Davenport Lyons, a law firm, has been sending out legal papers to thousands, accusing them of illegally downloading pornographic movies, games, and more. While the actual cost of the content rarely amounts to more than £20 (about $40US), some of the "settlements" have exceeded £16,000! Further, few of the people who have received these letters even have the capacity or knowledge to download anything, much less hardcore gay pornography - many are elderly.
While the law firm stands by its claims, it has come to light that many of their successful settlements have never been challenged, largely because those targeted could not afford legal representation. Some estimates suggest up to 25,000 of these letters have been sent out and if they were all paid, the net would be over £12.5 million! That is more than almost any porn movie has ever made.
DO NOT SETTLE WITH THIS COMPANY!
This is a fraud which Davenport Lyons can never prove and a capable expert may be able to disprove! Davenport Lyons is obviously a shady company which has used intimidation and shock tactics to elicit money from innocent people. By trumping this whole copyright debate to ISPs, they are getting some to back-down immediately and provide them with information they likely have no right to access. Likewise, when people receive 20-page legal documents, claiming they downloaded hardcore gay pornography with explicit titles, they are quick to "settle." This basically amounts to extortion. Gaming giant, Atari, recently dropped the firm over this behavior.
If you have received any such notification, first contact Michael Coyle at Lawdit.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Lori Drew Facing Lesser Sentence
Murderess, Lori Drew, has been found no guilty of the most important charge of unauthorized access of a computer with malicious intent. The jury found her guilty of three misdemeanor crimes regarding abusing MySpace TOS, but the jury could not decide on the other charge of conspiracy.
Lori Drew posed as a 16-year old boy with the intention of harming a 13-year old neighbor. The neighbor hung herself after Lori Drew, posing as this 16-year old boy, ended their relationship and sent her several malicious messages.
What boggles my mind is how someone like Charles Manson can be convicted of much the same thing - unduly influencing others with malicious intent - where this piece of human shit is somehow innocent because the means to the end were slightly different. Drew knew the girl had emotional problems and intentionally sought to cause her stress and damage because she and Drew's daughter had experienced a "falling-out." Charlie Manson believed the Beatles had told him to kill people.
Which one of these things is not like the other?
On the one hand, you could argue that Manson did not truly understand why/how what he did was wrong, which makes him dangerous. But I could just as easily point-out that Lori Drew knew exactly what she was doing, which makes her even more dangerous. While Drew is not likely to repeat her performance, and I do not believe in "making examples" out of people (excepting police officers, politicians, and district attorneys), Lori Drew has shown little remorse for her actions and I believe that should matter; I am concerned that precedents set here could be used unfairly in the future because the American "justice" system does not know how to temper the law in regards to differing circumstances.
When all is said and done, what the living fuck was a fat, old, ugly woman doing harassing a 13-year old girl!? Why isn't she being charged for child abuse, contributing to the delinquency, and so forth - as in most other crimes involving adults and minors? Obviously the attorneys involved were looking more toward making a name for themselves with this "landmark" case than seeing justice served. Which, in effect, means the case involving Lori Drew changes nothing.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Lori Drew posed as a 16-year old boy with the intention of harming a 13-year old neighbor. The neighbor hung herself after Lori Drew, posing as this 16-year old boy, ended their relationship and sent her several malicious messages.
What boggles my mind is how someone like Charles Manson can be convicted of much the same thing - unduly influencing others with malicious intent - where this piece of human shit is somehow innocent because the means to the end were slightly different. Drew knew the girl had emotional problems and intentionally sought to cause her stress and damage because she and Drew's daughter had experienced a "falling-out." Charlie Manson believed the Beatles had told him to kill people.
Which one of these things is not like the other?
On the one hand, you could argue that Manson did not truly understand why/how what he did was wrong, which makes him dangerous. But I could just as easily point-out that Lori Drew knew exactly what she was doing, which makes her even more dangerous. While Drew is not likely to repeat her performance, and I do not believe in "making examples" out of people (excepting police officers, politicians, and district attorneys), Lori Drew has shown little remorse for her actions and I believe that should matter; I am concerned that precedents set here could be used unfairly in the future because the American "justice" system does not know how to temper the law in regards to differing circumstances.
