DIG
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by Ali709[..]

    whoops...just ejected and replaced the CD..works fine now


    haha you genius
  2. Originally posted by germcevoy[..]

    haha you genius


    That's me
  3. Here we go.
  4. Originally posted by The



    The Networker
    User-friendly Apple shows a blogger its ruthless core

    * John Naughton
    *
    o John Naughton
    o The Observer,
    o Sunday December 23 2007

    Visitors to ThinkSecret.com, a well-known site which publishes rumours and gossip about forthcoming Apple products, found an intriguing notice on the front page last Thursday.

    'Apple and ThinkSecret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides,' it announced. 'As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and ThinkSecret will no longer be published. Nick Ciarelli, ThinkSecret's publisher, said: "I'm pleased to have reached this amicable settlement, and will now be able to move forward with my college studies and broader journalistic pursuits."'

    Let's unpack that. ThinkSecret has been one of a number of sites obsessed with Apple, particularly with guessing What Steve Jobs Will Do Next. (Similar sites include AppleInsider and the delightfully titled O'Grady's PowerPage.) For reasons that can only be plumbed by a team of intellectual property lawyers and psychiatrists, Jobs and his company are pathologically hostile to anyone daring to publish stories about forthcoming products. So all three sites found themselves in receipt of heavy-duty legal offensives from Apple, which sought to identify the leakers who were allegedly providing their stories and to stop the sites from continuing to publish what Apple regards as trade secrets.

    AppleInsider and O'Grady's PowerPage fought back - with legal assistance from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - arguing that the first amendment to the US Constitution protected them from being compelled to disclose their sources, a provision originally designed to protect journalists. Apple won at the first hurdle, but lost on appeal. The higher court ruled that there could be no distinction between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' news when it came to the first amendment, and that bloggers were functionally identical to journalists within the context of California law.

    So far, so good. But Apple continued to pursue ThinkSecret, arguing that Ciarelli had solicited for 'insider' tips on his site, which the company argued was a violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Then, suddenly, all was sweetness and light. Ciarelli had not been forced to reveal his sources; Jobs's blood pressure will no longer be elevated by rumours on ThinkSecret's front page.

    A victory for common sense? I doubt it. In the first place, Apple's behaviour sets a lousy example. As AppleInsider's Kasper Jade commented: 'Letting corporate America dictate what bloggers and journalists can say or publish threatens to set a very ominous precedent.'

    Ciarelli is a student and a lone blogger, someone without resources who can be easily swatted. The blogosphere is full of such people, who sometimes publish stuff that is of public interest but which no mainstream outlet will touch.

    On the other hand, there are reasons for thinking that the settlement may not be the corporate victory it first appears to be. California has an Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law which protects citizens from being held liable for exercising free speech rights - and Ciarelli had filed a well-researched motion to strike out Apple's suit on free speech grounds.

    'The motion,' says Kurt Opsahl of the EFF, 'stopped Apple's lawsuit in its tracks and raised the prospect that Apple would have had to pay ThinkSecret substantial sums for its legal fees... While the court has never ruled, we believe the motion was meritorious, and Apple was looking at an embarrassing and expensive loss.'

    For non-lawyers, several things stand out from this peculiar saga. There is, for example, the corporate lunacy of a company suing some of its most enthusiastic and devoted followers. One of the most distinctive things about Apple is that its customers are its most devoted evangelists, yet it sets its legal dogs on their cheerleaders.

    Second, the ThinkSecret story provides a sombre reminder about the danger of being taken in by clever corporate PR. Apple has brilliantly established an image as a company that is not only cool and chic, but also on the side of the consumer. Its technology provides terrific toolkits for user-generated publishing and movie-making. It was the first company to offer consumers legal music downloads on reasonable terms. It portrays its customers as free-thinking libertarians compared with the serried ranks of Microsoft serfs. And so on.

    It's a great story, but nobody should be taken in by it. Apple is as single-minded as Microsoft, Oracle, IBM or Google. Jobs may wear velvet gloves, but they're lined with lead.



    Interesting.
  5. I had to laugh when I read the article about a site getting sued because they revealed information about the Apple Mighty Mouse. Really.

    But then it was even funnier when Microsoft tried to patent the right-click. Yep, right. What stupid companies. Imagine if Principle Management tried to sue u2start and atu2 and those sites for distributing bootlegs and concert videos, and news.
  6. Originally posted by drewhigginsI had to laugh when I read the article about a site getting sued because they revealed information about the Apple Mighty Mouse. Really.

    But then it was even funnier when Microsoft tried to patent the right-click. Yep, right. What stupid companies. Imagine if Principle Management tried to sue u2start and atu2 and those sites for distributing bootlegs and concert videos, and news.


    Microsoft tried to patent the right-click? What a load of crap!
  7. Originally posted by easports43[..]

    Microsoft tried to patent the right-click? What a load of crap!


    Yep. Something as small as the right-click. Another funny case that came up as recently as this week - the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) says that ripping music to your MP3 players and computers and CDs is 'classed as stealing' and not the real thing. Well, yeah - the backup obviously isn't the real thing.

    Yes, stealing your own property because you're making a backup.

    And the original idea of DVD copying wasn't actually illegal. It came about from a Norwegian computer user (referred to as a hacker, but not really the idea of hacking as it's originally intended) who wanted, legitimately, to watch his DVDs on his Linux media center. But he was sued for that very purpose. Unfair.

    The RIAA are a bunch of harsh arses.
  8. Would you say this is a scam? It just came in my inbox:



    First up, wouldn't the company (NationWide) use 'Dear Drew', not 'Dear Customer'?

    The web address shows this: https://olb2.nationet.com/Update/Verify/default2.asp? Fair game, it's https which means it is a secure site but moving the mouse over the link shows this link, which clearly isn't that https:// site.

    http://www.ristorantepassione.nu/inc/olb2.nationet.com/

    And half the sentences are cut English:

    please provide all these info (banks don't use abbreviations!)
    Nationwide Bank Plc announcing (have announced)
    With the new recent upgrade in our security measure (our upgrades to security measures)

    How ridiculous.
  9. Originally posted by drewhigginsWould you say this is a scam?


    It is...I think...I heard about it, Not Nationwide, but some other bank.
  10. Originally posted by drewhigginsWould you say this is a scam? It just came in my inbox:

    [image]

    First up, wouldn't the company (NationWide) use 'Dear Drew', not 'Dear Customer'?

    The web address shows this: https://olb2.nationet.com/Update/Verify/default2.asp? Fair game, it's https which means it is a secure site but moving the mouse over the link shows this link, which clearly isn't that https:// site.

    http://www.ristorantepassione.nu/inc/olb2.nationet.com/

    And half the sentences are cut English:

    please provide all these info (banks don't use abbreviations!)
    Nationwide Bank Plc announcing (have announced)
    With the new recent upgrade in our security measure (our upgrades to security measures)

    How ridiculous.



    It is indeed spam. Hopefully you have consigned it to the recycle bin some time ago already...

    PS Interesting Apple article too....
  11. Originally posted by djrlewis[..]

    It is indeed spam. Hopefully you have consigned it to the recycle bin some time ago already...

    PS Interesting Apple article too....



    I kept it. I want to see how much spam I can have by December 24 next year.
  12. Originally posted by drewhiggins[..]

    I kept it. I want to see how much spam I can have by December 24 next year.


    A lot if your in-box is anything like mine
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.