I bought my wife a Dell. Just after the warranty, the motherboard died. They would not/could not provide a replacement motherboard (their statements were factually inconsistent). I trashed the damn thing and cannibalized some parts.
Some lawyers, especially judges and the lawyers hooked in with the various of bar associations, have a tendency to get very 'holier than thou' when it comes to the sanctity of the legal profession. They want to defend their ivory tower from incursions by the impure.
They are unwilling to accept that law is inherently a dynamic, vital profession, both noble and filthy. A Court isn't something that sits above the world in judgment; it's something that is intimately and directly a part of world as it actually happens.
Judges do not like to be scrutinized. For example, it is an absolute bitch to try to get records to make a statistical study of judges' sentencing decisions. They want to keep that information from you, because (a) they don't trust you with it; and (b) they are afraid of political fallout. They want to keep their ivory tower sacred for the priesthood.
And then there's the First Amendment. As much as Judges would like to, they can't screw very much with lawyers who blab too much. And why try, anybody can get a proxy to advocate online for them.
Censoring lawyer speech is both a constitutional minefield and a quixotic adventure. You can't draft effective regulations that satisfy the Constitution, and even if you could, you couldn't enforce them because clever lawyers would defeat the regulations by anonymous and proxy postings.
Judges just have to do the best they can, just like they always have.
My route is about six miles. Biking takes me about fifteen minutes longer than driving. The bike is fun and I would ride it anyway. I extend the ride home when the weather is good.
Weekly maintenance is keeping the wheels and drivetrain clean. Savings are huge--especially because the ride is also my recreation and I would spend the money anyway.
Biking works for me because I have reasonable access to bike paths, wide streets, and low traffic streets.
In a Chapter 11, the debtor usually gets to be its own trustee (the Debtor in Possession) unless its removed for cause. The DIP sets the table for the judge. In a Chapter 7, the Chapter 7 trustee runs the show. The Chapter 7 trustee is all about maximizing return to unsecured creditors (and not about manipulating litigation to benefit unseen third parties). If an "asset" costs more to get than it would yield, then the Chapter 7 trustee isn't going to waste time on it.
If there is puppet-mastering in this case, it ought to be coming to an end now.
The vast majority of WWII US servicemen did not see service on the pointy head of the spear. The ones that did serve at the pointy head got ground up, but there are not enough battle-scarred combat veterans to create the mass-PTSD problem that you posit. The overwhelming majority of veterans got bored out of their skulls for the duration (but nevertheless made a vital contribution to victory).
The word repressive was created to describe statutes like this. It's so stupid an unconstitutional that it's laughable. That woman is an enemy of liberty!
Looks like a congressperson wanted to get her name in the paper.
Parent's attention is fixed on the existing moviemaking structure and is not directed to alternative distribution and creation channels. Those alternative channels are the wave of he future. The cheaper production gets, the more opportunity we'll all have for a greater array of diverse movies.
Someday a truly independent movie is going to hit it big via reasonably independent internet distribution. That will change everything. Technology like this only makes that day closer to reality!
IAAL and the last thing--the very last thing--that I want to do in a computer game is form legally binding relationships. Today it's contracts and cybersex. Tomorrow its libel and "You wrongfully damaged the value of my avatar!"
If I get in a contract dispute in a computer game, I don't want to end up in court--I want a virtual duel with swords or pistols! I want to be able to cheat somebody in a (virtual) contract and laugh at them down the barrel of a plasma blaster when they complain.
Some MMOGs want to create a game environment that can get people sued in real life--all the while disclaiming ANY liability on their part for the social cost of such wasteful, stupid lawsuits. I'll run, screaming, away from such utter lunacy.
But, hey, its good business for lawyers . . . what the hell!
Many a plaintiff's lawyer has made a gazillion mozillion dollars litigating "against a company with that many lawyers and the ability to litigate you to oblivion."
Law enforcement uses automated fingerprint detection to identify possible matches. It never claims a match based on the computer.
Using a program as the sole plagiarism judge and jury is profoundly unfair. If a university wants to discipline a student for a plagiarism hit, then it needs to obtain the source document--and pay the source document's creator if necessary to obtain it.
