coward... ironic because Red Light cameras are essentially Anonymous Cowards, too.
... the law's authors were /. users who found moderation to be too soft of a vehicle for penalizing Anonymous posters of goatse pictures. ;)
But I do have a serious point.
While none of us could say that something like goatse has a necessarily positive net benefit, and it is certainly "offensive", some of the most ground breaking art is by its very nature meant to be offensive.
The picture of a naked woman on the cross like Christ could be seen as offensive. But it makes a strong social statement, whether a particular person agrees with it or not. While I think certain images negatively impact society, the problem with laws such as this are interpretation. And in rational thinking, a naked man on the cross should be just as offensive. Yet, nobody would think much of it, because of exposure. In fact, entire populations of people would extol what they perceive as the positive impact it has had, while other entire populations would decry its negative impacts.
The problem is the chilling effect. It forces minority works of art to be censored by others afraid of the law. This runs contrary to the laws of social evolution, because it prohibits and artificially restrains that evolution, even from potentially positive impacts of controversial works that could lead us to greater freedom and equality.
Goatse will not do this, which the laws authors would cite being used as a psychological weapon. But who is to say Rick Rolling couldn't be seen as distressing? If someone posted a youtube of "Pope is killed!" and it was re-broadcast of the death of the previous Pope, but editted so as to seem to apply to the current pope, and then Rick Rolled. Both the Rick Roll would be a "shock", the edit would be a "shock", etc. etc. Then, we see pranking outlawed if we take this to its logical conclusion.
I believe that we will always see that laws hastily written and poorly implemented will fail, we should encourage our government to explore game theory more. This would lead to actually considering future consequences on future activities, and the iterations of those impacts. Short term solutions to short term problems are just as likely to become future long term problems themselves.
Probably angsty nobody liked his baby.
I heard 5 people liked it. That's more than anyone can say for MySpace today.
Anyone remember finger? I never liked it, because I don't want anyone knowing the status of my email, not even way back then. "Georgia Tech researcher" my ass; this is a tech historian/preservationist.
What I can't understand is that (I may be wrong), Google said it came from "China", physically. They did NOT say it came from the "Chinese Government". That may be the implication, but that's not what they said. For instance, the Sony hack may have come from the "United States", physically, but that is not the same as saying that Sony was hacked by the "United States Government". This misinformation is just flamebait.
"I would never turn FBI informant if I were a hacker." - Martin Luther King
In other news 47% [1] of all news articles are speculative bullshit with no grounding in reality. See we can all make up numbers.
1. "We can invent references, too, and nobody will bother to check them." - Gettysburg Address, 1812.
It's simple evolutionary theory. Gaining the maximum benefit through the least expended effort. It's not a flaw of the system, it's a design feature.
If the reboot speed is fast enough, and they have auto resume, might be a mute issue for them. It would be nice if they added this to the server side, though. I just wish they could get through an iTunes update without reboot.
http://www.ksplice.com/
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/04/24/1334234/Patch-the-Linux-Kernel-Without-Reboots - Apr 2008
When you install Windows 7 or a new Linux kernel, do you have to restart? Why? OS X Lion don't require that.
We haven't "had" to reboot linux for more than 3 years now, where have you been?
But I think what you say about Lion is incorrect. "Mac OS X Lion's new Resume feature lets users get back to where they left off after a shutdown or restart" - CNet
That is significant, but it's not the same as not having to rebooting. If you didn't reboot, then it's just sleep/hybernate, and Windows has done that for many years. So, where are you getting that info that it never has to reboot, even with new kernel? If you've run Snow Leopard, you will be familiar with restarting after updates, desktop AND server (I run both, btw, and I have a server asking for reboot right now, and it's not even a kernel update). Linux usually never needs a restart unless you specifically update the kernel. But even then, you don't have to. It will continue to run on the previous kernel until you decide to restart. With other tools like KSplice, we don't have to ever reboot. But, I highly doubt you can do all updates, including kernel, without restarting Lion.
The same goes for iPhone/iPad. If it updates the kernel, you're going to have to reboot the device. But, maybe they are changing this, just wanna know where you read it?
FTA: "The two senators have written to the US Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration asking them to shut down and investigate the site."
Crypto-anarchists have been working on the e-currency issues for years. They strive to make it more like Freenet, and everyone is well aware that Freenet is as seedy as it gets (I refuse to run it). Just like Napster, shutting it down could work against their goals by pushing for more decentralized solutions. Nobody will ever shut down Freenet.
We should all consider this as a knee jerk reaction as well. Many of us remember "trading" boards, BBSs, and chat rooms. Images, stories, music (midi) and software. And not much of that was legal. 20 years later, and you have iTunes. Just as pornography has pushed technology, so has illicit activities.
Take advantage, and you can reap the benefits and make it legitimate. Strike out at it, and you will only drive it further underground.
Isn't Apostrophes the great philosopher of the ancient island Gramatica?
Pre-Investment Zuckerberg: j00 sux0r! 4ll ur B4ss R b3long 2 Z!
"On October 24, 2007, Microsoft announced that it had purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook for $240 million, giving Facebook a total implied value of around $15 billion." - Wikipedia
Post-Investment Zuckerberg: I, Mr. Zuckerberg, am sorry to inform you that you are inadequate for consideration. Hence force, I will purchase all of your base. To wit I declare, "For great justice."
I've been running a MUCH larger DNA-based computational circuit for YEARS now! Course, sometimes it fails me completely.
That's because you need to wipe it off with a towel when you are finished or the keyboard gets too sticky to operate. ;)
But it's the newness that they aren't supporting. You can still get to the sites. What they are saying is, new features will not be backwards compatible. And that is for obvious reasons, not because they are mean. You will always be able to get the HTML-only version of Gmail. But if you want it to integrate some new AJAX drag and drop video file editor within new messages while teleconferencing to Mars... IE6 ain't gonna cut it, and they're just making it known: If you want all the new features, you need to at least run version X.
He can't reliably reproduce Jar Jar Binks and his other computer generated characters every week on a realistic budget. Apparently, Farscape animatronics/muppets are too good for George now that he retired Yoda's puppet. I personally think he should switch to clay animation just to screw with us some more.
... we need to allow the President powers to shut down sites dangerous to national security. Sony is dangerous to national security. /sarcasm
... he just means that market apps can't compare to the awesomeness of bundled apps, like their bundled Blockbuster app, the crippled Skype VZW-only app, or the VZW Navigator app, which were hand picked by them. Besides, why would you want free apps when you can pay and get less?
This is streisand effect to the Nth degree. This is just begging for people to find the offending information, causes public backlash for requiring someone to spam, and for generally making themselves (plaintiffs) look like asses.
I look forward to reading this story months from now: In other news, lawyers find new way to have Twitter accounts shut down without a court order or asking Twitter. The method, known as "using crowd sourcing to get accounts flagged as spammers by forcing the account holder to spam" may have other applications, such as email defamation cases whereby the email account holder will lose their account with their ISP and will possibly be prosecution by CAN-SPAM style laws making spamming illegal.