3651
General Software Discussion / Re: thunderbird alternative
« Last post by 40hz on April 10, 2013, 11:48 PM »I'll try to be a bit more specific! I use The Bat because:....-johnk (April 09, 2013, 10:39 AM)
Appreciated.
Recent Posts
I'll try to be a bit more specific! I use The Bat because:....-johnk (April 09, 2013, 10:39 AM)
I eventually got a copy from somewhere-TaoPhoenix (April 09, 2013, 10:10 PM)
Two days ago I saw The Fairy. Normally I'm not into French art house movies, but as this one is from the French speaking part of Belgium so I could resist the urge to turn it off immediately. And I am glad I did.-Shades (April 09, 2013, 08:21 PM)
It seems to bother you a lot it not being backed by anything, yet you seem accepting of the same thing with the dollar (or am I misunderstanding your position there?)-tomos (April 08, 2013, 03:14 PM)
You ignore the *big* difference that Bitcoin is limited. Otherwise I agree with the above.-tomos (April 08, 2013, 09:22 AM)
.Limited time offer!
SoftOrbits are willing to give each user a FULL official personal license (with future updates) for PDF Logo Removal for placing a link and a short review (even 10-15 words) anywhere on the web. This can be your home page, a site, forum, etc. Then send a message to [email protected] with the address of the review page. The offer will be valid for 1 week only.
[ Looks like it's really taking off....]
Online electronics store buys into bitcoins as sole currency
An online electronics retailer, Bitcoinstore, has had such a successful trial run accepting only bitcoins for payment that it will continue operating.
http://www.pcworld.c...s-sole-currency.html-Tinman57 (April 07, 2013, 07:41 PM)
A new piece of malware is floating around, but that seems like par for the course these days. What makes this malicious bit of code notable is the goal its creators have in mind. The malware is being spread via Skype messages and is designed to turn your PC into a remote Bitcoin mining rig without your knowledge or consent.
It's still too easy to fake it all, frame someone, then go after them, threaten to sue them, extort money from them.-app103 (April 04, 2013, 06:12 PM)
And I won't go into the details of how, lest some greedy lawyer or rep from one of the **AAs come across my post and get some bright idea of trying it.
Careful now, some have lost their lives for exposing smaller things than this.
Besides, you know this is a hot topic for Renny.-Tinman57 (April 04, 2013, 06:17 PM)
It does not question the method used to even come up with an IP, in the first place. It does not ask them to prove an IP was involved in file sharing. It still just takes their word for it.-app103 (April 04, 2013, 03:56 PM)
Did anybody stop to wonder where they originally got the IP addresses of the people they extorted?-app103 (April 04, 2013, 10:48 AM)
The Court is concerned with the potential for discovery abuse in cases like this. Ingenuity 133 accuses the Doe Defendant of illegally copying a pornographic video. But the only information Ingenuity 13 has is the IP address of the Doe Defendant. An IP address alone may yield subscriber information. But that will only lead to the person paying for the internet service and not necessarily the actual infringer, who may be a family member, roommate, employee, customer, guest, or even a complete stranger. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1–10, No. 2:12-cv-01642-RGK-SSx, slip op. at 4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012). And given the subject matter of Ingenuity 13’s accusations and the economics of defending such a lawsuit, it is highly likely that the subscriber would immediately pay a settlement demand—regardless whether the subscriber is the actual infringer. This Court has a duty to protect the innocent citizens of this district from this sort of legal shakedown, even though a copyright holder’s rights may be infringed by a few deviants. And unlike law enforcement in child pornography or other internet crime cases, the Court has no guarantee from a private party that subscriber information will not abused or that it would be used for the benefit of the public. Thus, when viewed with the public interest in mind, the Court is reluctant to allow any fishing-expedition discovery when all a plaintiff has is an IP address—the burden is on the plaintiff to find other ways to more precisely identify the accused infringer without causing collateral damage.
Thus, the Court hereby ORDERS Ingenuity 13 TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by December 31, 2012, why early discovery is warranted in this situation. No appearances are necessary. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff should ordinarily be allowed discovery to uncover their identities, but discovery may be denied if it is (1) clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or (2) that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Ingenuity 13 must demonstrate to the Court, in light of the Court’s above discussion, how it would proceed to uncover the identity of the actual infringer once it has obtained subscriber information—given that the actual infringer may be a person entirely unrelated to the subscriber—while also considering how to minimize harassment and embarrassment of innocent citizens. Ingenuity 13 must also explain how it can guarantee to the Court that any such subscriber information would not be used to simply coerce a settlement from the subscriber (the easy route), as opposed to finding out who the true infringer is (the hard route).
I'm sure I can't be the only one that doesn't like the type of light that LED's put out. How do I explain this? I mean...I don't like the glowy, overall subdued light that most LED flashlights give off. I much prefer the type of light that a traditional incandescent flashlight produces. I feel that they illuminate much better than LEDs. More detail, IMO. Maybe I'm alone here?-skwire (April 04, 2013, 10:22 AM)
