Unless, of course, the husband copied them to another location (say, a [Movies] subdirectory) instead of, say, MOVING them?
Say there's some Hadopi requirement that the warn-ee delete the offending files (I have no idea if there is or not). I can totally see the wife deleting ABC Movie from the [Movies] subdirectory and thinking she's taken the required action, having no freaking clue there's another copy of ABC Movie in a [Share] subdirectory somewhere else on the hard drive.
Because no one who downloads video files makes copies to another location, all renamed per personal organization preference, right? Because everyone who downloads video files just plays them all from the [Share] subdirectory, right?
While that may very well be a commonly generally-accepted belief, it's simply not true!
In reality, ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense when charged with or tried for breaking the law. In reality, being mistaken in a matter of fact is also not an acceptable defense when charged with or tried for breaking the law.
In reality, the best that either ignorance or mistaken-ness of fact will bring a defendant is a reduction in the severity of penalty if convicted (i.e. either a reduction in fine or a reduction in time to be served).
IANAL, but I am certain this isn't a recent development.
Agreed. Not only did I FB this post, I also opened a support account with these jackasses simply to tell them this (because if course they don't have a way to email them):
Protip: Doing business this way will ensure that your business fails. When this was published, you lost hundreds of possible customers, including me and everyone I know.
18 comments in and no one has mentioned the fact that private parties broadcasting public details of famous people doing interesting things _is_not_the_same_thing_ as the government drag-netting then collating every detail of our lives into dossiers that ARE BEING SHARED with any other governmental agency.
Look at someone's intimate details for a year, and you can FIND something to prosecute them for. The surveillance gives the government the power to prosecute because it feels like it. Again, _not_the_same_thing_ as the public broadcasting interesting things famous people do in public.
I disagree with Zenni, as they make their product overseas (last I checked, which was more than 2 years ago).
EyeBuyDirect makes their glasses in the US, has a reasonable return policy if you simply dislike what you chose, have a great return policy if the workmanship is defective, have a FANTASTIC accidental breakage replacement policy ($7.95, flat!), and have native-American-English speaking customer service. Yes, EyeBuyDirect is more expensive than Zenni, but their pricing is WELL below retail and their products are well-made.
(I have no financial interest or relation to EyeBuyDirect, I'm simply a very pleased customer. Almost two years ago I paid them ~$130 for specs that I priced at $600+ at multiple retail places. These, of course, I accidentally broke 4 days after receipt. EyeBuyDirect replaced them for $7.95! I'm also a fan of the $6.95 prescription sunglasses I bought from them, too!)
If DHS wanted the TSA to be effective, they'd make it a point to hire highly-paid competent security professionals to revamp the entire TSA approach. If Israel can accomplish what they have in the area of travel security (which, btw, includes courtesy, respect, and almost no time lost to the traveler), then we can, too. It's just a matter of if we can motivate the politicians to make it so.
I'm surprised no one else brought this up sooner than you did. I'm also surprised that yours is the ONLY reference to this concept, throughout the entire comments section, as I write this.
The most common false positive on the TSA's explosives test is GLYCERIN. You know, a prime ingredient in many common soaps and lotions?
Believe it or not, because one of the things the TSA tests for is nitroglycerin, freaking HAND LOTION tests positive for explosives so often that the screeners actually SAY, "It's probably just hand lotion."
But still ..... Test positive, and you've TESTED POSITIVE. Period.
Re: Re: Open WIFI would work except ISP bandwidth and use restrictions
Yes, but what can't be limited is the amount of data others use. Roommate and I are stuck on a low-speed DSL connection in a 40 year old building with a nightmarishly low 2-gig data cap. I also work from home. As it is, I get poor-connection warnings on the corporate laptop whenever the roommate streams Netflix. I just can't take the chance that others will kill my cap or suck what little bandwidth I have. As much as I firmly believe I sharing the connection as well :-/
All right, Mike. I am devoted to This American Life and Radiolab .... Both of which I leaned about from you. I am now going to check out WTF, per your mention. What other podcasts should I be checking out?
Having a too-highly-strung sense of empathy is not a freaking "mental disorder."
While this person might not be well-adjusted to his society (hell, he might need therapy or medication, we don't know), he's taking seriously-inconvenient steps to adjust his environment to protect (and possibly promote) his own mental health. Good for him.
I have to tell you, "Oh, so it's some sort of mental disorder" is SERIOUSLY harsh and more than a little antagonistic. It's also dismissive and passive-agressively confrontational ... The implication is "Your thoughts don't matter because you're broken." You quite effectively invalidated someone you don't even know.
