Hey it's a good thing she's got nothing to hide, and therefore nothing to fear!
You laugh, but what if she were in the closet and afraid of family/friends/community's reaction? Wanna bet that the DHS would find a way to out her? Or if she were on drugs for HIV? "It was a false alarm; we thought her Stribild was actually pills hiding cocaine."
Well, if they keep that up, access to wikipedia from Germany will re-route to a notice explaining that they are not able to comply with current German law regarding secondary liability at this time. Plus the details of this and similar cases.
...that Americans are more likely to be killed by their furniture than by terrorists.
Let's be sporting and narrow it down further. According to the CPSC, 176 Americans died between 2006 and 2010 (that is, 44 a year) specifically by being *crushed by a television*.
Over the same period, being dying from being crushed by dressers/bureaus/etc was 92 (23 a year).
So where's the frantic call for urgent action in moving to glued down or built-into-the-wall furniture?
Of course they're common-use by now... because you've been *pushing them since day one*. Just because you've been doing so for well over a decade doesn't mean it's not inaccurate.
I still have to ask, why haven't their licenses to practice law been revoked? They should be criminally liable for their behavior, and charged/sentenced accordingly.
Since it's about as clear-cut as it can get without some bloodstained bills with the trio's man-juice on it, I figure the courts are going through all the formalities as an example to the next bright lawyer who thinks he's got a foolproof way to use the court to extort money from people.
Losing your license, being hit with fees... that might be shrugged off by an egotistical bastard - after all, if you rake in millions first, then you don't care if you don't have a license to practice or have to pay some percentages of it out; you've got enough money to live comfortably.
But referral to the IRS? Federal prosecutors? That might change their mind.
I fully expect at this point to see some jail time for the trio. Probably not more than five years apiece or anything, but I'm fairly certain the judges are getting irritated enough to hunt for *anything* that puts them in a cell.
To be honest, this means that as soon as someone comes out with a genuine invention or innovation X and patents it, someone else can swoop along and submit a whole bunch of patents that are simply "X using ___".
Effectively forcing the actual inventor to either pony up some money or not be able to use *their invention* in any useful circumstance except on its own.
Oh, how I loathe patents that are "do this existing thing, but online" or, more generically, "combine these two existing things".
It's like a PhD dissertation - sure, you can (and probably will) use and discuss the work of others, but there's got to be some original research in there.
Or where you sleeping during your security/networking course?
Sure, technically; I generally refer to any keys created in a similar fashion as "Diffie-Hellman keys" though. People seem to know what I'm referring to (assuming they're familiar with cryptography, that is).
Just about everyone who takes a security course (and probably most who take a networking course, to be honest) in computer science learns about Diffie-Hellman keys.
The man knows his stuff *solid*. And sure, he doesn't have a masters... he has an (honorary) doctorate. Two of 'em. No need for a full-time academic position - he was in ICANN as a VP in charge of cryptography, developed some of Nortel's cryptography, worked at Sun...
The CFAA doesn't apply to corporations, don't you know. It's only for individuals.
Individuals like, say, the ones that are in charge of a corporation? ^^
BTW, my computer does not have a camera attached, a microphone, nor speakers. It's to the point that yes, you do have to be paranoid as demonstrated by this article.
Indeed. my desktop lacks a microphone or camera (unless I plug one in), myself.
You might be able to get it kicked at a lesser cost by having the lawyer contacting the collection company; the latter would probably not be happy to have to spend money for a court defense they almost certainly would lose.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that contract law requires all people to be adequately informed, and the clauses to not be unconscionable. I'm pretty sure that in aggregate, that clause fails those tests.
Yup; a speech restriction is acceptable in an employment contract (also because they're generally of the "don't say anything about projects in development/private information that you have access to as an employee" type), but in a sale.
The closest you can get that would be acceptable to the hypothetical court is a "if you behave badly in game/on forums/etc we reserve the right to cancel the service".
Re: Heh, heh. -- NOW you see why I say web-site TOS are NOT legally enforceable!
Well, some terms can have legal force, but the courts tend to axe unreasonable terms or 'small print'-type terms.
For example, a court would likely uphold a term that cancels a provided service if the customer performs a charge-back (see Steam), but would slap down a term that states, like here, that you cannot say anything negative about the company or face a fine.
Of course, the other directions of attack are just gilding the lily (terms not in effect at the time of sale, it being a third party who complained, the sale not being completed), but why not pile them all on as we mock them?
How else could that miraculous theory of evolution get up and running without the original life-form? Therefore, abiogenesis would be prerequisite, otherwise you've got nothing to work with.
... didn't I just mention some of the scientific research into the formation of an original life-form?
But you're incorrect on another level - abiogenesis and evolution are both distinct theories, and evolution does not require abiogenesis.
For example, let's conceive of God creating that first life-form and letting it go to reproduce and change. There you go, evolution without abiogenesis in a single sentence.