When all is said and done, what the living fuck was a fat, old, ugly woman doing harassing a 13-year old girl!? Why isn't she being charged for child abuse, contributing to the delinquency, and so forth - as in most other crimes involving adults and minors? Obviously the attorneys involved were looking more toward making a name for themselves with this "landmark" case than seeing justice served. Which, in effect, means the case involving Lori Drew changes nothing.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Microsoft to Offer Free Security
Failing to secure a sizable share of the anti-virus market, Microsoft has decided to offer free anti-virus and security beginning next year.
Microsoft's catch-all anti-virus and PC management suite, OneCare, garnered less than 2% of teh already flooded security market. The corporation will cease selling it in June 2009. A new suite of security tools, codenamed Morro, will replace it for free. Morro has fewer features, touted as a "no-frills" security solution, but will be free and works with XP and Vista.
Because of its small size and low system resources usage, Microsoft says Morro is particularly suitable for laptops and those with low-bandwidth Internet connections.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Microsoft's catch-all anti-virus and PC management suite, OneCare, garnered less than 2% of teh already flooded security market. The corporation will cease selling it in June 2009. A new suite of security tools, codenamed Morro, will replace it for free. Morro has fewer features, touted as a "no-frills" security solution, but will be free and works with XP and Vista.
Because of its small size and low system resources usage, Microsoft says Morro is particularly suitable for laptops and those with low-bandwidth Internet connections.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Kentucky Boycott Over, Casino Takeover Denied
The state of Kentucky had planned to takeover nearly 150 gambling sites by seizing their domain names, which led to a boycott of all things Kentuckian by many sites - including Kentucky Fried Chicken, bourbon, Papa John's Pizza, Fruit of the Loom, and more. But now the boycott has been terminated, thanks to an appeals court ruling, granting a stay of motion for the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association.
However, advocates note that should things turn unfavorable for them, the boycott will be re-initiated.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
However, advocates note that should things turn unfavorable for them, the boycott will be re-initiated.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Pulling Employees Down by Their Bootstraps
Apparently, lawyers have noticed a new type of lawsuit: employees are suing their employers for not paying them while they boot-up and power-down their workstations.
Some of the corporations which have faced these suits include AT&T Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., and Cigna Corp. Employees filed class-action suits against said companies, claiming they were not paid for the - get this - 15-30 minutes spent booting and shutting down their computers. Over the course of a work week, this tallies-up to several hours of lost wages.
While 15-30 minutes sounds bizarre at first, I'm pretty sure the employees are rounding-up and counting the total times. After all, my home computer takes a good 2-3 minutes to fully load; it starts right up if I disable all the programs. This could account for updates, AV checks, and other technical matters most likely set to run at either start-up or shut-down. And it also seems fair that this would amount to several hours throughout the course of a week.
While opponents say employees spend this time doing non-work-related activities, such as socializing and smoking, the argument is pretty ridiculous. If I had to wait more than a minute or two for my workstation to bootstrap, I would certainly smoke a cigarette or whatever, but I would also (just as often) have to deal with non-computer, work-related matters - filing papers, organizing my desk, and more. Also, who is to say the conversation or other "socializing" is not work-related? Shouldn't you get a few minutes to acclimate yourself to your work environment and day?
Interesting, but equally stupid.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Some of the corporations which have faced these suits include AT&T Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., and Cigna Corp. Employees filed class-action suits against said companies, claiming they were not paid for the - get this - 15-30 minutes spent booting and shutting down their computers. Over the course of a work week, this tallies-up to several hours of lost wages.
While 15-30 minutes sounds bizarre at first, I'm pretty sure the employees are rounding-up and counting the total times. After all, my home computer takes a good 2-3 minutes to fully load; it starts right up if I disable all the programs. This could account for updates, AV checks, and other technical matters most likely set to run at either start-up or shut-down. And it also seems fair that this would amount to several hours throughout the course of a week.
While opponents say employees spend this time doing non-work-related activities, such as socializing and smoking, the argument is pretty ridiculous. If I had to wait more than a minute or two for my workstation to bootstrap, I would certainly smoke a cigarette or whatever, but I would also (just as often) have to deal with non-computer, work-related matters - filing papers, organizing my desk, and more. Also, who is to say the conversation or other "socializing" is not work-related? Shouldn't you get a few minutes to acclimate yourself to your work environment and day?
Interesting, but equally stupid.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
TV Dinner: TiVo Orders Your Pizza!
TiVo now has an added function: it can order Domino's Pizza!
