"The prosecutor in the case has insisted that the defendant would not be forced to disclose her passphrase, but only to enter the passphrase into a computer to decrypt the drive."
you have to be either an incompetent moron or to be a very sly, kniving bastard in order to be able to say such a thing, since the two things are analogous. the latter, we call 'lawyer' in plainspeak.
if you read it half assed, of course you will see that half of them discredit the study. if you read it properly instead of fervently trying to zealot-out something you dont find convenient, you would see that they were trying to 'discredit' that the SIGNALS itself kill bees. not that the signals confuse, disorient and repulse bees, leading to their reduction as a species.
it raises an important point. not every technology is good. notice how it was found out that gsm signals are confusing and leading to eradication of honeybees.
So, suddenly TWO law firms representing some person, resigns. ok. even if it is a stretch, it can still be explained and justified.
but, there is nothing to justify the judge postponing the hearing in this situation. with this, basically that citizen's right to defend his case is effectively being denied. the only situation in which he could be expected to defend his case would be that he was a lawyer himself or had legal training. and since he hired legal help as per law because he wasnt, he cannot be reasonably expected to defend his case.
the judge in this case should be prosecuted. there is no excuse for this.
godaddy had the habit of speedily confiscating your domain without even giving you a chance to reply (as per law) against a dmca request. enomcentral, not as such.
"If you don't want to be a unpaid intern... DON'T BE. Very simple solution." proposition is akin to :
"If you dont want to buy from the 4 mega megacorporations monopolizing cleaning products, DONT."
Or
"If you dont want to get a plan from isps that do not violate network neutrality and tamper with your connection, DONT"
In an environment where some kind of practice is allowed to the extent that it becomes an 'industry standard practice', you cannot choose another option.
In civilized world (doesnt include america) corporations HAVE to pay interns at least minimum wage. Kids too. noone can have others work for him, and get out of it without paying for it. that is the way how it should have been, and it is the way how it is in civilized countries. apparently, it is again not as such, in usa.
why it isnt ? because you people allow, then rationalize and justify malpractice with the idiotic assumption that there will always be 'another choice' - let me wake you up to a fact - when you allow malpractice to become the norm, there is NO other choice.
That is what it simply is. deceiving youngsters to work for free with promises not guaranteed. its as if hiring someone, and saying 'i may or may not give you your paycheck'. exceptions do not make a rule.
it should be banned and anyone who is doing that should be heavily prosecuted.
enomcentral was a former enom.com reseller. enom doesnt sell to retail. it sells to resellers like web hosts, domain registrars etc. but when a big reseller flopped (enomcentral) enom took over the control of the outfit with agreement in order to prevent domain owners from going down. now it belongs to enom. in order to not compete with its resellers, enom charges quite high prices at enomcentral. but, enom is the most reliable domain registrar on the internet. in everything ranging from renewals to copyright/dmca issues etc.
What's with this liberty trip? You're not a slave. Nobody "owns" your liberty and can tell you what to do or not do here.
as long as i am not able to do something i contrive with my thoughts, because someone supposedly OWNS it, i am not free.
yesterday, we were free to sing happy birthday to our kids at their birthdays. today, we can be sued for that. as you can see, once you get your ass out of your pants like that, there will be no end to those wanting to screw you over by constantly 'redefining' what can be owned.
currently, i, someone who makes his living over web development, am not aware of that feature. if, even i am not aware of that feature without extending extra effort, then it means that feature is user-unfriendly to use. i shouldnt have to extend that effort.
i dont want to lump everyone i am acquainted with in the same group, and have to choose from sharing or not sharing something with all of them. Thats not what we do in real life. Someone way past from elementary school doesnt need to see what i share with my gaming circle. Or, someone from professional circle doesnt have to see something i shared with gamers. And i dont need to be thinking about whether sharing something will be appropriate because all parties will see it.
facebook does not have this differentiation. you can change privacy settings to allow/disallow people from seeing, yet it is a 1 vs 0 boolean choice. you cant differentiate in groups. and even these settings are buried deep, problematic to do (you have to manually eliminate 140 people from seeing your updates down to 14 people), and facebook is constantly changing these settings so that they will be able to snag and sell more data to their corporate customers.
it has really become a steaming pile of shit.
i am on it, because of a few valued people are still on it, and not technically affluent to be on anything else. but, they could easily use google+, and when google+ comes, i am going to encourage them to sign up.
so, if i built a social network to give gifts to my social circle, and they gave gifts to their social circles, then we would be in violation ?
that basically says, the right to allow people to give gifts to each other in a social network, is owned by facebook. that means, OUR rights and freedom, is owned by facebook, in this aspect of life.
its my act. its my life. its my freedom. i dont allow anyone to own it.
Slashdot Mirror
"The prosecutor in the case has insisted that the defendant would not be forced to disclose her passphrase, but only to enter the passphrase into a computer to decrypt the drive."
you have to be either an incompetent moron or to be a very sly, kniving bastard in order to be able to say such a thing, since the two things are analogous. the latter, we call 'lawyer' in plainspeak.
if you read it half assed, of course you will see that half of them discredit the study. if you read it properly instead of fervently trying to zealot-out something you dont find convenient, you would see that they were trying to 'discredit' that the SIGNALS itself kill bees. not that the signals confuse, disorient and repulse bees, leading to their reduction as a species.
that study was verified by other studies concluded in different parts of the world.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cell+phones+kill+bees&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
cell phone signals repulse, confuse and disorient bees. this leads to the colonies to disappear.
it raises an important point. not every technology is good. notice how it was found out that gsm signals are confusing and leading to eradication of honeybees.
http://inhabitat.com/its-official-cell-phones-are-killing-bees/
what are we going to say cohorts of nuclear energy geeks who were ...... doh nevermind.
until console makers put out the next-next gen, handheld phones will have gone way beyond the 'next'.
people will trade and use used games fully unlocked.