Confronting the student with the alleged source gives the student a fair chance to defend himself/herself.
Court cases are not about macho concepts like "chicken." They are about money. You have your stack of money, they have their stack of money, and the Court moves money from one stack to the other. Emotional appeals are just a tool, nothing more.
I think that you suggest far, far too much reliance upon a contract to protect your rights in the cloud. A contract is all well and good and groovy until the cloud company goes insolvent and your service freezes. Maybe you'll be able to extract your data later, maybe not. Bankruptcy, anyone.
I've got some really neat cloud for you. I'll set you up real cheap, free even . ... You're gonna like this stuff. C'mon, give it a try. You won't get hooked . ...
Such an argument is a slimy one. Lawyers argue precedent. Precedent is formed in our appellate courts--not our trial courts. It's very bad form (and not particularly helpful to the judge) to argue precedent from the behavior of other trial courts.
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
(b) The pirates ALSO deserve all the due process and constitutional protection that the US has to offer--and the RIAA assiduously tries to ignore! You can't slam the thieves until the thieves get a FULL and FAIR day in court.
The Pirates deserve to be hammered, but only after every last one of their constitutional rights is respected!
Slashdot Mirror
I bought my wife a Dell. Just after the warranty, the motherboard died. They would not/could not provide a replacement motherboard (their statements were factually inconsistent). I trashed the damn thing and cannibalized some parts.
Dude, you just got Delled.
Who'd a thought that the Homebrewers would create something that people who like to kill would like to kill for!
World's a crazy place.
RTF Patent Application instead of ineffectually whining.
It's hilarious!!!
People paid real money to get that shit filed!!!!!
Nothing gets better than Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra! That episode was STUPENDOUS. If this is one eighteenth as good as that, I'll be OK.
Some lawyers, especially judges and the lawyers hooked in with the various of bar associations, have a tendency to get very 'holier than thou' when it comes to the sanctity of the legal profession. They want to defend their ivory tower from incursions by the impure.
They are unwilling to accept that law is inherently a dynamic, vital profession, both noble and filthy. A Court isn't something that sits above the world in judgment; it's something that is intimately and directly a part of world as it actually happens.
Judges do not like to be scrutinized. For example, it is an absolute bitch to try to get records to make a statistical study of judges' sentencing decisions. They want to keep that information from you, because (a) they don't trust you with it; and (b) they are afraid of political fallout. They want to keep their ivory tower sacred for the priesthood.
And then there's the First Amendment. As much as Judges would like to, they can't screw very much with lawyers who blab too much. And why try, anybody can get a proxy to advocate online for them.
Censoring lawyer speech is both a constitutional minefield and a quixotic adventure. You can't draft effective regulations that satisfy the Constitution, and even if you could, you couldn't enforce them because clever lawyers would defeat the regulations by anonymous and proxy postings.
Judges just have to do the best they can, just like they always have.
Are we always going to need operating systems?
My route is about six miles. Biking takes me about fifteen minutes longer than driving. The bike is fun and I would ride it anyway. I extend the ride home when the weather is good.
Weekly maintenance is keeping the wheels and drivetrain clean. Savings are huge--especially because the ride is also my recreation and I would spend the money anyway.
Biking works for me because I have reasonable access to bike paths, wide streets, and low traffic streets.
I definitely encourage others to bike to work.
In a Chapter 11, the debtor usually gets to be its own trustee (the Debtor in Possession) unless its removed for cause. The DIP sets the table for the judge. In a Chapter 7, the Chapter 7 trustee runs the show. The Chapter 7 trustee is all about maximizing return to unsecured creditors (and not about manipulating litigation to benefit unseen third parties). If an "asset" costs more to get than it would yield, then the Chapter 7 trustee isn't going to waste time on it.
If there is puppet-mastering in this case, it ought to be coming to an end now.
The vast majority of WWII US servicemen did not see service on the pointy head of the spear. The ones that did serve at the pointy head got ground up, but there are not enough battle-scarred combat veterans to create the mass-PTSD problem that you posit. The overwhelming majority of veterans got bored out of their skulls for the duration (but nevertheless made a vital contribution to victory).
