Well a more accurate comparison would be making a threat over a phone call. They're going to use the number that initiated the call to start trying to identify the person who committed the act.
The number itself doesn't prove who did it, but it does give them a real live person to start talking too; i.e. the party who contracted for that phone connection.
Because the content is still only available through a TWC connection? you're making an unfair comparison.
Mike's statement is perfectly valid. If someone doesn't get TWC for internet access and TV then they can't get stream the shows over a non TWC internet connection. WiFi hacking won't change that fact at all. The content would still only be available over that TWC connection.
Do I think a criminal should be allowed to keep his possessions after a pre-trial adversarial hearing in which he gets to defend *why* he should be allowed to keep them and the gov't should explain *why* existential harm is done by him keeping said tools? (insert hearing result here!)
It also nicely crystallizes the change in media creation. Previously you let a big firm do most of the marketing and you got the contract to get some of the proceeds.
Now, you get ~100% of the proceeds, but you have to do pretty much all of the work. Certainly helps if you already have a name or some other sort of wide recognition. But you can make the recognition for yourself, or if you want a big platform, you either pay for that privilege or go the Huff Post route and give it away to drive sales to other things you offer.
'Well-informed' is quite hard to distinguish from 'misinformed' without context and reasonable disclosure rules.
Truth is only as cut and dry as the amount of context you have.
Person A shot Person B. Truth.
Person A is a cop. Truth.
Person B is a cop. Truth.
None of which determines if a crime was committed or not. The 'truth' is not just what happened, but the situation and details under which it happened.
The US system of trial by opposing forces (prosecution/defense) allows for relevant (and provable) data to be introduced. Every single case where the 'truth' wasn't introduced because of evidence rules can be traced to a situation where 'untruth' was introduced the same way.
Much like the statement "Democracy is a horrible form of government, but it's the best we've got" our trial system is the same way. There isn't a better system out there.
Truth is rarely as cut and dry as idealism might believe.
Shall we use 'video evidence'? as an example. Pretty rock solid, unless the video was doctored. Should the video be allowed into evidence if you can't prove it wasn't doctored?
If a surveillance video was taken home by someone, is it still viable as evidence? The chain of trust has been broken in terms of the authenticity of that data.
Now what if that video was available online and the jury was able to research and see it. They clearly see the video, but they don't know that it was doctored because it wasn't 'proven' as a fact in court.
you can take the accounts with you but you can't make them follow your 'new' account...
I think the basic concept is that if the account is the show name or a derivative of the show name, the show keeps it. If it's a personal account, it stays with the employee.
Take MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, he's @Lawrence or @TheLastWord. Which do you think will go with him and which stay with the show if he were to leave?
Besides if a former employee were to use an account for 'nefarious' purposes, there are all sorts of laws that can be used against them. If you left a job the last thing you would want to do is continue to make use of an account that referenced your *previous* job.
Re: Re: Response to: David Liu on Feb 25th, 2011 @ 2:04pm
"The problem that caused the whole snafu was that CtR refused to give the bank information"
.
Utterly false according to PayPals own response. From the blog linked to by PayPal https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2011/02/paypal-statement-on-courage-to-resist-situation/ http://cry ptome.org/0003/paypal-evil.htm
"To meet PayPal's standard verification requirements, the Support Network opted to open a line of credit with PayPal and provided Social Security numbers and other financial details in doing so. Approximately a month later on January 29, 2011, PayPal decided that these standard protocols did not apply to Bradley Manning related efforts."
Perhaps CTR is lying but PayPal clearly is not refuting what they have said.
On the post: Danish Supreme Court Sets High Bar For Evidence In File Sharing Cases
Re: Re: Re:
The number itself doesn't prove who did it, but it does give them a real live person to start talking too; i.e. the party who contracted for that phone connection.
On the post: Broadcasters To Sue Time Warner Cable For Making It Easier For People To See Their Shows & Ads
Re:
Because the content is still only available through a TWC connection? you're making an unfair comparison.
Mike's statement is perfectly valid. If someone doesn't get TWC for internet access and TV then they can't get stream the shows over a non TWC internet connection. WiFi hacking won't change that fact at all. The content would still only be available over that TWC connection.
On the post: Broadcasters To Sue Time Warner Cable For Making It Easier For People To See Their Shows & Ads
A certain type of genius...
Duh!
On the post: If AT&T Puts A Meter On Your Broadband, But That Meter Is Grossly Inaccurate, Is That Meter Really There?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Need for government oversight
Funny thing about gov't granted monopolies. They really don't have to care about you - you still have to pay them or do without.