As of Monday (November 17th - when this post was written), broadband-connected TiVo subscribers can order Domino's Pizza - and even track their order - via their set! You have the option of ordering a pie for pick-up but... that kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
According to the press release, TiVo subscribers will see an ad for Domino's Pizza on their TV and can click "I Want It!" from their remote. The option will be available through a myriad of navigational paths in the TiVo interface and is free of charge (though you got to pay cash for the food!).
TiVo also offers similar interactive advertisements from Amazon and Fandango.
This is what I was discussing here a while back and have talked about for years! You should be able to use your remote to navigate through the products featured on the show you are watching - clothes, furniture, accessories, vehicles - and click to learn more about, even purchase, them. This would be particularly useful for featured music: imagine being able to learn the name of a song used in a commercial or TV program, then click to purchase it from iTunes, or watch the video.
Eventually, this will lead to similar interactive features, such as learning the backstory or significance of a character or object in a like manner. For example, you could highlight Ruby while watching Supernatural and click to get pop-ups detailing her character's history. Clicking-through on "more information," you would get a list of other episodes in which the character appeared, details about the actresses (such as the fact that Ruby has been portrayed by two actresses, so far), and more. Eventually, the data would become even more contextual - like hyperlinks on the Web - allowing you to follow highlighted material for in-depth facts, including video/audio and more.
When these features are finally integrated, your TV-viewing experience will be similar to watching a DVD, where you can basically pause the show in-media-res and "jump" to the extras, then fall right back into the program where you left-off. This "background" material will be created in and of itself by the creators and companies, including "proprietary" material developed by the provider.
FOX is a perfect example:
While watching Prison Break, you click on the jail and a child window pops-up with information about the setting in the TV show. You can either follow highlighted keywords (subjects) within the text for more information or choose from an accompanying contextual menu. One item would be an interview with the stars; another leads to an episode of the FMC original series, Life After Film School, featuring one (or more) of the creators; another leads to some FNC special on prisons; on and on. And all of this is just the material Fox offers - TiVo has a few features it made on its own, as does your programming provider, and so on.
Kudos, TiVo and Domino's Pizza!
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
As of Monday (November 17th - when this post was written), broadband-connected TiVo subscribers can order Domino's Pizza - and even track their order - via their set! You have the option of ordering a pie for pick-up but... that kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
According to the press release, TiVo subscribers will see an ad for Domino's Pizza on their TV and can click "I Want It!" from their remote. The option will be available through a myriad of navigational paths in the TiVo interface and is free of charge (though you got to pay cash for the food!).
TiVo also offers similar interactive advertisements from Amazon and Fandango.
This is what I was discussing here a while back and have talked about for years! You should be able to use your remote to navigate through the products featured on the show you are watching - clothes, furniture, accessories, vehicles - and click to learn more about, even purchase, them. This would be particularly useful for featured music: imagine being able to learn the name of a song used in a commercial or TV program, then click to purchase it from iTunes, or watch the video.
Eventually, this will lead to similar interactive features, such as learning the backstory or significance of a character or object in a like manner. For example, you could highlight Ruby while watching Supernatural and click to get pop-ups detailing her character's history. Clicking-through on "more information," you would get a list of other episodes in which the character appeared, details about the actresses (such as the fact that Ruby has been portrayed by two actresses, so far), and more. Eventually, the data would become even more contextual - like hyperlinks on the Web - allowing you to follow highlighted material for in-depth facts, including video/audio and more.
When these features are finally integrated, your TV-viewing experience will be similar to watching a DVD, where you can basically pause the show in-media-res and "jump" to the extras, then fall right back into the program where you left-off. This "background" material will be created in and of itself by the creators and companies, including "proprietary" material developed by the provider.
FOX is a perfect example:
While watching Prison Break, you click on the jail and a child window pops-up with information about the setting in the TV show. You can either follow highlighted keywords (subjects) within the text for more information or choose from an accompanying contextual menu. One item would be an interview with the stars; another leads to an episode of the FMC original series, Life After Film School, featuring one (or more) of the creators; another leads to some FNC special on prisons; on and on. And all of this is just the material Fox offers - TiVo has a few features it made on its own, as does your programming provider, and so on.
Kudos, TiVo and Domino's Pizza!
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Jerry Yang Quits Yahoo
Co-founder of Yahoo!, Jerry Yang, is stepping-down as CEO.
