(a) Criminal Infringement. Ã" (1) In general. Ã" Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed Ã" (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(A) requires financial gain. Downloading the "god awful Wolverine movie" for personal viewing is not financial gain, or private financial profit.
(B) requires distribution, which downloading is not.
(C) requires reproduction or distribution, neither of which downloading is.
Now, if you downloaded the "god awful Wolverine movie via bittorrent" then you could make a case for reproduction and distribution... however simply downloading it off the internet would not make it a criminal act.
But it can take away your freedom. Most prosecutors won't touch a file sharing case but that doesn't mean they can't.
...snip...
This doesn't apply to every file sharer, but it does apply to many more than prosecutors would ever want to go after. But to say they can't take away your freedom for it, when they clearly can if they desire to, is false.
Now is when I break out the legal loophole technicality that I wrote into my comment... I said "typically" doesn't... if some 90% of violators cannot be prosecuted for jail time, then "typically" certainly is satisfied.
This whole idea of a difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" is interesting. As pointed out in your link, Black's Law Dictionary provides the definition of illegal as "not authorized by law, unlawful" and unlawful as "forbidden by law, illegal", that the two words cross-reference themselves explicitly provides that both can be used in place of the other.
Now, to get to the sticky-icky the exact difference between the two. "Unlawful" means that a list of explicit lawful actions is given and it is stated that deviation from those actions is a violation of the law, and "illegal" means that a list of explicitly against the law actions are given, and it is stated that deviation from those actions is not a violation of the law.
So, some proper real examples are that Washington State provides in traffic law that the lawful way to cross a street is by entering a marked crosswalk while the "Walk" sign is lit, or the icon of a person walking. (Or, if no such pedestrian signal exists, being presented with a simple green light in the direction of desired transit) Any behavior deviating from this is "unlawful".
Now, the state also explicitly proscribes against killing people. It also describes the exact circumstances under which it is a violation of law, and thus, murder and manslaughter are "illegal".
But what about the REAL sticky-icky? Let's take Burglary in the state of Washington. It is defined as when "... with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle."
Thus, burglary is "illegal" because of specific proscription but only when "unlawful" acts are made.
Seriously though, any lawyer who is going to try and rely upon this argument to make a legal point is likely going to get smacked by the judge...
It does seem like this may be the RTM build, although the timing is a little early yet.
My first reaction was the build number 7600 is very similar to the XP build of 2600 (yeah, I'm grasping at straws here.) It would be in MS favor to strongly relate this to XP and try to distance themselves from refencing Vista, which the correlation I just noted might help backup in people's minds.
However, the timing is just a little too early. The stated general retail release date from June's Computex is October 22. Historically, a MS OS RTM is released 30-45 days prior to the general retail date. That would place the RTM as beginning of September at earliest. Even a generous 60 day RTM date would place the date in mid-August, a month from now. Pressing and stamping aside (and what's to say a RTM DVD can't be downloaded over the net from a registration server similar to how volume and open license customers can already do), that's a little early yet.
And can anyone draw any significance from 16384 being 2^14? Or would that just indicate something like the 14th build of the master OS?
Build numbers by Microsoft follow an algorithm that encodes some odd information. Usually, it's desired by Microsoft to have a simply power of 2 for significant build milestones, especially for RTM builds. Why skip build numbers? That way you can still make builds of previous versions for commercial support, in order to make available patches for say, RCs and Betas, which both have a support lifetime as well. (Crazy short lifetimes, but they do.)
Messing with version numbers is a crazy stupid wrench in the "smooth" gears of the build system, and it requires authorization from significant master project managers. They would NOT be doing this if they were not important.
RTM builds also happen fairly early for things, especially because they have to have the RTM build, before they can complete localization, which means that if they want a synchronous release across X number of languages, they need to complete the RTM early enough that each of those localizations will be complete on time. Some of the localizations are just left for a late release anyways. But Japanese and German being Tier 0 languages pretty much means that they are important major goals to get as close to synchronous release as possible.
More interestingly is that this build was started at 7:45pm on a Friday... The build takes about 14 hours to complete, so someone was on call the whole weekend for completing the build... which potentially could have even TAKEN all weekend...
I think this is all just a really round about way of saying it, but "I. HATE. SAUERKRAUT!" No, really, you're totally on to the build number being of the form 2^x, but not that 14 has any significance to the build itself.
People seem to have a big problem with understanding what "illegal" means. You cannot go to jail for every illegal action. Some illegal actions create a civil liability, and some create criminal liabilities... and then criminal liabilities are separated into misdemeanors and felonies.
I've had issues with people commenting that "prostitution is like murder, it's illegal", and I point out, "No, prostitution is like jay-walking... it's illegal." Prostitution is a misdemeanor and will not get one a lot of time in jail. It's why prosecutors (hell, law enforcement themselves) are so eager to offer a prostitute immunity in order to testify against their pimp (which is a felony).
