That's a risky tactic to take. At very least you ought to be running it by an attorney and probably have them send a response to the note requesting appropriate information. Not sure about the second half, but the attorney should know how to appropriately respond.
The problem is that if you ignore it and they do proceed, they could have you confused with somebody else you could end up making things worse by ignoring it.
I doubt that it's civil in nature. The woman that falsely claimed to have been a victim of an acid attack in Vancouver, WA, is going to be charged with, theft by deception, IIRC. Which is a criminal charge. I'm not sure about other states or the UK, but if you're calling people up and telling them that they have to pay to settle up for a violation that you don't have a good faith belief that they owe you for, I don't get why something similar wouldn't apply.
No, the decision was correct. A social networking site is indeed a public place for all intents and purposes. Considering that emails are usually made available during discovery, I don't think this was unreasonable. And really, the plaintiff should have turned over those pages anyways as they're apparently relevant to the case at hand.
Additionally, email providers and other sites of similar purpose typically include language to allow themselves to provide your information in response to lawfully granted subpoenas.
I'm not sure I agree, but ultimately the decision was correct. Most if not all ToS include a line about turning over records when presented with a subpoena relevant to the records. I would've thought that would be the line that did it, however if the ToS state that it is to be considered a public place, that would be a a reasonable ruling as well on the motion.
No, the plaintiff really doesn't. During discovery the judge can, and often does, order things like emails to be handed over when they're relevant to the case. And emails are far more reasonable to expect to be private than facebook posts are.
Yeah, that kind of reminds me of that thing Midge on that 70s show said. This is one of those obvious moments like when she said "Bob! If you tell them, they’ll know!".
Indeed, a lot of my CDs of older music aren't so affected. It can be annoying, but the music is a lot more interesting. Personally, I would never have been able to sit through Miles Davis' classic Kinda Blue if it had been compressed all to hell. Likewise Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday would've been crap had modern engineers been responsible.
That's simply not true. Digital audio has both the dynamic range and bit rate to handle what vinyl can and more. Compared vinyl under the best case against digital audio files that haven't been mastered to make best use of the available resources is not fair.
The main problem with vinyl is that every time you play it there's a small amount of damage that's done. Which isn't the case with CDs, the laser can't wear away the bits on the disc. It's probably not a significant amount of wear and tear each play of the record, but it is there, and nothing can prevent at least some wear with each time the needle travels the groove.
More than that, when I do that sort of thing with images, I don't provide the individual parts because it causes other less obvious reasons. There is the space issue, but the bigger one is of artistic integrity. Sure it's cool to be able to remix somebody's stuff, but when you do that you're adding interpretation to somebody else's work which may or may not really be accurate.
Sometimes that's cool, but it really takes a lot of trust to do it. Not just that it won't be exploited, but that people won't be passing it off as something it isn't.
There's also the issue of proving the ownership of the copyright. If I have the best quality version, including all the parts in a form which can't be derived from the final version, it's much easier to demonstrate that I do indeed own it.
Except that was while disco was still sort of in. Vinyl was declared obsolete probably 2 decades ago. When I was a kid we were listening to them, but the focus was already on cassettes and CDs.
Now were disco to be up by that margin in the mid 90s, that would be analogous.
You really shouldn't do that with CDs either. It's just that with a commercial CD you're likely to notice the problem much later than with vinyl. With CDs you start to have problems fairly quickly, but it takes a while before enough damage is done to actually notice it.
Unless you want to rip it in which case you start to notice relatively quickly. The main advantage of CDA is the larger dynamic range, which typically isn't used, these days they tend to compress the sound so that it would easily fit on vinyl without causing a lot of needle skipping.
That's because most criminal acts require mens rea. And the "please won't somebody think of the children" set doesn't want the test to apply to crimes against children. The problem is that it should apply to that. Meaning that if the image or the individual can't reasonably be known by the accused to be a minor, perhaps that individual shouldn't be convicted.
Another reason is that one is capable of, and indeed required to download, an image prior to knowing if it is legal.
Unfortunately, like with violence prevention and anger management treatments that progressives often want, these things get shouted down for not being adequate in punishing perceived evildoers. It's not until a person or his acquaintances get unfairly convicted that the attitude changes.