"I will always do what is best for this company," Yang told employees in an e-mail. He has faced growing criticism over his choices, including refusing to sell to Microsoft earlier this year at $33/share. Yahoo stock has dropped to about $10/share. Yang apparently made the decision to quit last month.
While no successor has been named, Yang will help hire one.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
"I will always do what is best for this company," Yang told employees in an e-mail. He has faced growing criticism over his choices, including refusing to sell to Microsoft earlier this year at $33/share. Yahoo stock has dropped to about $10/share. Yang apparently made the decision to quit last month.
While no successor has been named, Yang will help hire one.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
EXE Files Not Associated!
I slaved the XP drive to the Vista box around the time I last posted. My intention was to leave it slaved and have the extra storage, etc. However, I had done this specifically to get the old files off there - the ones I'd been working on when the video board crashed-out and I lost the XP box.
Right off the bat, I started having issues. Damned Vista would not network with XP or 98 in the beginning, and whenever you slave an older drive to it, you cannot get into any of the Documents folders or files because of "permission" errors.
I searched high and low across the Web for information concerning this, but (as always) the "solutions" were glib and did not work. In this case, the "solutions" I found said to change the permissions through the Security Tab (right-click and choose Properties). I did that to no avail. Another "solution" was to share the folder with "Everyone." Still no help.
I eventually did get one, single file to open - after changing permission, assuming "Ownership," and all this other horseshit) - but I have two folders with hundreds of files that I have to get to and have no idea what I did to this one file to make it work, so that's just really no help.
At any rate, while moving a folder from the slaved drive to the master, the computer locked-up on me and I had to hardboot. When it came back up, I tried to start Mail from the bar and got the "This file is not associated with any program. Change the association through the Control Panel" message. To my horror, I found that all the shortcut links said the same thing!
I tried starting them from the desktop with the same results. I tried starting them from their Start Menu folders and eventually their actual folders off C: - and kept getting the same result!
Oddly though, Firefox worked from the Start Menu - thank God! - and I managed to find this site with the REG fixes. I downloaded it and got them up and running again. Before you say it, System Restore was giving me the same error - I tried.
Anyway, I wanted to share the link with you in case you ever run into anything similar. And I highly suggest you save it to Desktop or somewhere equally accessible, just in case, because I found it through a link off a forum where someone else was having the same issue.
Because I simply have to get to these other files, I will figure out how to do the permission thing and let you know once I do.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Right off the bat, I started having issues. Damned Vista would not network with XP or 98 in the beginning, and whenever you slave an older drive to it, you cannot get into any of the Documents folders or files because of "permission" errors.
I searched high and low across the Web for information concerning this, but (as always) the "solutions" were glib and did not work. In this case, the "solutions" I found said to change the permissions through the Security Tab (right-click and choose Properties). I did that to no avail. Another "solution" was to share the folder with "Everyone." Still no help.
I eventually did get one, single file to open - after changing permission, assuming "Ownership," and all this other horseshit) - but I have two folders with hundreds of files that I have to get to and have no idea what I did to this one file to make it work, so that's just really no help.
At any rate, while moving a folder from the slaved drive to the master, the computer locked-up on me and I had to hardboot. When it came back up, I tried to start Mail from the bar and got the "This file is not associated with any program. Change the association through the Control Panel" message. To my horror, I found that all the shortcut links said the same thing!
I tried starting them from the desktop with the same results. I tried starting them from their Start Menu folders and eventually their actual folders off C: - and kept getting the same result!
Oddly though, Firefox worked from the Start Menu - thank God! - and I managed to find this site with the REG fixes. I downloaded it and got them up and running again. Before you say it, System Restore was giving me the same error - I tried.
Anyway, I wanted to share the link with you in case you ever run into anything similar. And I highly suggest you save it to Desktop or somewhere equally accessible, just in case, because I found it through a link off a forum where someone else was having the same issue.
Because I simply have to get to these other files, I will figure out how to do the permission thing and let you know once I do.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
US Air Force Seeks to Change Cyber Laws
The US Air Force is trying to change Cyberlaw across Cyberspace - not just protect their own networks.
Fed-up with constant attacks on their networks, the military branch seeks specifically to:
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Fed-up with constant attacks on their networks, the military branch seeks specifically to:
- Make hostile traffic inoperable on Air Force networks.
- Locate and identify hackers.
- Enable Air Force servers to evade/dodge electronic attacks.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
