It's entirely plausible that the link text he clicked was completely unrelated; even if it's unlikely and unrealistic, you have to have AIRTIGHT evidence if you're locking someone in a cage for a decade.
In the first place, evidence in a criminal trial doesn't need to be "airtight"; the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendent did what he was accused of.
Second, the defendant has a much storong case if he can show that the illegal images were received in a post from someone with whom he reglarly corresponds, titled, "My 4-year-old's birthday party." Responding to a an anonymous post or one from a stranger, titled, "Sex with my 4-year-old" pretty much establishes an intent to view illegal material.
Please, folks, remember when you go to vote that both Obama and Biden have taught constitutional law so they at least know that programs such as this one violate the First and Fourth amendments. They may end up with an uphill battle trying to protect the Bill of Rights, but I believe that they'll try.
We must not continue to allow our fundamental rights to be taken away under the rhetoric of "protect the children" and "watch out for the terrorists."
It's not just financial institutions; every company I or a friend has worked for, has considered legal, accounting and IT "as something that costs them money, without giving them any benefit."
Obviously, we workers in those areas aren't making money for the company and it's virtually impossible to get them to understand how much money we have saved them by refusing to assent to a bad contract or by preventing the spread of malware by requiring strict adherence to the rules about what programs may be used on a machine.
As Pete Seeger wrote, "When will they ever learn?"
However, if you are running Windows XP or Vista, there's a great little program available at http://www.paint.net/ While it's not as full-featured as GIMP or Photoshop, it still does a great job of picture manipulation. And it's FREE to download and use. As to platforms other than Windows, the authors state:
We are currently not doing any work to directly support Mac OS, Linux, Mono, or any other platform. It's not that we dislike any of them, it's just that they're entirely differenet development platforms than Windows +.NET. They all have their own set of implementation intricacies, bugs, and support issues. Remember, there's only 2 (yes two) of us on this project. We only have so much time, and by focusing strictly on Windows +.NET we can make sure that the experience there is the best we can possibly make it.
Maybe some/. developers would like to volunteer to do a Linux version or two?
And, speaking of change, what plans does each of you have to return to the American people, those portions of the Bill of Rights that have been systematically abrogated during the past 8 years?
I don't have any need for you to look for these non-existent cases. You're the one who said:
the courts have also held that speech may not be forcefully restrained without due process; it matters little who is doing the restraining.
The fact that restraint of speech principles apply to individuals, and not just government, is evident from a vast multitude of court cases. If you doubt this, you need only look up cases involving blacks in the South and the KKK, for example.
It's just that I sometimes get tired of people spouting off about what the law says when there's no basis in fact for their assertions.
If your employer is, or has plans to be, a publicly traded company, I'd suggest talking to transactional attorney before setting up a program involving stock options. IIRC the federal securities laws have some fairly strict provisions as to which employees may be granted stock options, along with pricing issues, holding periods and other arcane issues.
Okay, then cite me some state law cases in which the plaintiff prevailed against a non-governmental entity on the grounds of a restraint on speech under the First Amendment.
Oh well, the little witch who made sure that Bush won in Florida got her comeuppance when she tried to run for the US Senate and none of the Repblicans would support her. An object lesson in being honest, perhaps?
Could you please give me the citation for any federal case in which a private party was held liable for a restraint on speech when it enforced or attempted to enforce the rights given to it under a federal law?
This request does not include the "quasi-public property" cases such as Marsh v. Alabama, and Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins, which are discussed in Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), at 513-521.
Yes, Jane, it is a restraint on speech; however, I don't believe that Nielsen is a governmental entity. The free speech provision of the Bill of Rights only forbids governmental actions. In fact, the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government; various Supreme Court cases have held that the Fourteenth Amendments makes these provisions applicable to states, municipalities, and other "governmental entities."
The only free speech rules that would apply in this case are any applicable state laws on the subject.
Your definition of vexatious is correct as far as ordinary English usage goes; however, here's more from a legal dictionary:
Litigation is typically classified as vexatious when an attorney or a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without an attorney) repeatedly files groundless lawsuits and repeatedly loses.
It sure seems to me as an observer of this ongoing imbroglio that all of the vexatiousness is on the part of RIAA.
Nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights.
If you believe that, then please explain how Bush and friends have been able to abrogate our rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments on the ground that they're protecting us against terrorism.
This government has forgot a basic precept, that we are citizens, not subjects.
That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.