People just have a very hard time understanding that you cannot be sent to jail for every illegal action. ESPECIALLY, a hard jail. Typically the worst that you can be hit for with copyright violation is fines... it can make your life difficult, or even hell, but it can't take away your freedom.
Some of her body part , like bone structure, are 10 years old. Thus it sounds doubtful she will reach the multi-centenarian age you cited. They tried to communicate with her , tried to teach her speaking but it failed. Anyway there is a rearrangement of the pharynx/larynx at the venerable age of 1/2 years old which is needed to be able to physically speak. Without it you can't. Maybe a doctor/biologist can chime in.
Damn, too bad people who don't have vocal abilities or hearing can't talk.
They've tried teaching her sign language (in the abc news video, I saw them working on what appeared to be some sign language... and yes, I do speak sign language conversationally.)
An endocrinologist had put her on growth hormones. 6 months later, he complained to the parents that they hadn't given her the growth hormones, and they replied that they indeed had, and precisely as scheduled.
She didn't gain a pound.
So, if it is a hormonal issue, it's an issue with hormones that don't exist.
Come to think of it, there's an alternative explanation... she could have Human Growth Hormone Insensitivity. Her body produces HGH receptors that do not respond to HGH.
Of course, "fixing" such a genetic error would require the artificial generation of a variant HGH that she does respond to... probably a little more expensive to do than just treating her "symptoms".
Unless you work for a multinational that can transfer you around the globe as easily up two flights of stairs, you've got to take matters into your own hands and stop trying to do the conventional thing like you've done at home. Live a little. Take a risk. Get outside your comfort zone. You will be well rewarded.
It's not even that easy. I worked for a multinational, and speak German fluently (with proof from the Goethe Institut and all), however getting a position to move to Germany within the company faces the same exact problems that there were before working for the multinational. They don't want to pay relocation, they typically have offices located in limited "central" countries, typically those with the most lax (or beneficial) laws about hiring immigrants from the developing world. As well, they typically are not interested in paying relocation costs.
So, even at a multinational that has a reach throughout the whole world, everywhere, EVERYWHERE; the job prospects were limited to Ireland, India, and China. That was about it. Oddly, if I told co-workers that I was interested in moving to Germany, their response was usually one of wondering why I didn't just "go back to Germany"... the idea that an American is fluent in a foreign language is so naturally ridiculous to them, that they presume that I must be from that foreign country.
watch, i'll enter my bank account password without looking
fluffybunnies
see? i didn't even need to...
oh crap...
unsubmit
where's the damn unsubmit!
Your bank password is the same as my BIOS password... oh wait, no, I used "sillyrabbit" for my BIOS password.
I actually ran up against someone who used the same password for their BIOS.
I knew a guy in college, who was a security specialist, and at one point, another guy from our college managed to get his passwd file, and ran a simple dictionary crack on it, and got the root password. The other guy laughed and teased the security specialist about it, because he couldn't believe that the security specialist would use such a simple password for his root password.
The security specialist pointed out that the password was only found to be a simple dictionary word after already obtaining the passwd file, which required root access in the first place. He pointed out, that putting the key to a safe in the safe is not a security vulnerability.
Once this is out, Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth. Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet. (With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this, but it's so expensive.)
Most companies do URL filtering at the gateway. With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.
In the USA; If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel. If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.
But what if I provide my own wireless Internet connection and bypass the filters work has in place?
I speak as one who does the filtering, not one who is trying to bypass them.
The answer, as with all legal matters is: "Talk to a lawyer." If you're working for a company with corporate policies, then they likely have lawyers, whom you can talk to. However, you're likely not responsible for making or enforcing corporate policy.
Now, that said, the first thing to know is that browsing or viewing adult content at work in the USA is a big no no, no matter how you're accessing it. Viewing adult content in any way that can create a situation where someone else can see it, is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen.
The computer provided by the corporation is also company property, which must be used for strictly company use. Bypassing a company enforced filter in any way would be a violation of employment rules.
So, filter the best you can on your network, and if someone is bypassing your filters, then go through the proper corporate policy of what to do if they bypass the filters, no matter what method they're using.
Well, all your information is highly interesting, and the only way I can relate it to the information I have so far obtained about the Hudson crash is that people have played up the danger of a ditch in order to increase the appearance that the landing was miraculous.
There is the account from the co-pilot to the pilot, who said, "you just made the first successful ditch."
There is the account from the ATC, who said, "The second they said they were going to be in the Hudson, I thought they were all dead."
Etc. I don't know why the Discovery Channel would air such information when it wildly conflicts with reality. However, they're prone to hype, and hyperbole as much as any other media business...
Well, the F-117 (Lockheed) is so difficult to fly that it must be stabilized by a computer with four sensors placed at the nose... they're the thingies you see sticking out.
There would not be, and SHOULD NOT BE any way for the pilot to override the computer entirely, and fly completely by hand... as this would all but guarantee a crash.