On the post: If AT&T Puts A Meter On Your Broadband, But That Meter Is Grossly Inaccurate, Is That Meter Really There?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Need for government oversight
Funny thing about gov't granted monopolies. They really don't have to care about you - you still have to pay them or do without.
On the post: Great Moments In Legal Questioning: IT Boss In Cuyahoga County Cannot Identify A Photocopier
Re: It seems ambiguous to me
If asked if you have the ability to make copies at home? the answer is yes.
On the post: Great Moments In Legal Questioning: IT Boss In Cuyahoga County Cannot Identify A Photocopier
Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re: Re:
Does anyone have a link to the actual court transcript so this isn't just someone 'saying' they said it?
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do I think a criminal should be allowed to keep his possessions after a pre-trial adversarial hearing in which he gets to defend *why* he should be allowed to keep them and the gov't should explain *why* existential harm is done by him keeping said tools? (insert hearing result here!)
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
Re:
On the post: Best Selling Author Turns Down Half A Million Dollar Publishing Contract To Self-Publish
Re:
Now, you get ~100% of the proceeds, but you have to do pretty much all of the work. Certainly helps if you already have a name or some other sort of wide recognition. But you can make the recognition for yourself, or if you want a big platform, you either pay for that privilege or go the Huff Post route and give it away to drive sales to other things you offer.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re: Re: Re:
Truth is only as cut and dry as the amount of context you have.
Person A shot Person B. Truth.
Person A is a cop. Truth.
Person B is a cop. Truth.
None of which determines if a crime was committed or not. The 'truth' is not just what happened, but the situation and details under which it happened.
The US system of trial by opposing forces (prosecution/defense) allows for relevant (and provable) data to be introduced. Every single case where the 'truth' wasn't introduced because of evidence rules can be traced to a situation where 'untruth' was introduced the same way.
Much like the statement "Democracy is a horrible form of government, but it's the best we've got" our trial system is the same way. There isn't a better system out there.
On the post: Does An Impartial Jury Mean An Ignorant Jury? Can Barry Bonds Get An 'Impartial' Jury?
Re:
Shall we use 'video evidence'? as an example. Pretty rock solid, unless the video was doctored. Should the video be allowed into evidence if you can't prove it wasn't doctored?
If a surveillance video was taken home by someone, is it still viable as evidence? The chain of trust has been broken in terms of the authenticity of that data.
Now what if that video was available online and the jury was able to research and see it. They clearly see the video, but they don't know that it was doctored because it wasn't 'proven' as a fact in court.
On the post: Questionable 'Piracy' Study Found; Details Show It's Even More Ridiculous Than Expected
Princess Bride
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;-)
On the post: EA: Banned From Forums? Can't Play Single-Player Game Either
time for massive 'Report Post' campaign?
Sounds like people need to start reporting *every* post on the forums. See what sort of 'scale' they have in place ;-)
On the post: Who Owns Employee Social Media Accounts? 'The Correct Answer Is: Shut Up'
Re: Effectively the employee does
I think the basic concept is that if the account is the show name or a derivative of the show name, the show keeps it. If it's a personal account, it stays with the employee.
Take MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, he's @Lawrence or @TheLastWord. Which do you think will go with him and which stay with the show if he were to leave?
Besides if a former employee were to use an account for 'nefarious' purposes, there are all sorts of laws that can be used against them. If you left a job the last thing you would want to do is continue to make use of an account that referenced your *previous* job.
On the post: If You Say Something In Public, You Can Be Quoted And If You Say Something On Twitter, That's Public
Re: Exposing Privates
Just imagine how little we would hear from Ms. Palin if this were the case...
On the post: Tolkien Estate Says Just Mentioning Tolkien Infringes; Tolkien Censorwear Appears In Response
Re: Re:
On the post: PayPal Turns Bradley Manning Defense Account Back On; Claims It Was A Paperwork Problem
Re: Re: Response to: David Liu on Feb 25th, 2011 @ 2:04pm
.
Utterly false according to PayPals own response. From the blog linked to by PayPal
https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2011/02/paypal-statement-on-courage-to-resist-situation/
http://cry ptome.org/0003/paypal-evil.htm
"To meet PayPal's standard verification requirements, the Support Network opted to open a line of credit with PayPal and provided Social Security numbers and other financial details in doing so. Approximately a month later on January 29, 2011, PayPal decided that these standard protocols did not apply to Bradley Manning related efforts."
Perhaps CTR is lying but PayPal clearly is not refuting what they have said.
On the post: Craigslist A 'Cesspool Of Crime'? Or Are Bad Reporters A Cesspool Of Repeating Dubious Research?
Re:
Oh and phones since *vastly* more crime is done via phone than computer.
Oh and cars.
Oh and [insert any multi-use device here]
Next >>