I see later you post another apology that comes across as MUCH more sincere than this one does, and I am glad for that. The second post, the one that seems sincere, is what motivated me to make this post ... Because, if the second apology IS sincere, you might just care that what you said above was truly (and unecessarily) mean.
What bugs me MOST abt this (that hasn't already been said, that is) ...
The use of the phrase "Child-on-child sexual crimes." This phrase connotes 7 year olds sexually assaulting 5 year olds. Of COURSE such a thing was "once unheard of" ... Because such a thing is much more rare than people like Trueman would have us believe.
The (relative) rarity of actual child-on-child sexual abuse is not something I can find a citation on, but think of it this way: We know that sexual abuse (including but not limited to rape) is a power trip expressed through sexual aggression. If a pre-pubescent (i.e. a child) needs/wants to exercise power, isn't that child much more likely to set something on fire, hurt an animal, or beat up another child? The power-tripping pre-pubescent isn't likely to sexually abuse another child unless acting out sexual abuse from personal experience simply because sexual activity isn't in the child's frame of reference yet (unless through experienced abuse).
In other words, until puberty begins, the physical machinations of sex or sexual abuse aren't likely to occur to the person needing to exercise power if the person hasn't already been sexually vicimtized in some way.
So, the word "child" in Trueman's quotes makes me twitch. There's a huge difference between a pre-pubescent child and a pubescent or post-pubescent adolescent, yet people keep using the word child to describe legal juveniles. 7 year olds playing doctor, 13 year olds making out, and an 8 year old sexually abusing a 5 year old are completely.different.universes. of situation.
Child-on-child SEX (which I can only interpret as involving adolescents) is static or down, as is child-on-child (again, I can only interpret this as involving at least one adolescent) sexual ABUSE. This, while we're talking more openly abt sex and sexual abuse, mainstreaming pr0n more each day, and generally thoroughly saturating our culture with adult references and conflicting messages abt the appropriateness of all of it.
Yes, thx for this .... Haven't read the link yet (I will) ..... But does anyone know how to find out abt such micro budget films, be they from Paramount, other houses, or indies? I mean, if it's not showing at my local independent theater, I have no idea how I would find out abt them.
I disagree. I think the judge is providing a roadmap to the defendants and their counsel on exactly what to do when Malibu's case crashes hard. Golf clap!
I have seen the exact same phenomenon in the exact same situation more times than I can count, and not just among the lower ranks. It's pervasive all the way up the chain.
It's even more nauseating to watch it happen in middle/upper management than it is to watch it in the trenches. It's not ALWAYS present, but it IS present often enough to never be able to forget it's alive and well. The most egregious part is that the required acknowledgement must be from a visible (i.e. alpha) male, not just A male, and not just a higher-ranking male.
The damned if you do or don't on drawing attention to these incidents (and therefore increasing personal and group investment by transmuting the invisible to the anecdotal, read: personal) is that, if the woman or A woman draws attention to specific incidents, she is accused of one, some, or all of the following:
Whining, attention-seeking, credit-stealing, politics-playing, diversity-trumping, drama-creating, playing the victim, crying about outdated stereotypes, man-hating, shameless self-promotion, imagining grievances, making excuses for why she/women aren't moving up, relying on gender for advancement, divisiveness, not being a team player .... I could go on.
This is because, I believe, pointing out specific instances (of disregard requiring male approval prior to consideration) occasioned by unconscious gender bias threatens the egalitarian mindset of most of the individual's in the IT industry. They honestly can't see or acknowledge it happening in front of their eyes because it directly contradicts their view that the ideal is reality. The cognitive dissonance is so complete, and so immediate, that their minds edit it out, simply ignoring the occurrence, leading to ad hominem attack as a defense mechanism when specific occurrences are pointed out and named for what they are.
What is to be done, other than continuing to point out and question specific instances, knowing what the inevitable backlash will be? I don't know. But I do understand why, after the first few attempts, many women stop trying. They perform a cost-benefit analysis and determine that on a personal level, silence is better for them than the repercussions of speaking out.
It's a terrible choice to have to make, cutting your own throat for the greater good, and women in IT make that choice daily. Not all women every day, but some woman every day.
Yes, this is anecdotal and personal reasoning, but it IS supported by the writings and conversations of women in IT, freely available if they are asked or if sought online.
On the post: Hadopi Strikes Again: Net User Fined For Not Understanding How A Program Installed By Someone Else Works
Re:
Say there's some Hadopi requirement that the warn-ee delete the offending files (I have no idea if there is or not). I can totally see the wife deleting ABC Movie from the [Movies] subdirectory and thinking she's taken the required action, having no freaking clue there's another copy of ABC Movie in a [Share] subdirectory somewhere else on the hard drive.
