"Id quite like a link to the judge who made this ridiculous ruling too."

Yes, the name of this judge needs to be publicly spread around. He needs his share of the Streisand effect.

Pink Eye!

The Polizia were just following the orders of a local prosecutor who decided he's going to split hairs on Google's legal status. Apparently "Internet Service Providers" are not responsible for what third parties post on their sites, but "Internet Content Providers" are. While most believe Google qualifies as an ISP (instead of an ICP) under the EU and Italian safe harbor laws, this local prosecutor doesn't.

Basically an asshole Italian prosecutor trying to pull off a high-profile publicity stunt to get him the name recognition to jump to a higher elected office. This is like Elliott Spitzer, the crusading Attorney General of New York who parlayed a number of high-profile prosecutions into a successful bid to become Governor... then pissed it all away, but that's another story.

The prosecutor's an asshole, and if there is justice in the world, he'll end up disgraced and out of a job instead of benefitting from wasting everyone's time to aggrandize himself.

Only decepticon reformers turn it into CO2. Autobot reformers are much more responsible with the carbon.

I guess this begs the question of just what "open source" means. Just because you can look at the source does not mean you can legally copy or modify it. To legally copy or modify it, you need a license. That license may be a paid license or it may be one of the free open source licenses like the GPL, the BSD license, or a Creative Commons license.

People who implemented or modified and implemented the breathalyzer software that was revealed at trial would still be guilty of various infractions if the breathalyzer manafacturer asserted copyright, whether or not they were compelled to reveal it by a judge.

. A lot of people tend to think that viewable source means "open source," but we've tended to equate "open source" with software and source that are released under a free license. "Viewable" source (i.e. if you paid a fee to get access to the windows source code so you could hack better drivers) and "open" source (like Apache or Linux) are very different animals, IMO.

- Greg

Quacks or not, the issue isn't with criticism of the chiro's services, but with his billing rates and practices.

But quackery is relevant here, because the doctor should have used a PR person to help him rebut the detractor's claims and used the threat of libel to make Yelp append the rebuttal directly to the criticism so they had to be viewed together. It would have been less costly all around. Better to defuse your detractor as a crackpot/quack than to sue him and give him legitimacy.

Is the doctor within his rights? If the claims made by Norberg actually are false, then he is. Was this the best way to handle things? Nope.

There's a difference between SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and suing someone who has posted claims about you or your business that are patently false. And there's a point at which "opinion" becomes libel. The first thing that doctor's lawyer will ask:

Lawyer: So it was your "opinion" that my client's billing practices were criminal?
Defendant: Yes.
Lawyer: And which particular statute do you believe he was violating?
Defendant: Statute?
Lawyer: Well, if you were going to state an opinion that would be so harmful to someone's reputation, you'd have based it on some sort of research that led you to conclude that his behavior was actually criminal, right? You wouldn't just "pull it out of your ass" so to speak?
Defendant: Well...
Lawyer: Let me rephrase that. Let's say you put some faux fur in an artwork. If one of your clients falsely claimed that artwork contained the fur of baby harp seals that you had clubbed yourself, and that caused other clients to cancel future projects, would you write that off to mere "opinion"?
Defendant: No.
Lawyer: Why not?
Defendant: Because it's a lie.
Lawyer: Why can't it just be his opinion that it's harp seal fur from baby seals whose heads you brutally bashed in?
Defendant: Because it's not!
Lawyer: No further questions, your honor.

Let's put the blame squarely where it lies... on the stupid freakin' parents who were letting a 6-year-old play GTA!

It doesn't take that much effort to monitor your kids. But it does mean saying no and standing up to their whining and crying. It does mean dealing with the inconvenience of not being able to always do what you want to do and having to spend some time actively engaging them.

If this kid was playing GTA, then there should be additional charges filed against his parents.

8,000 leechers, 4 seeders, your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes.

not saying what spammers will do.. except they will do what ever works - as long as they are making money they will do it.. what we need is to find the people in this world that are giving them money and remove them from the net.

You know how drunks have to blow into a breathalyzer to get their car to start? Something like that for the victims of the net who provide the cannon fodder in these battles... people who buy penis pils, people who got their computer zombified by opening a "video" of Anna Kournikova nude... People who post my job application and claim it's real. They must be stopped.

1. Spammers aren't going to pay the bandwidth costs to send out sound & video, and nobody is rushing to expand email to carry large files when a URL to a website works better.

Most spam is sent by zombies. So a spammer uploads their spammail *once* with sound and video attachments to a master zombie which seeds it to a few other master zombies in the network which then download it to the other zombies via a bittorrent like protocol. The bandwidth costs are negligible because it's all on the shoulders of the people whose computers got zombified and the recipients.

Or a Quassam-rocket. One of those just killed two sisters aged 12 and 5.

And you might notice those girls were Palestinians. It's sort of sad, because when I saw that article, my first thought was "ha ha, you dumbass terrorists screwed up and killed your own." Then right after it I felt guilty because no child's death should be a source of laughter. I'm just so sick and damn tired of these asswipe terrorists. When they kill their own by accident, it's hard not to gloat.