Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Found Guilty of Misleading Advertising
gtoomey writes "The UK Advertising Standards Authority has upheld complaints that Microsoft misled consumers by running advertisements claiming Linux is 10 times more expensive than Windows. The print advertisements used "independent research" to compare the cost of Linux on an expensive mainframe to Windows on a PC."
mindaktiviti@yahoo.com It's worth a try. :B
bk_at_lasthop_dot_ca
Do you understand the tax code? What about negligence in a tort action? Or can you explain to me why the computer you own is "yours" (and no, paying for it does not make it yours e.g., if the person that sold it to you stole it). I'm guessing the answer is no, you don't. Lawyers are like mechanics. Sure, everyone could spend all their time learning how to fix their car, but then they wouldn't spend time doing other things that make them productive. Instead, lawyers spend the time, energy,and money to figure out the law so you can sit at your desk and program whatever it is you program (or manage, or whatever).
The purpose of law is to create equality.
Eh, the general purpose is more to provide remedies to those that have been wronged and to deter those that do wrong, but true that it is supposed to serve these functions equally among all.
The purpose of lawyers is to create priveledge for rich people.
Which is why no lawyers do pro bono work, right? What about the EFF's lawyers? Are they doing it for the rich?
In criminal cases, the interest of freedom should be representated by an independant counter-prosector. The defendant should speak for himself or not as he chooses. But every defendant should have the same counter-prosecutor.
Truthfully, I don't even understand this. Are you making the case for the appointment of a public defender? As for defendant's representing themself, that's silly. He may say things he does not need to say, be confused or not remember clearly, making him look more guilty than he is, or he may just not be a good speaker. I mean, who is a jury more likely to believe or sympathize with: "Yo' Honah, I didn' dewit. I wuz at muh friend's haas" or "No, your Honor, I did not commit the crime in question, and I have an alibi." Sam statement, bu the latter is more sympathetic and believeable.
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Hey, Could I have one please? my email id is: jriaz77@yahoo.com
www.notesmax.com
The fact that I cannot understand the tax code - for example - if my wife were from Mexico and we sent support to her family - that would be deductable, hoowever; she is from Kiev, and as such the support we provide is not deductable. I don't understand how that and the fourteenth amendment can exist inside the same legal system.
- Is no reason to justify making the rest of my life incomprehensible.
Law = equality.
Law is the alternative to the rule of Kings, tyrants, dictators, overlords, knights, fiefs, sherrifs, priests, prophets, judges, and in so many words - "men".
"men" tend to favor some at the expense of others and use the capricious and arbitrary natuure of ruling by continuim - or in short "making up the rules as they go."
Law - on the other hand is the idea that the rules are written in the language of the people and they are only held to answer for rules which are published prior to the actions taken. It is in a word - intended to make every person an equal.
Lawyers - as a practice - enable a government to create overly complicated rules - which in the end eroode the purpose of the law - which is that people are entitled to be informed of the rules before being held to answer for their failure to keep them.
Lawyers inform only the people who can afford their service, and they defend (generally) those in porportion to their ability to pay. One reason we watch celebrity justice is because we know that with enough money, the guilty rich will be treated better than the innocent poor.
So in the final analysis, the lawyers role in the justice system is to improve the odds that poor black men will be put to death for crimes committed by rich white guys.
Kind of like punishing the dog if someone farts.
Until the system treats rich and poor, black and white "exactly and precisely" the same - it is more accurate to say that the legal system is an institution for upholding classism than to point to the rare and elegant exceptions - such as thurgood marshall and a few pro-bono cases - and say that it is otherwise.
I'm not opposed to lawyers assisting their clients - but I am very much opposed to a legal system which is built for the benefit of lawyers and treats them as a priveledged class. Lawyers should be treated like interpreters - there for that purpose, but otherwise ignored.
The Counter-prosecuter. It is a public defender, but not a personal defender. The counter-prosecutor would be elected and approved by the legislator, and would be made up of constitutional types like the ACLU who would argue in every case for the Constitution.
"The people" he might say "Have a vested interest in protecting the right of free speech - in this case, the prosecutor has arrested a man for walking on a flag - but the Constitution intends to protect the act of opposing government - even when it is distasteful and unpopular - I recommend the court dismiss this case as protected speech etc . . . "
Or as in your example "Your honor, the defendant has a verified alabi, and it is not in the interest of justice for us to put a man to death when there is any lingering doubt as to his guilt - if we do, there will come a day when we are wrong, and the result will be a declining willingness to punish criminals."
As it is - we the public rely to heavily on a few rich people to excersize the rights in the Constitution.
AIK