Your undisciplined post is fun to read, though.
The word repressive was created to describe statutes like this. It's so stupid an unconstitutional that it's laughable. That woman is an enemy of liberty!
Looks like a congressperson wanted to get her name in the paper.
That thing is a black box. Blow goes in and a number comes out. The State fights attempts to determine what happens in between.
This is good news. Get yourself a software expert (IF YOU'RE DAMN RICH), then evaluate the software.
Way to go Minnesota.
This is going to be a field day for experts ($). The States had better timely respond to this!!
Breath test machines are a fantastic use of open source software. Transparency.
This is HUGE its gonna spread and it's going to really affect lots of things, especially time for trial timelines.
This is going to be the new DWI defense lawyer fad.
Oh yeah, its a really short step from the denial of internet access to wholesale slaughter and genocide.
Parent's attention is fixed on the existing moviemaking structure and is not directed to alternative distribution and creation channels. Those alternative channels are the wave of he future. The cheaper production gets, the more opportunity we'll all have for a greater array of diverse movies.
Someday a truly independent movie is going to hit it big via reasonably independent internet distribution. That will change everything. Technology like this only makes that day closer to reality!
I say hurrah!
IAAL and the last thing--the very last thing--that I want to do in a computer game is form legally binding relationships. Today it's contracts and cybersex. Tomorrow its libel and "You wrongfully damaged the value of my avatar!"
If I get in a contract dispute in a computer game, I don't want to end up in court--I want a virtual duel with swords or pistols! I want to be able to cheat somebody in a (virtual) contract and laugh at them down the barrel of a plasma blaster when they complain.
Some MMOGs want to create a game environment that can get people sued in real life--all the while disclaiming ANY liability on their part for the social cost of such wasteful, stupid lawsuits. I'll run, screaming, away from such utter lunacy.
But, hey, its good business for lawyers . . . what the hell!
Amen to that! The editors of /. must have felt like rousing the old BSD vs. GPL debate one. . . . more . . . time.
Many a plaintiff's lawyer has made a gazillion mozillion dollars litigating "against a company with that many lawyers and the ability to litigate you to oblivion."
Very interesting point.
Law enforcement uses automated fingerprint detection to identify possible matches. It never claims a match based on the computer.
Using a program as the sole plagiarism judge and jury is profoundly unfair. If a university wants to discipline a student for a plagiarism hit, then it needs to obtain the source document--and pay the source document's creator if necessary to obtain it.
Confronting the student with the alleged source gives the student a fair chance to defend himself/herself.
Court cases are not about macho concepts like "chicken." They are about money. You have your stack of money, they have their stack of money, and the Court moves money from one stack to the other. Emotional appeals are just a tool, nothing more.
If you need an analogy, analogize it to poker.
I think that you suggest far, far too much reliance upon a contract to protect your rights in the cloud. A contract is all well and good and groovy until the cloud company goes insolvent and your service freezes. Maybe you'll be able to extract your data later, maybe not. Bankruptcy, anyone.
I've got some really neat cloud for you. I'll set you up real cheap, free even . . .. You're gonna like this stuff. C'mon, give it a try. You won't get hooked . . ..
You can always quit later . . .
It is interesting that you note this.
Such an argument is a slimy one. Lawyers argue precedent. Precedent is formed in our appellate courts--not our trial courts. It's very bad form (and not particularly helpful to the judge) to argue precedent from the behavior of other trial courts.
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
(b) The pirates ALSO deserve all the due process and constitutional protection that the US has to offer--and the RIAA assiduously tries to ignore! You can't slam the thieves until the thieves get a FULL and FAIR day in court.
The Pirates deserve to be hammered, but only after every last one of their constitutional rights is respected!
I like Ubuntu also, but I can't figure out how to get my sound to work. I've had no luck finding any decent resources, either.
That's what it's all about, baby. Public Power! Conservatives can jabber all they want, but nobody can screw you as well as a private utility can!
Support the Grange!