Commercial airliners however should not be designed in the same way. Military planes are often built for maneuverability, which ACTUALLY means that the plane is unstable, and has to receive constant input to remain stable, and level.
Commercial airliners in general should never be making such maneuvers that it would need such a design choice, and they should be designed to fly as stable and level as possible. This means that the plane will be unable to perform certain aerodynamic acts that a more agile cousin might be able to do, however again, a commercial airliner should never have need for those acts.
Fundamentally, just like the design choice philosophy of agile vs stable, this design choice of autopilot has to recognize something important... no design choice will ever avoid all accidents. The more you attempt to prevent computer errors by manual overrides, the more you're likely to cause catastrophic pilot errors. The more you attempt to prevent pilot errors, the more likely you are to cause catastrophic computer errors.
At some point, it all comes down to luck, because straight up, you're going to crash. The landing in the Hudson is a particularly stark example of this. A computer would have been unable to handle the situation, and the pilot made the choice to land in the Hudson... before that crash, no one had ever survived a water landing. The ATC notes that when he was told that they were going to be in the Hudson, that he thought they were all dead effective the moment of that statement. The pilots didn't think they would make it, and no one experienced in the airspace industry would have expected them to make it... they just crazy lucked out.
So, the first design principle to take is: at some point, this will fail. What can be reasonably be done to prepare for that event? or will such an event simply mean failure without possibility of recovery? For instance, there are a number of items of planes that if they fail, it will mean crash, regardless of who is "in charge". For instance, if the plane loses both wings, it will be crashing... period.
It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom...
Eh? You mean the freedom to work under-paid pilots 14-16 hours a day like Colgan Air? And the FAA let them slide because Colgan had friends in that office? Some of their pilots could make more flipping burgers. Like the pair that were tired, under-paid and not paying attention who turned Continential flight 3407 into a giant lawn dart.
This isn't political. I don't care if it's human, machine or a trained goat. Whatever gets the aircraft down in one piece is what I want managing the control surfaces.
Continental Flight 3407 did get down in one piece. The more accurate version should be: "Whatever gets the aircraft down safely is what I want managing the control surfaces."
I can think of a few possibilities where the safe landing would not be landing in one piece. Say, a control surface breaks off... I'd rather the pilot or autopilot, whichever is in control, attempt to land the rest safely, rather than chase down the control surface, and land as one piece.
Are you in for any other form of "nasty beating"?;))
Due to the legal policy of "Volenti non fit injuria" (that consent nullifies any claim of injury or damages), I must unequivocally state that that I do not consent to any "nasty beatings" of any kind, unless my words or actions should explicitly override this statement at a later date during private interactions...
To put it in layman's terms, "let's get to know each other first."
However, as IANAL, and I am barred from practicing law in the state of Washington, my first presumption would be to tell you that I am not your lawyer... that or I'm in for a nasty beating by the Washington State Bar Association...
An impartial judge who has taken no bribes should always consider a motion based on a reasonably sound argument.
Does he need to keep a straight face while doing so?
This is potentially partly why judges read these motions privately at first. However, reading legal documents is not very open to fits of laughter...
Oh wait, I was reading one, where the specific claim of the plaintiff was that he was told that his interests were aligned with those of the other party, and that he did not need to seek independent counsel, and the plaintiff believed her.
That was hilarious that he was admitting in his own claims that he had comparatively fault by negligence in his own damages...
Who would not as the first thing, when told, "you don't need independent counsel" would think "ok" rather than "I better run this by another lawyer"?
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
:( I was just reading through it, and I think I could argue their point. If the verdict was overturned simply because of invalid jury instructions, then they would desire to seek an identical trial with a different jury, and correct jury instructions.
I presume it's simply their attempt to enforce the sort of severability clause common in contracts... "Your Honor, the only thing that was wrong was the jury instructions! They can't change horses now."
Responding to my own post...
I just read through the Response from the Defendants in this matter. Wow... case law, and other stuff. Plus the point that, "THEY HAD 3 YEARS TO GET THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW!"
Honestly, the first thing I would have done once starting a trial is get certified copies of any public records that I think might be important... and proving that you own the copyright is pretty damn important!
I especially like the part where her lawyer states "hey, they wanted to stick strictly to the rules, so STICK IT TO THEM!" I totally agree with that.
If I were the RIAA's lawyer in this situation, I would be all, "ok, they made a good argument, I have to agree." And move forward... I'd rather ask for an continuance in order to get the certified copies, but that would probably be blocked, because she couldn't get an continuance even when she had to change counsel.
Being a pedantic bitch generates two situations, my arguments are really difficult to attack, and it requires the other party to follow the rules very strictly, however it also requires ME to follow the rules super strictly at all times as well.:(
The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.
Well, even in the district court you don't make certified copies yourself... the clerks do it. In fact, in King County Superior Court, the only documents that you copy/print yourself are those on microfilm and only if they're uncertified.
Anyways, I read later down the line that they're interested in certified copyright records, which is entirely different. But when you just read "concerns about expenses of expedited certified copies" it lacks the sufficient context of "copyright records".