Not really, it's not wanting to fix the system which causes people to be called a witch or a nut, it's insisting that there's nothing wrong with it that does. Meaning that if you want to fix it by dealing with the possibility that somebody planted the photos or that one accidentally came across them you'd be alright. Fixing the problem by stating that since this particular person didn't themselves molest the child would warrant being called a nutjob.
No, just because there's nudity doesn't mean that it's porn. And just because it's a nude child doesn't automatically mean that it's child pornography. Otherwise you'd never see advertisements featuring naked children on TV.
It's not something you see often, and you never see anything more than the butt. They get away with it largely because it isn't sexualized and it falls within legitimate free speech protections.
Not really, that's a nightmare scenario, but the more likely ones like stealing ones personal information or otherwise abusing the computer are sufficient to justify keeping it locked down.
It's not a thought crime. People go to prison for possession because they're ultimately in part responsible for the abuse. Either, by paying for it or trading for it. Additionally, they've failed to report the abuse to the police, and I doubt very much that would be significantly more likely to happen if it were legalized.
But then again, why let reality get in the way of a ZOMG gubmint abuse post.
Sigh, the man was indicted but never convicted. He has subsequently died, don't you think that it's about time that the jokes about his alleged sexual offenses died off?
I mean he was found to be not guilty by a jury of his peers and the evidence was never particularly strong anyways.
That depends a great deal on the contract. That contract was apparently with the head hunter rather than the former employee. Had it been with the employee there would've been nobody filling in for the remainder of the same contract.
Re:So.. Much as it seems like it, this does not qu
on
IBM Demos Single-Atom DRAM
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It doesn't apply, Moore's law only applies to transistor count on processors.
Yes and no, less likely that it will be hit but significantly more damaging if it is hit. What I'm wanting to know is what their plans are for error correction. A single atom is susceptible to all sorts of things that thousands or even hundreds of atoms aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a risky tactic to take. At very least you ought to be running it by an attorney and probably have them send a response to the note requesting appropriate information. Not sure about the second half, but the attorney should know how to appropriately respond.
The problem is that if you ignore it and they do proceed, they could have you confused with somebody else you could end up making things worse by ignoring it.
I doubt that it's civil in nature. The woman that falsely claimed to have been a victim of an acid attack in Vancouver, WA, is going to be charged with, theft by deception, IIRC. Which is a criminal charge. I'm not sure about other states or the UK, but if you're calling people up and telling them that they have to pay to settle up for a violation that you don't have a good faith belief that they owe you for, I don't get why something similar wouldn't apply.
No, the decision was correct. A social networking site is indeed a public place for all intents and purposes. Considering that emails are usually made available during discovery, I don't think this was unreasonable. And really, the plaintiff should have turned over those pages anyways as they're apparently relevant to the case at hand.
Additionally, email providers and other sites of similar purpose typically include language to allow themselves to provide your information in response to lawfully granted subpoenas.
I'm not sure I agree, but ultimately the decision was correct. Most if not all ToS include a line about turning over records when presented with a subpoena relevant to the records. I would've thought that would be the line that did it, however if the ToS state that it is to be considered a public place, that would be a a reasonable ruling as well on the motion.
No, the plaintiff really doesn't. During discovery the judge can, and often does, order things like emails to be handed over when they're relevant to the case. And emails are far more reasonable to expect to be private than facebook posts are.
Yeah, that kind of reminds me of that thing Midge on that 70s show said. This is one of those obvious moments like when she said "Bob! If you tell them, they’ll know!".
Indeed, a lot of my CDs of older music aren't so affected. It can be annoying, but the music is a lot more interesting. Personally, I would never have been able to sit through Miles Davis' classic Kinda Blue if it had been compressed all to hell. Likewise Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday would've been crap had modern engineers been responsible.
That's simply not true. Digital audio has both the dynamic range and bit rate to handle what vinyl can and more. Compared vinyl under the best case against digital audio files that haven't been mastered to make best use of the available resources is not fair.