Evolution concerns itself with an existing population changing over time, including to the extent that the genetic codes cannot be recombined (ie, differing species). Anything else (fossil record, genetic profiles, etc) are observations used to validate or disprove the theory; the theory only applies once there is a living organism that can reproduce.
In a 1959 paper, Loren Eiseley claimed that "the leading tenets of Darwin's work – the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection – are all fully expressed in Blyth's paper of 1835".[13][14] He also cited a number of rare words, similarities of phrasing, and the use of similar examples, which he regarded as evidence of Darwin's debt to Blyth. However, the subsequent discovery of Darwin's notebooks has "permitted the refutation of Eiseley's claims".
Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article you offered up?
> Dude, whether or not you believe in God/religion is up to you. I'm not the one going around fabricating stories which cannot be proven and calling it 'science.' You claim evolution to be true yet cannot demonstrate it. You cannot even get past the first step necessary for it: abiogenesis. And don't try and deflect away from this because it's the truth -- life has never been observed coming about from non-life and random chance. Never. It's self-defeating logic on its face.
Actually, there's been some interesting work on the formation of environments that can generate amino acids - Miller's work in the 50s, which had some sealed samples examined a few years back, demonstrated the formation of a couple dozen different kinds of amino acids. And that's with a mixture of water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen.
And amino acids are the very basic building blocks of organic matter; they make proteins, which make up most parts of a cell.
Other work has demonstrated the ability of amino acids to form protobionts, which exhibit quite a few characteristics of primitive cells (such as asexual reproduction).
> Sorry but taking fossils and fabricating stories about evolution out of thin air around them isn't science. Science is testable, observable and falsifiable. Evolution fails miserably in every respect.
Actually, it *is* verifiable.
You make predictions based upon the theory, and then you look for new instances of the phenomenon under question and see if they match the predictions. That's generally what verification means - "do new observations fit existing models".
Let's take a study I myself am doing - I am having participants do two sets of variant actions; one is used for informing my models, and the other is reserved for testing their accuracy.
Models can be validated against an existing data set - and are all the time. The most common way is to split data points between a training set and a validation set.
I suppose you've not studied statistical or hard science methodology though, so I can't blame you for being ignorant.
> Don't conflate natural selection and random mutation, something creationists originally came up with, with universal common descent.
Considering we've been discovering fossil remains of those "common descent" predicted species for the past few decades... ummm...
(An easy watch on the topic is David Attenborough's "First Life" documentary; he discusses the origins of common features quite nicely).
On the post: Case Over No-Fly List Takes Bizarre Turn As Gov't Puts Witness On List, Then Denies Having Done So
Re: Nothing to hide
You laugh, but what if she were in the closet and afraid of family/friends/community's reaction? Wanna bet that the DHS would find a way to out her? Or if she were on drugs for HIV? "It was a false alarm; we thought her Stribild was actually pills hiding cocaine."
On the post: Case Over No-Fly List Takes Bizarre Turn As Gov't Puts Witness On List, Then Denies Having Done So
Re:
Oh God, could you imagine the blow-up *that* would cause?
On the post: German Court Tells Wikimedia Foundation That It's Liable For Things Users Write
That should be interesting ^^
On the post: Feinstein And Rogers Try To Scare Americans With Ooga Booga Terrorism Threats
Re: Once again, it's worth pointing out...
Let's be sporting and narrow it down further. According to the CPSC, 176 Americans died between 2006 and 2010 (that is, 44 a year) specifically by being *crushed by a television*.
Over the same period, being dying from being crushed by dressers/bureaus/etc was 92 (23 a year).
So where's the frantic call for urgent action in moving to glued down or built-into-the-wall furniture?
Source: http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/108985/tipover2011.pdf
On the post: Surprise: MPAA Told It Can't Use Terms 'Piracy,' 'Theft' Or 'Stealing' During Hotfile Trial
Commonly used terms
On the post: Court Says Team Prenda 'Flat-Out Lied' To Court; Hits Them With $261k More In Attorneys' Fees To Pay Up
Re: Still have to ask
Since it's about as clear-cut as it can get without some bloodstained bills with the trio's man-juice on it, I figure the courts are going through all the formalities as an example to the next bright lawyer who thinks he's got a foolproof way to use the court to extort money from people.
Losing your license, being hit with fees... that might be shrugged off by an egotistical bastard - after all, if you rake in millions first, then you don't care if you don't have a license to practice or have to pay some percentages of it out; you've got enough money to live comfortably.
But referral to the IRS? Federal prosecutors? That might change their mind.
I fully expect at this point to see some jail time for the trio. Probably not more than five years apiece or anything, but I'm fairly certain the judges are getting irritated enough to hunt for *anything* that puts them in a cell.
On the post: Insanity Rules In East Texas: Jury Finds Newegg Infringes On Ridiculous Encryption Patent
Effectively forcing the actual inventor to either pony up some money or not be able to use *their invention* in any useful circumstance except on its own.