Then, what if i entitle myself to $15 worth of pirated microsoft products in return ?
They will just bankrupt/shut down the company and open another one. The people perpetrated this shit, will not be prosecuted. So ?
We can basically say renewable energy fsckin works, now ?
suing htc is one thing, suing google is another thing.
So, suddenly TWO law firms representing some person, resigns. ok. even if it is a stretch, it can still be explained and justified.
but, there is nothing to justify the judge postponing the hearing in this situation. with this, basically that citizen's right to defend his case is effectively being denied. the only situation in which he could be expected to defend his case would be that he was a lawyer himself or had legal training. and since he hired legal help as per law because he wasnt, he cannot be reasonably expected to defend his case.
the judge in this case should be prosecuted. there is no excuse for this.
godaddy had the habit of speedily confiscating your domain without even giving you a chance to reply (as per law) against a dmca request. enomcentral, not as such.
Edgar J Whoore didnt need a lulzsec to bring him upon usa as a plague like he was. he came about himself.
"If you don't want to be a unpaid intern... DON'T BE. Very simple solution." proposition is akin to :
"If you dont want to buy from the 4 mega megacorporations monopolizing cleaning products, DONT."
Or
"If you dont want to get a plan from isps that do not violate network neutrality and tamper with your connection, DONT"
In an environment where some kind of practice is allowed to the extent that it becomes an 'industry standard practice', you cannot choose another option.
In civilized world (doesnt include america) corporations HAVE to pay interns at least minimum wage. Kids too. noone can have others work for him, and get out of it without paying for it. that is the way how it should have been, and it is the way how it is in civilized countries. apparently, it is again not as such, in usa.
why it isnt ? because you people allow, then rationalize and justify malpractice with the idiotic assumption that there will always be 'another choice' - let me wake you up to a fact - when you allow malpractice to become the norm, there is NO other choice.
That is what it simply is. deceiving youngsters to work for free with promises not guaranteed. its as if hiring someone, and saying 'i may or may not give you your paycheck'. exceptions do not make a rule.
it should be banned and anyone who is doing that should be heavily prosecuted.
enomcentral was a former enom.com reseller. enom doesnt sell to retail. it sells to resellers like web hosts, domain registrars etc. but when a big reseller flopped (enomcentral) enom took over the control of the outfit with agreement in order to prevent domain owners from going down. now it belongs to enom. in order to not compete with its resellers, enom charges quite high prices at enomcentral. but, enom is the most reliable domain registrar on the internet. in everything ranging from renewals to copyright/dmca issues etc.
its OUR place to decide what a company can do or not, who it can render services to or not, if that company is a practical monopoly.
you cant monopolize the lives of people, and still do whatever you will. period.
"somehow escaping attention" is an understatement.
What's with this liberty trip? You're not a slave. Nobody "owns" your liberty and can tell you what to do or not do here.
as long as i am not able to do something i contrive with my thoughts, because someone supposedly OWNS it, i am not free.
yesterday, we were free to sing happy birthday to our kids at their birthdays. today, we can be sued for that. as you can see, once you get your ass out of your pants like that, there will be no end to those wanting to screw you over by constantly 'redefining' what can be owned.
currently, i, someone who makes his living over web development, am not aware of that feature. if, even i am not aware of that feature without extending extra effort, then it means that feature is user-unfriendly to use. i shouldnt have to extend that effort.
i dont want to lump everyone i am acquainted with in the same group, and have to choose from sharing or not sharing something with all of them. Thats not what we do in real life. Someone way past from elementary school doesnt need to see what i share with my gaming circle. Or, someone from professional circle doesnt have to see something i shared with gamers. And i dont need to be thinking about whether sharing something will be appropriate because all parties will see it.
facebook does not have this differentiation. you can change privacy settings to allow/disallow people from seeing, yet it is a 1 vs 0 boolean choice. you cant differentiate in groups. and even these settings are buried deep, problematic to do (you have to manually eliminate 140 people from seeing your updates down to 14 people), and facebook is constantly changing these settings so that they will be able to snag and sell more data to their corporate customers.
it has really become a steaming pile of shit.
i am on it, because of a few valued people are still on it, and not technically affluent to be on anything else. but, they could easily use google+, and when google+ comes, i am going to encourage them to sign up.
then it means, my liberty to profit from what i think is owned by someone else.
so what am i to understand here is that, my liberty to create a social network which includes gift-giving, is OWNED by some other party. is it.
so, if i built a social network to give gifts to my social circle, and they gave gifts to their social circles, then we would be in violation ?
that basically says, the right to allow people to give gifts to each other in a social network, is owned by facebook. that means, OUR rights and freedom, is owned by facebook, in this aspect of life.
its my act. its my life. its my freedom. i dont allow anyone to own it.