The main problem with vinyl is that every time you play it there's a small amount of damage that's done. Which isn't the case with CDs, the laser can't wear away the bits on the disc. It's probably not a significant amount of wear and tear each play of the record, but it is there, and nothing can prevent at least some wear with each time the needle travels the groove.
With all the DRM they're trying to add to CDs, that could well drive quite a bit of it.
More than that, when I do that sort of thing with images, I don't provide the individual parts because it causes other less obvious reasons. There is the space issue, but the bigger one is of artistic integrity. Sure it's cool to be able to remix somebody's stuff, but when you do that you're adding interpretation to somebody else's work which may or may not really be accurate.
Sometimes that's cool, but it really takes a lot of trust to do it. Not just that it won't be exploited, but that people won't be passing it off as something it isn't.
There's also the issue of proving the ownership of the copyright. If I have the best quality version, including all the parts in a form which can't be derived from the final version, it's much easier to demonstrate that I do indeed own it.
Except that was while disco was still sort of in. Vinyl was declared obsolete probably 2 decades ago. When I was a kid we were listening to them, but the focus was already on cassettes and CDs.
Now were disco to be up by that margin in the mid 90s, that would be analogous.
You really shouldn't do that with CDs either. It's just that with a commercial CD you're likely to notice the problem much later than with vinyl. With CDs you start to have problems fairly quickly, but it takes a while before enough damage is done to actually notice it.
Unless you want to rip it in which case you start to notice relatively quickly. The main advantage of CDA is the larger dynamic range, which typically isn't used, these days they tend to compress the sound so that it would easily fit on vinyl without causing a lot of needle skipping.
That's because most criminal acts require mens rea. And the "please won't somebody think of the children" set doesn't want the test to apply to crimes against children. The problem is that it should apply to that. Meaning that if the image or the individual can't reasonably be known by the accused to be a minor, perhaps that individual shouldn't be convicted.
Another reason is that one is capable of, and indeed required to download, an image prior to knowing if it is legal.
Why Mens Rea Should Be Applied to Child Pornography Laws
Unfortunately, like with violence prevention and anger management treatments that progressives often want, these things get shouted down for not being adequate in punishing perceived evildoers. It's not until a person or his acquaintances get unfairly convicted that the attitude changes.
Not really, it's not wanting to fix the system which causes people to be called a witch or a nut, it's insisting that there's nothing wrong with it that does. Meaning that if you want to fix it by dealing with the possibility that somebody planted the photos or that one accidentally came across them you'd be alright. Fixing the problem by stating that since this particular person didn't themselves molest the child would warrant being called a nutjob.
No, just because there's nudity doesn't mean that it's porn. And just because it's a nude child doesn't automatically mean that it's child pornography. Otherwise you'd never see advertisements featuring naked children on TV.
It's not something you see often, and you never see anything more than the butt. They get away with it largely because it isn't sexualized and it falls within legitimate free speech protections.
Not really, that's a nightmare scenario, but the more likely ones like stealing ones personal information or otherwise abusing the computer are sufficient to justify keeping it locked down.
It's not a thought crime. People go to prison for possession because they're ultimately in part responsible for the abuse. Either, by paying for it or trading for it. Additionally, they've failed to report the abuse to the police, and I doubt very much that would be significantly more likely to happen if it were legalized.
But then again, why let reality get in the way of a ZOMG gubmint abuse post.
Sigh, the man was indicted but never convicted. He has subsequently died, don't you think that it's about time that the jokes about his alleged sexual offenses died off?
I mean he was found to be not guilty by a jury of his peers and the evidence was never particularly strong anyways.
That depends a great deal on the contract. That contract was apparently with the head hunter rather than the former employee. Had it been with the employee there would've been nobody filling in for the remainder of the same contract.
It doesn't apply, Moore's law only applies to transistor count on processors.
Yes and no, less likely that it will be hit but significantly more damaging if it is hit. What I'm wanting to know is what their plans are for error correction. A single atom is susceptible to all sorts of things that thousands or even hundreds of atoms aren't.
Part of it has to do with CDN providers, and each add seemingly having its own to deal with.
I think that they intend for you to use the application. I haven't had that problem with the gmail app.
Isn't that a bit like saying "if getting this building completed is dependent on volunteer construction workers, we're screwed"?
FTFY