You know, I think I would have held off on the marriage until this was settled. Just live together, sleep together, and allow Jamie to declare bankruptcy if necessary on her own first.
The RIAA would be unable to make a claim for any property that did not belong to her exclusively before she entered the marriage, and any community property if they live in a community property state. Also, a single partner in a marriage is still able to declare bankruptcy on their own. It's just like taxes, you can file separately or jointly.
As well, in a bankruptcy case, living with someone would create the presumption that they could help you with debts, thus increasing your means. If your means gets high enough, you can't declare Chapter 7 anymore, and HAVE to file Chapter 13.
The big difference between being marriage, and not being married, is that if you're not married, then they cannot get an enforceable judgement against you. If you have no wages to garnish, no bank accounts, no liens, and no non-exempt property then they cannot retrieve a dime, no matter how badly they try.
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
In legal matters, never ascribe to stupidity what can be ascribed to willfully amoral conduct. (Which is not necessarily malice, although malice would comprise a large portion there of.)
I've been dealing legally with a person, from whom I have never gotten the same story from twice. Every time we talk, I hear a different story from him. He broke into my house, and stole exclusively my laptop, my briefcase holding most of my legal material, and a folder stamped all over with "CONFIDENTIAL" that contained my work product. He was witnessed coming into the house, and then attempted to bribe and coerce that witness into lying to the police, and as well, obtained a letter from his work stating that he had been working the entire day.
One would naturally first start off with, "how stupid can this guy be?" and the answer is, he's not stupid at all, he's just at his wits end, because I had him painted deeply into a corner. His only last option was to commit multiple felonies in order to attempt ducking the problem. Now, you and I would look at the situation and go, "before this incident, he was only facing civil liability, but now he's facing criminal liability", however when you back a badger into a corner, stupid or intelligent, they're going to lash out in any way that they feel justified in doing.
So, I'm betting the lawyers knew exactly how stupid this motion was, but it's simply a pawn in a strategy... it's attempting attrition...
Judges who allow stuff like this are either A) Incompetent in the law B) have some kind of bias C) are bribed or otherwise make money from these sort of cases.
No, the judge is NOT necessarily any of the above. An impartial judge who has taken no bribes should always consider a motion based on a reasonably sound argument. He hasn't GRANTED the order, he's merely going to consider it, and it is a valid question. It's just a really big long shot...
or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God.
Actually, I would argue that one would have standing to sue God. After all, if I were the victim of what is established in court as an "act of God", and thus my insurance would not cover it, then I would certainly have standing to sue "God".
The problem is that the court would lack jurisdiction, and there would be a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
But I think "lack of jurisdiction" would be the biggest one. Although, come to think of it, I would like to try and sue God, just to see if anyone would show up in his defense...
Of course, the question would be "who does one serve the papers to?" I would go with the Pope myself...
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
:( I was just reading through it, and I think I could argue their point. If the verdict was overturned simply because of invalid jury instructions, then they would desire to seek an identical trial with a different jury, and correct jury instructions.
I presume it's simply their attempt to enforce the sort of severability clause common in contracts... "Your Honor, the only thing that was wrong was the jury instructions! They can't change horses now."
The RIAA has an additional argument that seems to me to have some validity, namely the expense of obtaining certified copies on an expedited basis. But isn't that actually a basis for a request for a continuance, or for permission to submit the certificates after the start of trial?
What the hell kind of court system are they dealing with? Here in King County Superior Court of Washington State, you just go in to the records department, look up the case, click a checkbox and print and say "yes, certified copies plz"
If I were doing it pro se, it would be about $15 parking, then $5 per document + $1 for each additional page. Or about that. If it were a paralegal doing it, it would be about an hour of his pay, plus the fees... if a lawyer were doing it themselves? I would think most lawyers have more to do, but then some of them like to touch the dirty stuff themselves, I suppose.
Although, as a matter of copyright law, this would be Federal District Court... so all my notions are silly... still, I can't imagine a Federal District Court having less accessibility than a state superior court...
I don't think you read my comment... I was saying that taunting the person with dating is probably just going to antagonize him... of course, that would actually be the entire intent in rubbing it in his face.
"Dating is retarded." This is a statement of an opinion. I have enjoyed dating, and I do not think it to be an inferior way of meeting guys... and neither is picking them up randomly at the club.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch me hoist you by your own petards...
(a) Criminal Infringement. Ã" (1) In general. Ã" Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed Ã" (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(A) requires financial gain. Downloading the "god awful Wolverine movie" for personal viewing is not financial gain, or private financial profit.
(B) requires distribution, which downloading is not.
(C) requires reproduction or distribution, neither of which downloading is.
Now, if you downloaded the "god awful Wolverine movie via bittorrent" then you could make a case for reproduction and distribution... however simply downloading it off the internet would not make it a criminal act.
But it can take away your freedom. Most prosecutors won't touch a file sharing case but that doesn't mean they can't.