Okay, in November, there will be 435 Representatives and 33 or 34 Senators who are either up for re-election or endorsing someone to take their place. If we refuse to vote for any incumbent (or person sponsored by an incumbent), we can certainly shake things up, possibly even to the point that the new officeholders will recognize that they're working for US, not the lobbyists or the special interests in their states.
If this group doesn't get the point, we can do it again in two years, and keep it up at every election until we have representatives who recognize that it's their duty to represent the citizens.
Lawyers, accountants and physicians are generally required to take a two-day or longer test before being licensed. Admittance into the tests usually depends on a thorough background investigation, including fingerprinting before the candidate is given an "entrance ticket." In addition, there are usually proctors, selected from current members of the profession, to make sure no one is cheating on the test.
If IT professionals had passed state and/or national tests this rigorous, their credentials would probably be accepted also.
As for salespeople, their exam consists of just one question, "Would you sell your grandmother to get a contract?" Negative answers get you thrown out into the street.
Note that copyright infringement is a civil matter. So, aiding and abetting doesn't apply.
Before you start quoting the law at people, it might be a good idea to know what you're talking about. Copyright infringement can be a civil matter (17 USC 504), but it can also be a criminal matter if "willful infringement" is the basis of the action (17 USC 506). If an infringement case is prosecuted as a criminal action, aiding and abetting or conspiracy charges could also be brought.
Corporations just don't copy and past legal stuff -- EVER.
As a past member of three corporate legal departments, I'm ROFL at this quote. Most contracts start as boilerplate and only get changed through negotiation between the parties.
Assuming that the parents won't get upset about the title, there are two all-in-one books in the "For Dummies" series: "Linux All-in-One Reference Book for Dummies," and "Laptops All-in-One Reference Book for Dummies." They each cost $29.99, but can probably be bought more cheaply through the school.
The Laptops one probably includes information of Microsoft products and the Linux one has information on several different distros and includes several of them on an enclosed CD. Even though I've never used the Laptops book, I'm still inclined to think that either of these would work well to cover all of the topics you want to discuss and, if the students buy their books, would be a good reference book for their future use.
I agree and I've written to Obama/Biden headquarters (again) to let them know that we citizens are expecting them to give us back the Bill of Rights. Writing here http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/ to express our concerns should be more effective than all of us bemoaning the situation on/.
If anyone knows of a site where the GOP candidates are also asking for comments (and having someone read them), please post it also.
Definitely, Biden still remembers where his house is and even commutes to work from there. McCain seems not to remember anything, including "his" position on issues.
However, following the Ashcroft decision, which was based on COPPA,* Congress passed the PROTECT Act,* which "prohibits offers to provide and requests to obtain child pornography. It targets not the underlying material, but the collateral speech introducing such material into the child-pornography distribution network."
In a decision announced in May of this year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man who offered to trade obscene pictures of his toddler for similar pictures with a federal agent posing as a pedophile. United States v. Williams, S.Ct. case #06-694, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-694.
*IMHO, our legislators seem to be more concerned with making up a memborable title (USA PATRIOT ACT, PROTECT, etc.) than dealing with the actual content of the laws.
Slashdot Mirror
It's entirely plausible that the link text he clicked was completely unrelated; even if it's unlikely and unrealistic, you have to have AIRTIGHT evidence if you're locking someone in a cage for a decade.
In the first place, evidence in a criminal trial doesn't need to be "airtight"; the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendent did what he was accused of.
Second, the defendant has a much storong case if he can show that the illegal images were received in a post from someone with whom he reglarly corresponds, titled, "My 4-year-old's birthday party." Responding to a an anonymous post or one from a stranger, titled, "Sex with my 4-year-old" pretty much establishes an intent to view illegal material.
We must not continue to allow our fundamental rights to be taken away under the rhetoric of "protect the children" and "watch out for the terrorists."
Here endeth my rant for the day.
Obviously, we workers in those areas aren't making money for the company and it's virtually impossible to get them to understand how much money we have saved them by refusing to assent to a bad contract or by preventing the spread of malware by requiring strict adherence to the rules about what programs may be used on a machine.
As Pete Seeger wrote, "When will they ever learn?"
Maybe some /. developers would like to volunteer to do a Linux version or two?
And, speaking of change, what plans does each of you have to return to the American people, those portions of the Bill of Rights that have been systematically abrogated during the past 8 years?
It's just that I sometimes get tired of people spouting off about what the law says when there's no basis in fact for their assertions.