Because no one who downloads video files makes copies to another location, all renamed per personal organization preference, right? Because everyone who downloads video files just plays them all from the [Share] subdirectory, right?
;)
On the post: Hadopi Strikes Again: Net User Fined For Not Understanding How A Program Installed By Someone Else Works
Re:
In reality, ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense when charged with or tried for breaking the law. In reality, being mistaken in a matter of fact is also not an acceptable defense when charged with or tried for breaking the law.
In reality, the best that either ignorance or mistaken-ness of fact will bring a defendant is a reduction in the severity of penalty if convicted (i.e. either a reduction in fine or a reduction in time to be served).
IANAL, but I am certain this isn't a recent development.
On the post: Online Retailer Says If You Give It A Negative Review It Can Fine You $3,500
Re: Re:
Nice.
On the post: Online Retailer Says If You Give It A Negative Review It Can Fine You $3,500
Re:
Protip: Doing business this way will ensure that your business fails. When this was published, you lost hundreds of possible customers, including me and everyone I know.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131113/06112425228/online-retailer-slaps-unhappy-customers-with-3 500-fee-violating-non-disparagement-clause.shtml
On the post: Ex-DHS Director Michael Chertoff: The Public Spying On Famous People With Their Smartphones Is A Bigger Issue Than NSA Spying
On the post: Ex-DHS Director Michael Chertoff: The Public Spying On Famous People With Their Smartphones Is A Bigger Issue Than NSA Spying
Look at someone's intimate details for a year, and you can FIND something to prosecute them for. The surveillance gives the government the power to prosecute because it feels like it. Again, _not_the_same_thing_ as the public broadcasting interesting things famous people do in public.
On the post: Patents As Weapons: How 1-800-CONTACTS Is Using The Patent System To Kill An Innovative Startup
Re: Glasses
EyeBuyDirect makes their glasses in the US, has a reasonable return policy if you simply dislike what you chose, have a great return policy if the workmanship is defective, have a FANTASTIC accidental breakage replacement policy ($7.95, flat!), and have native-American-English speaking customer service. Yes, EyeBuyDirect is more expensive than Zenni, but their pricing is WELL below retail and their products are well-made.
(I have no financial interest or relation to EyeBuyDirect, I'm simply a very pleased customer. Almost two years ago I paid them ~$130 for specs that I priced at $600+ at multiple retail places. These, of course, I accidentally broke 4 days after receipt. EyeBuyDirect replaced them for $7.95! I'm also a fan of the $6.95 prescription sunglasses I bought from them, too!)
On the post: The TSA's True Focus Isn't 'Safety' - It's Self-Preservation
On the post: Mysterious Indiana Jones Journal Arrived At UChicago After USPS Tried To Be Helpful With Lost Package
Re: Sale
On the post: IP Diplomat Sob Story: It's Hard To Push The US Agenda When The World Listens To Reason
Re: In the Capitals
On the post: Child With Brittle Bone Disease Detained By TSA For An Hour
Re: Re: Re: Damned if you do, damned if you don't
I'm surprised no one else brought this up sooner than you did. I'm also surprised that yours is the ONLY reference to this concept, throughout the entire comments section, as I write this.
The most common false positive on the TSA's explosives test is GLYCERIN. You know, a prime ingredient in many common soaps and lotions?
Believe it or not, because one of the things the TSA tests for is nitroglycerin, freaking HAND LOTION tests positive for explosives so often that the screeners actually SAY, "It's probably just hand lotion."
But still ..... Test positive, and you've TESTED POSITIVE. Period.
On the post: EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing... And Should Actually Be Encouraged
Re: Re: Open WIFI would work except ISP bandwidth and use restrictions
On the post: Why Do So Many People Rely On Facebook For Communications, Given Its Arbitrary Removal Process?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative?
On the post: Can You Take Fact Checking Too Far?
On the post: Anti-Pornography Guy Politicizes 10 Year Old Girl's Murder
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks, it's been nice--farewell
While this person might not be well-adjusted to his society (hell, he might need therapy or medication, we don't know), he's taking seriously-inconvenient steps to adjust his environment to protect (and possibly promote) his own mental health. Good for him.
I have to tell you, "Oh, so it's some sort of mental disorder" is SERIOUSLY harsh and more than a little antagonistic. It's also dismissive and passive-agressively confrontational ... The implication is "Your thoughts don't matter because you're broken." You quite effectively invalidated someone you don't even know.