...snip...
This doesn't apply to every file sharer, but it does apply to many more than prosecutors would ever want to go after. But to say they can't take away your freedom for it, when they clearly can if they desire to, is false.
Now is when I break out the legal loophole technicality that I wrote into my comment... I said "typically" doesn't... if some 90% of violators cannot be prosecuted for jail time, then "typically" certainly is satisfied.
This whole idea of a difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" is interesting. As pointed out in your link, Black's Law Dictionary provides the definition of illegal as "not authorized by law, unlawful" and unlawful as "forbidden by law, illegal", that the two words cross-reference themselves explicitly provides that both can be used in place of the other.
Now, to get to the sticky-icky the exact difference between the two. "Unlawful" means that a list of explicit lawful actions is given and it is stated that deviation from those actions is a violation of the law, and "illegal" means that a list of explicitly against the law actions are given, and it is stated that deviation from those actions is not a violation of the law.
So, some proper real examples are that Washington State provides in traffic law that the lawful way to cross a street is by entering a marked crosswalk while the "Walk" sign is lit, or the icon of a person walking. (Or, if no such pedestrian signal exists, being presented with a simple green light in the direction of desired transit) Any behavior deviating from this is "unlawful".
Now, the state also explicitly proscribes against killing people. It also describes the exact circumstances under which it is a violation of law, and thus, murder and manslaughter are "illegal".
But what about the REAL sticky-icky? Let's take Burglary in the state of Washington. It is defined as when "... with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle."
Thus, burglary is "illegal" because of specific proscription but only when "unlawful" acts are made.
Seriously though, any lawyer who is going to try and rely upon this argument to make a legal point is likely going to get smacked by the judge...
It does seem like this may be the RTM build, although the timing is a little early yet.
My first reaction was the build number 7600 is very similar to the XP build of 2600 (yeah, I'm grasping at straws here.) It would be in MS favor to strongly relate this to XP and try to distance themselves from refencing Vista, which the correlation I just noted might help backup in people's minds.
However, the timing is just a little too early. The stated general retail release date from June's Computex is October 22. Historically, a MS OS RTM is released 30-45 days prior to the general retail date. That would place the RTM as beginning of September at earliest. Even a generous 60 day RTM date would place the date in mid-August, a month from now. Pressing and stamping aside (and what's to say a RTM DVD can't be downloaded over the net from a registration server similar to how volume and open license customers can already do), that's a little early yet.
And can anyone draw any significance from 16384 being 2^14? Or would that just indicate something like the 14th build of the master OS?
Build numbers by Microsoft follow an algorithm that encodes some odd information. Usually, it's desired by Microsoft to have a simply power of 2 for significant build milestones, especially for RTM builds. Why skip build numbers? That way you can still make builds of previous versions for commercial support, in order to make available patches for say, RCs and Betas, which both have a support lifetime as well. (Crazy short lifetimes, but they do.)
Messing with version numbers is a crazy stupid wrench in the "smooth" gears of the build system, and it requires authorization from significant master project managers. They would NOT be doing this if they were not important.
RTM builds also happen fairly early for things, especially because they have to have the RTM build, before they can complete localization, which means that if they want a synchronous release across X number of languages, they need to complete the RTM early enough that each of those localizations will be complete on time. Some of the localizations are just left for a late release anyways. But Japanese and German being Tier 0 languages pretty much means that they are important major goals to get as close to synchronous release as possible.
More interestingly is that this build was started at 7:45pm on a Friday... The build takes about 14 hours to complete, so someone was on call the whole weekend for completing the build... which potentially could have even TAKEN all weekend...
I think this is all just a really round about way of saying it, but "I. HATE. SAUERKRAUT!" No, really, you're totally on to the build number being of the form 2^x, but not that 14 has any significance to the build itself.
People seem to have a big problem with understanding what "illegal" means. You cannot go to jail for every illegal action. Some illegal actions create a civil liability, and some create criminal liabilities... and then criminal liabilities are separated into misdemeanors and felonies.
I've had issues with people commenting that "prostitution is like murder, it's illegal", and I point out, "No, prostitution is like jay-walking... it's illegal." Prostitution is a misdemeanor and will not get one a lot of time in jail. It's why prosecutors (hell, law enforcement themselves) are so eager to offer a prostitute immunity in order to testify against their pimp (which is a felony).
People just have a very hard time understanding that you cannot be sent to jail for every illegal action. ESPECIALLY, a hard jail. Typically the worst that you can be hit for with copyright violation is fines... it can make your life difficult, or even hell, but it can't take away your freedom.
Some of her body part , like bone structure, are 10 years old. Thus it sounds doubtful she will reach the multi-centenarian age you cited. They tried to communicate with her , tried to teach her speaking but it failed. Anyway there is a rearrangement of the pharynx/larynx at the venerable age of 1/2 years old which is needed to be able to physically speak. Without it you can't. Maybe a doctor/biologist can chime in.