If you're really interested in decisions about free speech, I'd suggest reading about them. Some good starting sources are the Electronic Frontier Foundation, http://www.eff.org/; and Find Law, http://www.findlaw.com/ as well as many papers and books availablle online, such as http://www.krusch.com/real/copyright.html and http://www.mttlr.org/volthree/foster_art.htm
If your employer is, or has plans to be, a publicly traded company, I'd suggest talking to transactional attorney before setting up a program involving stock options. IIRC the federal securities laws have some fairly strict provisions as to which employees may be granted stock options, along with pricing issues, holding periods and other arcane issues.
Okay, then cite me some state law cases in which the plaintiff prevailed against a non-governmental entity on the grounds of a restraint on speech under the First Amendment.
Oh well, the little witch who made sure that Bush won in Florida got her comeuppance when she tried to run for the US Senate and none of the Repblicans would support her. An object lesson in being honest, perhaps?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989459.stm
I remember when we used to automatically block anything coming from Hotmail. Must be showing my age!
This request does not include the "quasi-public property" cases such as Marsh v. Alabama, and Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins, which are discussed in Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), at 513-521.
The only free speech rules that would apply in this case are any applicable state laws on the subject.
Yes, indeed, k-. That's why he's now an ex-lawyer.
It sure seems to me as an observer of this ongoing imbroglio that all of the vexatiousness is on the part of RIAA.
Keep up the good work, Ray.
Nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights.
If you believe that, then please explain how Bush and friends have been able to abrogate our rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments on the ground that they're protecting us against terrorism.
This government has forgot a basic precept, that we are citizens, not subjects.
That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.
Okay, in November, there will be 435 Representatives and 33 or 34 Senators who are either up for re-election or endorsing someone to take their place. If we refuse to vote for any incumbent (or person sponsored by an incumbent), we can certainly shake things up, possibly even to the point that the new officeholders will recognize that they're working for US, not the lobbyists or the special interests in their states.
If this group doesn't get the point, we can do it again in two years, and keep it up at every election until we have representatives who recognize that it's their duty to represent the citizens.
Lawyers, accountants and physicians are generally required to take a two-day or longer test before being licensed. Admittance into the tests usually depends on a thorough background investigation, including fingerprinting before the candidate is given an "entrance ticket." In addition, there are usually proctors, selected from current members of the profession, to make sure no one is cheating on the test. If IT professionals had passed state and/or national tests this rigorous, their credentials would probably be accepted also. As for salespeople, their exam consists of just one question, "Would you sell your grandmother to get a contract?" Negative answers get you thrown out into the street.
Note that copyright infringement is a civil matter. So, aiding and abetting doesn't apply.
Before you start quoting the law at people, it might be a good idea to know what you're talking about. Copyright infringement can be a civil matter (17 USC 504), but it can also be a criminal matter if "willful infringement" is the basis of the action (17 USC 506). If an infringement case is prosecuted as a criminal action, aiding and abetting or conspiracy charges could also be brought.
Corporations just don't copy and past legal stuff -- EVER.
As a past member of three corporate legal departments, I'm ROFL at this quote. Most contracts start as boilerplate and only get changed through negotiation between the parties.
The Laptops one probably includes information of Microsoft products and the Linux one has information on several different distros and includes several of them on an enclosed CD. Even though I've never used the Laptops book, I'm still inclined to think that either of these would work well to cover all of the topics you want to discuss and, if the students buy their books, would be a good reference book for their future use.
This is utterly unacceptable.
I agree and I've written to Obama/Biden headquarters (again) to let them know that we citizens are expecting them to give us back the Bill of Rights. Writing here http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/ to express our concerns should be more effective than all of us bemoaning the situation on /.
If anyone knows of a site where the GOP candidates are also asking for comments (and having someone read them), please post it also.
Is Biden as vp better than McCain as pres?
Definitely, Biden still remembers where his house is and even commutes to work from there. McCain seems not to remember anything, including "his" position on issues.
In a decision announced in May of this year, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man who offered to trade obscene pictures of his toddler for similar pictures with a federal agent posing as a pedophile. United States v. Williams, S.Ct. case #06-694, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-694.
*IMHO, our legislators seem to be more concerned with making up a memborable title (USA PATRIOT ACT, PROTECT, etc.) than dealing with the actual content of the laws.
When you start adjusting the curriculum, be sure to include the views of this important group: http://www.manwillneverfly.com/index.htm