Oh, how I loathe patents that are "do this existing thing, but online" or, more generically, "combine these two existing things".
It's like a PhD dissertation - sure, you can (and probably will) use and discuss the work of others, but there's got to be some original research in there.
On the post: Newegg Brings Out Whit Diffie, Ron Rivest & Ray Ozzie To Debunk Patent Troll's Claim; Troll Attacks Diffie's Credibility
Re: Re:
Sure, technically; I generally refer to any keys created in a similar fashion as "Diffie-Hellman keys" though. People seem to know what I'm referring to (assuming they're familiar with cryptography, that is).
People ever call you pedantic?
On the post: Newegg Brings Out Whit Diffie, Ron Rivest & Ray Ozzie To Debunk Patent Troll's Claim; Troll Attacks Diffie's Credibility
Re: Re: Questioning the credibility of *Diffie*?
On the post: Newegg Brings Out Whit Diffie, Ron Rivest & Ray Ozzie To Debunk Patent Troll's Claim; Troll Attacks Diffie's Credibility
Just about everyone who takes a security course (and probably most who take a networking course, to be honest) in computer science learns about Diffie-Hellman keys.
The man knows his stuff *solid*. And sure, he doesn't have a masters... he has an (honorary) doctorate. Two of 'em. No need for a full-time academic position - he was in ICANN as a VP in charge of cryptography, developed some of Nortel's cryptography, worked at Sun...
On the post: LG Smart TV Caught Collecting Data On Files Stored On Connected USB Drives
Re: Re:
Individuals like, say, the ones that are in charge of a corporation? ^^
Indeed. my desktop lacks a microphone or camera (unless I plug one in), myself.
On the post: Online Retailer Says If You Give It A Negative Review It Can Fine You $3,500
Re: Re: But they didn't buy anything...
On the post: Online Retailer Says If You Give It A Negative Review It Can Fine You $3,500
Re: Re: Who?
Yup; a speech restriction is acceptable in an employment contract (also because they're generally of the "don't say anything about projects in development/private information that you have access to as an employee" type), but in a sale.
The closest you can get that would be acceptable to the hypothetical court is a "if you behave badly in game/on forums/etc we reserve the right to cancel the service".
On the post: Online Retailer Says If You Give It A Negative Review It Can Fine You $3,500
Re: Heh, heh. -- NOW you see why I say web-site TOS are NOT legally enforceable!
For example, a court would likely uphold a term that cancels a provided service if the customer performs a charge-back (see Steam), but would slap down a term that states, like here, that you cannot say anything negative about the company or face a fine.
Of course, the other directions of attack are just gilding the lily (terms not in effect at the time of sale, it being a third party who complained, the sale not being completed), but why not pile them all on as we mock them?
On the post: Vlambeer Makes YouTubers Monetizing That S@&% Easy As S@&%
Re: Payback
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
... didn't I just mention some of the scientific research into the formation of an original life-form?
But you're incorrect on another level - abiogenesis and evolution are both distinct theories, and evolution does not require abiogenesis.
For example, let's conceive of God creating that first life-form and letting it go to reproduce and change. There you go, evolution without abiogenesis in a single sentence.
Evolution concerns itself with an existing population changing over time, including to the extent that the genetic codes cannot be recombined (ie, differing species). Anything else (fossil record, genetic profiles, etc) are observations used to validate or disprove the theory; the theory only applies once there is a living organism that can reproduce.
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article you offered up?
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
Actually, there's been some interesting work on the formation of environments that can generate amino acids - Miller's work in the 50s, which had some sealed samples examined a few years back, demonstrated the formation of a couple dozen different kinds of amino acids. And that's with a mixture of water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen.
And amino acids are the very basic building blocks of organic matter; they make proteins, which make up most parts of a cell.
Other work has demonstrated the ability of amino acids to form protobionts, which exhibit quite a few characteristics of primitive cells (such as asexual reproduction).
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
Actually, it *is* verifiable.
You make predictions based upon the theory, and then you look for new instances of the phenomenon under question and see if they match the predictions. That's generally what verification means - "do new observations fit existing models".
Let's take a study I myself am doing - I am having participants do two sets of variant actions; one is used for informing my models, and the other is reserved for testing their accuracy.
Models can be validated against an existing data set - and are all the time. The most common way is to split data points between a training set and a validation set.
I suppose you've not studied statistical or hard science methodology though, so I can't blame you for being ignorant.
> Don't conflate natural selection and random mutation, something creationists originally came up with, with universal common descent.
Considering we've been discovering fossil remains of those "common descent" predicted species for the past few decades... ummm...
(An easy watch on the topic is David Attenborough's "First Life" documentary; he discusses the origins of common features quite nicely).
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
The really silly thing is that it's not. (Infinity - 1) days is still uncountable, and is thus infinite.
Next >>