Damn, too bad people who don't have vocal abilities or hearing can't talk.
They've tried teaching her sign language (in the abc news video, I saw them working on what appeared to be some sign language... and yes, I do speak sign language conversationally.)
An endocrinologist had put her on growth hormones. 6 months later, he complained to the parents that they hadn't given her the growth hormones, and they replied that they indeed had, and precisely as scheduled.
She didn't gain a pound.
So, if it is a hormonal issue, it's an issue with hormones that don't exist.
Come to think of it, there's an alternative explanation... she could have Human Growth Hormone Insensitivity. Her body produces HGH receptors that do not respond to HGH.
Of course, "fixing" such a genetic error would require the artificial generation of a variant HGH that she does respond to... probably a little more expensive to do than just treating her "symptoms".
Unless you work for a multinational that can transfer you around the globe as easily up two flights of stairs, you've got to take matters into your own hands and stop trying to do the conventional thing like you've done at home. Live a little. Take a risk. Get outside your comfort zone. You will be well rewarded.
It's not even that easy. I worked for a multinational, and speak German fluently (with proof from the Goethe Institut and all), however getting a position to move to Germany within the company faces the same exact problems that there were before working for the multinational. They don't want to pay relocation, they typically have offices located in limited "central" countries, typically those with the most lax (or beneficial) laws about hiring immigrants from the developing world. As well, they typically are not interested in paying relocation costs.
So, even at a multinational that has a reach throughout the whole world, everywhere, EVERYWHERE; the job prospects were limited to Ireland, India, and China. That was about it. Oddly, if I told co-workers that I was interested in moving to Germany, their response was usually one of wondering why I didn't just "go back to Germany"... the idea that an American is fluent in a foreign language is so naturally ridiculous to them, that they presume that I must be from that foreign country.
i can type my password without even looking
watch, i'll enter my bank account password without looking
fluffybunnies
see? i didn't even need to...
oh crap...
unsubmit
where's the damn unsubmit!
Your bank password is the same as my BIOS password... oh wait, no, I used "sillyrabbit" for my BIOS password.
I actually ran up against someone who used the same password for their BIOS.
I knew a guy in college, who was a security specialist, and at one point, another guy from our college managed to get his passwd file, and ran a simple dictionary crack on it, and got the root password. The other guy laughed and teased the security specialist about it, because he couldn't believe that the security specialist would use such a simple password for his root password.
The security specialist pointed out that the password was only found to be a simple dictionary word after already obtaining the passwd file, which required root access in the first place. He pointed out, that putting the key to a safe in the safe is not a security vulnerability.
Once this is out, Tether your iPhone to your work PC via USB or Bluetooth. Create a connection through the iPhone to the Internet. (With T-Mobile phones you can alread do this, but it's so expensive.)
Most companies do URL filtering at the gateway. With tethering you bypass such filtering restrictions.
In the USA;
If I browse adult stuff at work on works PC and Internet connection, work can be held libel.
If I browse adult stuff on the iPhone at work using my own Internet connect, it is less likely that work can be held libel.
But what if I provide my own wireless Internet connection and bypass the filters work has in place?
I speak as one who does the filtering, not one who is trying to bypass them.
The answer, as with all legal matters is: "Talk to a lawyer." If you're working for a company with corporate policies, then they likely have lawyers, whom you can talk to. However, you're likely not responsible for making or enforcing corporate policy.
Now, that said, the first thing to know is that browsing or viewing adult content at work in the USA is a big no no, no matter how you're accessing it. Viewing adult content in any way that can create a situation where someone else can see it, is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen.
The computer provided by the corporation is also company property, which must be used for strictly company use. Bypassing a company enforced filter in any way would be a violation of employment rules.
So, filter the best you can on your network, and if someone is bypassing your filters, then go through the proper corporate policy of what to do if they bypass the filters, no matter what method they're using.
Well, all your information is highly interesting, and the only way I can relate it to the information I have so far obtained about the Hudson crash is that people have played up the danger of a ditch in order to increase the appearance that the landing was miraculous.
There is the account from the co-pilot to the pilot, who said, "you just made the first successful ditch."
There is the account from the ATC, who said, "The second they said they were going to be in the Hudson, I thought they were all dead."
Etc. I don't know why the Discovery Channel would air such information when it wildly conflicts with reality. However, they're prone to hype, and hyperbole as much as any other media business...
Well, the F-117 (Lockheed) is so difficult to fly that it must be stabilized by a computer with four sensors placed at the nose... they're the thingies you see sticking out.
There would not be, and SHOULD NOT BE any way for the pilot to override the computer entirely, and fly completely by hand... as this would all but guarantee a crash.
Commercial airliners however should not be designed in the same way. Military planes are often built for maneuverability, which ACTUALLY means that the plane is unstable, and has to receive constant input to remain stable, and level.