I see later you post another apology that comes across as MUCH more sincere than this one does, and I am glad for that. The second post, the one that seems sincere, is what motivated me to make this post ... Because, if the second apology IS sincere, you might just care that what you said above was truly (and unecessarily) mean.
On the post: Anti-Pornography Guy Politicizes 10 Year Old Girl's Murder
"Child-on-child sexual crimes"??
The use of the phrase "Child-on-child sexual crimes." This phrase connotes 7 year olds sexually assaulting 5 year olds. Of COURSE such a thing was "once unheard of" ... Because such a thing is much more rare than people like Trueman would have us believe.
The (relative) rarity of actual child-on-child sexual abuse is not something I can find a citation on, but think of it this way: We know that sexual abuse (including but not limited to rape) is a power trip expressed through sexual aggression. If a pre-pubescent (i.e. a child) needs/wants to exercise power, isn't that child much more likely to set something on fire, hurt an animal, or beat up another child? The power-tripping pre-pubescent isn't likely to sexually abuse another child unless acting out sexual abuse from personal experience simply because sexual activity isn't in the child's frame of reference yet (unless through experienced abuse).
In other words, until puberty begins, the physical machinations of sex or sexual abuse aren't likely to occur to the person needing to exercise power if the person hasn't already been sexually vicimtized in some way.
So, the word "child" in Trueman's quotes makes me twitch. There's a huge difference between a pre-pubescent child and a pubescent or post-pubescent adolescent, yet people keep using the word child to describe legal juveniles. 7 year olds playing doctor, 13 year olds making out, and an 8 year old sexually abusing a 5 year old are completely.different.universes. of situation.
Child-on-child SEX (which I can only interpret as involving adolescents) is static or down, as is child-on-child (again, I can only interpret this as involving at least one adolescent) sexual ABUSE. This, while we're talking more openly abt sex and sexual abuse, mainstreaming pr0n more each day, and generally thoroughly saturating our culture with adult references and conflicting messages abt the appropriateness of all of it.
We must be doing SOMETHING right.
On the post: Hollywood Still Resisting The Idea That Cheaper, Better Films Is The Way To Beat TV
Re:
On the post: Cisco, Motorola, Netgear Team Up To Expose Wifi Patent Bully
Re: thats a lot of egregiosnessness ness?
https://www.google.com/search?q=google&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#hl= en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&pq=google&cp=11&gs_id=1q&xhr=t&q=define+egregio us&pf=p&sclient=tablet-gws&client=safari&tbo=d&oq=define:+egr&gs_l=&pbx= 1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bb695c63d480a1f1&bpcl=35243188&biw=1024&bih=644
On the post: Judge Calls Copyright Troll's Bluff
Re: Re:
On the post: Bias In Tech & Media: Lists That Perpetuate The Stereotypes
Re: Insightful, Yes; Easy Fix, No
It's even more nauseating to watch it happen in middle/upper management than it is to watch it in the trenches. It's not ALWAYS present, but it IS present often enough to never be able to forget it's alive and well. The most egregious part is that the required acknowledgement must be from a visible (i.e. alpha) male, not just A male, and not just a higher-ranking male.
The damned if you do or don't on drawing attention to these incidents (and therefore increasing personal and group investment by transmuting the invisible to the anecdotal, read: personal) is that, if the woman or A woman draws attention to specific incidents, she is accused of one, some, or all of the following:
Whining, attention-seeking, credit-stealing, politics-playing, diversity-trumping, drama-creating, playing the victim, crying about outdated stereotypes, man-hating, shameless self-promotion, imagining grievances, making excuses for why she/women aren't moving up, relying on gender for advancement, divisiveness, not being a team player .... I could go on.
This is because, I believe, pointing out specific instances (of disregard requiring male approval prior to consideration) occasioned by unconscious gender bias threatens the egalitarian mindset of most of the individual's in the IT industry. They honestly can't see or acknowledge it happening in front of their eyes because it directly contradicts their view that the ideal is reality. The cognitive dissonance is so complete, and so immediate, that their minds edit it out, simply ignoring the occurrence, leading to ad hominem attack as a defense mechanism when specific occurrences are pointed out and named for what they are.
What is to be done, other than continuing to point out and question specific instances, knowing what the inevitable backlash will be? I don't know. But I do understand why, after the first few attempts, many women stop trying. They perform a cost-benefit analysis and determine that on a personal level, silence is better for them than the repercussions of speaking out.
It's a terrible choice to have to make, cutting your own throat for the greater good, and women in IT make that choice daily. Not all women every day, but some woman every day.
Yes, this is anecdotal and personal reasoning, but it IS supported by the writings and conversations of women in IT, freely available if they are asked or if sought online.
Next >>