Commercial airliners in general should never be making such maneuvers that it would need such a design choice, and they should be designed to fly as stable and level as possible. This means that the plane will be unable to perform certain aerodynamic acts that a more agile cousin might be able to do, however again, a commercial airliner should never have need for those acts.
Fundamentally, just like the design choice philosophy of agile vs stable, this design choice of autopilot has to recognize something important... no design choice will ever avoid all accidents. The more you attempt to prevent computer errors by manual overrides, the more you're likely to cause catastrophic pilot errors. The more you attempt to prevent pilot errors, the more likely you are to cause catastrophic computer errors.
At some point, it all comes down to luck, because straight up, you're going to crash. The landing in the Hudson is a particularly stark example of this. A computer would have been unable to handle the situation, and the pilot made the choice to land in the Hudson... before that crash, no one had ever survived a water landing. The ATC notes that when he was told that they were going to be in the Hudson, that he thought they were all dead effective the moment of that statement. The pilots didn't think they would make it, and no one experienced in the airspace industry would have expected them to make it... they just crazy lucked out.
So, the first design principle to take is: at some point, this will fail. What can be reasonably be done to prepare for that event? or will such an event simply mean failure without possibility of recovery? For instance, there are a number of items of planes that if they fail, it will mean crash, regardless of who is "in charge". For instance, if the plane loses both wings, it will be crashing... period.
It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom...
Eh? You mean the freedom to work under-paid pilots 14-16 hours a day like Colgan Air? And the FAA let them slide because Colgan had friends in that office? Some of their pilots could make more flipping burgers. Like the pair that were tired, under-paid and not paying attention who turned Continential flight 3407 into a giant lawn dart.
This isn't political. I don't care if it's human, machine or a trained goat. Whatever gets the aircraft down in one piece is what I want managing the control surfaces.
Continental Flight 3407 did get down in one piece. The more accurate version should be: "Whatever gets the aircraft down safely is what I want managing the control surfaces."
I can think of a few possibilities where the safe landing would not be landing in one piece. Say, a control surface breaks off... I'd rather the pilot or autopilot, whichever is in control, attempt to land the rest safely, rather than chase down the control surface, and land as one piece.
Are you in for any other form of "nasty beating"? ;))
Due to the legal policy of "Volenti non fit injuria" (that consent nullifies any claim of injury or damages), I must unequivocally state that that I do not consent to any "nasty beatings" of any kind, unless my words or actions should explicitly override this statement at a later date during private interactions...
To put it in layman's terms, "let's get to know each other first."
Cool, a local chick.
wait, you my lawyer?
lol, in the Seattle area, not that unlikely.
However, as IANAL, and I am barred from practicing law in the state of Washington, my first presumption would be to tell you that I am not your lawyer... that or I'm in for a nasty beating by the Washington State Bar Association...
An impartial judge who has taken no bribes should always consider a motion based on a reasonably sound argument.
Does he need to keep a straight face while doing so?
This is potentially partly why judges read these motions privately at first. However, reading legal documents is not very open to fits of laughter...
Oh wait, I was reading one, where the specific claim of the plaintiff was that he was told that his interests were aligned with those of the other party, and that he did not need to seek independent counsel, and the plaintiff believed her.
That was hilarious that he was admitting in his own claims that he had comparatively fault by negligence in his own damages...
Who would not as the first thing, when told, "you don't need independent counsel" would think "ok" rather than "I better run this by another lawyer"?
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
:( I was just reading through it, and I think I could argue their point. If the verdict was overturned simply because of invalid jury instructions, then they would desire to seek an identical trial with a different jury, and correct jury instructions.
I presume it's simply their attempt to enforce the sort of severability clause common in contracts... "Your Honor, the only thing that was wrong was the jury instructions! They can't change horses now."
Responding to my own post...
I just read through the Response from the Defendants in this matter. Wow... case law, and other stuff. Plus the point that, "THEY HAD 3 YEARS TO GET THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW!"
Honestly, the first thing I would have done once starting a trial is get certified copies of any public records that I think might be important... and proving that you own the copyright is pretty damn important!
I especially like the part where her lawyer states "hey, they wanted to stick strictly to the rules, so STICK IT TO THEM!" I totally agree with that.
If I were the RIAA's lawyer in this situation, I would be all, "ok, they made a good argument, I have to agree." And move forward... I'd rather ask for an continuance in order to get the certified copies, but that would probably be blocked, because she couldn't get an continuance even when she had to change counsel.
Being a pedantic bitch generates two situations, my arguments are really difficult to attack, and it requires the other party to follow the rules very strictly, however it also requires ME to follow the rules super strictly at all times as well. :(
The certified copies at issue are records of copyright registration, which must be obtained from the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. It isn't like walking into the courthouse and copying records yourself.
Well, even in the district court you don't make certified copies yourself... the clerks do it. In fact, in King County Superior Court, the only documents that you copy/print yourself are those on microfilm and only if they're uncertified.
Anyways, I read later down the line that they're interested in certified copyright records, which is entirely different. But when you just read "concerns about expenses of expedited certified copies" it lacks the sufficient context of "copyright records".
You know, I think I would have held off on the marriage until this was settled. Just live together, sleep together, and allow Jamie to declare bankruptcy if necessary on her own first.
The RIAA would be unable to make a claim for any property that did not belong to her exclusively before she entered the marriage, and any community property if they live in a community property state. Also, a single partner in a marriage is still able to declare bankruptcy on their own. It's just like taxes, you can file separately or jointly.
As well, in a bankruptcy case, living with someone would create the presumption that they could help you with debts, thus increasing your means. If your means gets high enough, you can't declare Chapter 7 anymore, and HAVE to file Chapter 13.
The big difference between being marriage, and not being married, is that if you're not married, then they cannot get an enforceable judgement against you. If you have no wages to garnish, no bank accounts, no liens, and no non-exempt property then they cannot retrieve a dime, no matter how badly they try.
Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that they can't tell the difference?
Is that a trick question, or something? To any question which starts out "Can the RIAA lawyers really be so ignorant that...." the answer has to be yes. I have yet to plumb the depths of their ignorance, as I have yet to plumb the depths of their immorality. I keep hoping I've finally, in my explorations, gotten to the depths of those oceans, but am constantly disappointed.
In legal matters, never ascribe to stupidity what can be ascribed to willfully amoral conduct. (Which is not necessarily malice, although malice would comprise a large portion there of.)
I've been dealing legally with a person, from whom I have never gotten the same story from twice. Every time we talk, I hear a different story from him. He broke into my house, and stole exclusively my laptop, my briefcase holding most of my legal material, and a folder stamped all over with "CONFIDENTIAL" that contained my work product. He was witnessed coming into the house, and then attempted to bribe and coerce that witness into lying to the police, and as well, obtained a letter from his work stating that he had been working the entire day.
One would naturally first start off with, "how stupid can this guy be?" and the answer is, he's not stupid at all, he's just at his wits end, because I had him painted deeply into a corner. His only last option was to commit multiple felonies in order to attempt ducking the problem. Now, you and I would look at the situation and go, "before this incident, he was only facing civil liability, but now he's facing criminal liability", however when you back a badger into a corner, stupid or intelligent, they're going to lash out in any way that they feel justified in doing.
So, I'm betting the lawyers knew exactly how stupid this motion was, but it's simply a pawn in a strategy... it's attempting attrition...
Judges who allow stuff like this are either A) Incompetent in the law B) have some kind of bias C) are bribed or otherwise make money from these sort of cases.
No, the judge is NOT necessarily any of the above. An impartial judge who has taken no bribes should always consider a motion based on a reasonably sound argument. He hasn't GRANTED the order, he's merely going to consider it, and it is a valid question. It's just a really big long shot...
or for a case that clearly lacked standing like suing God.
Actually, I would argue that one would have standing to sue God. After all, if I were the victim of what is established in court as an "act of God", and thus my insurance would not cover it, then I would certainly have standing to sue "God".
The problem is that the court would lack jurisdiction, and there would be a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
But I think "lack of jurisdiction" would be the biggest one. Although, come to think of it, I would like to try and sue God, just to see if anyone would show up in his defense...
Of course, the question would be "who does one serve the papers to?" I would go with the Pope myself...
So the idea is to make some kind of legal argument limiting the capability of the defendant to defend themselves?
Yes. Because, if she were permitted to defend herself, there's a possibility that, like.......she might win.
:( I was just reading through it, and I think I could argue their point. If the verdict was overturned simply because of invalid jury instructions, then they would desire to seek an identical trial with a different jury, and correct jury instructions.
I presume it's simply their attempt to enforce the sort of severability clause common in contracts... "Your Honor, the only thing that was wrong was the jury instructions! They can't change horses now."
The RIAA has an additional argument that seems to me to have some validity, namely the expense of obtaining certified copies on an expedited basis. But isn't that actually a basis for a request for a continuance, or for permission to submit the certificates after the start of trial?
What the hell kind of court system are they dealing with? Here in King County Superior Court of Washington State, you just go in to the records department, look up the case, click a checkbox and print and say "yes, certified copies plz"
If I were doing it pro se, it would be about $15 parking, then $5 per document + $1 for each additional page. Or about that. If it were a paralegal doing it, it would be about an hour of his pay, plus the fees... if a lawyer were doing it themselves? I would think most lawyers have more to do, but then some of them like to touch the dirty stuff themselves, I suppose.
Although, as a matter of copyright law, this would be Federal District Court... so all my notions are silly... still, I can't imagine a Federal District Court having less accessibility than a state superior court...
I don't think you read my comment... I was saying that taunting the person with dating is probably just going to antagonize him... of course, that would actually be the entire intent in rubbing it in his face.
"Dating is retarded." This is a statement of an opinion. I have enjoyed dating, and I do not think it to be an inferior way of meeting guys... and neither is picking them up randomly at the club.