It's great to hear debate on this issue... but this is a scientific issue, and we should test it with science. Google is a big company. They should conduct their own experiment and publish the results if they want to refute the FCC test.
Every state bar requires a background check before allowing anyone to sit for the bar exam. The background check of Jack Thompson would reveal the Florida disbarment, and there is approximately a zero percent chance that any state bar association would let him sit for the exam.
12 years? Only takes 7 to become an attorney. Four years of undergrad + three of law school. Although to many students the three years of law school may *feel* like eight years, it is actually only three:]
Unfortunately the Republicans haven't been that great in Congress either. From 2002 to 2006 both the House and the Senate were controlled by Republicans, and during those four years there were huge spending increases.
I would love to have seen Bush use his veto pen to kill large spending bills, but it just didn't happen.
The Constitution is a living document... otherwise the federal government wouldn't have this power.
A real question here is *why* the FDA is so hell bent on blocking testing for mad cow disease... and I think we all know the reason why... the tests would reveal that mad cow disease is rampant within the US Beef supply.
As additional support for this theory, I offer this factoid: The US response to mad cow disease was to institute new regulations that mandated cows be slaughtered before they could reach the age that mad cow disease can first exhibit symptoms. This regulation does nothing to stop the spread of mad cow disease, of course, but it is very effective at sweeping the problem under the rug.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat a bacon cheeseburger. Mmmmmm.
I like steam. Even though it's DRM, I feel it's a good trade of. They get their DRM, and I get the ability to reinstall any of my games with a single click. And I don't have to keep the CD in the drive. And there is a friends interface. And there are achievements.
It's the closest thing to xbox live available on pc. And there's no subscription fee.
The DMCA take down provision doesn't get enough credit on/.
While I'm no fan of the DMCA on the whole, I actually like the takedown provisions. They provide valuable protection for ISPs.
My only problem with the provision is that in practice, it has been widely abused. The law itself provides a remedy against abuse. Those abusing the law can be charged with perjury. Unfortunately, no one has ever been charged with perjury for false take down notices, so the abuse continues. It would only take a few perjury charges a year to keep everyone honest...
They can be played over the Internet, but they can't *really* be played over the Internet. It's just not the same.
Things like D&D, and even just miniatures games have never translated well. It doesn't mean people don't play them over the Internet, but people who like to play them offline don't want to substitute online play.
Poker is a prime example. Internet poker is popular, but it is a very different game than poker played around a table with people you can see.
I was actually excited about Gleemax when it was first announced. I haven't tried to use it recently, but when it was first launched it was lacking many key features.
When it launched it didn't even have a "friend" feature. Hopefully this was fixed by now.
What it really needed though was a way to list games you played, and a way to search for other gamers on the site by region and game. The site was supposed to be targeted to people who play traditional games (pen&paper, tabletop, board, card, etc). These gamers can't really play over the Internet, so they need to meet people in real life to play. A solid site to meet other people to play these games with would have been huge.
I could never really get into the game though. Part of it was that I was busy with other stuff at the time, but part of it was just that the game didn't really draw me in like other games have.
We're supposed to be technical people here on/. If we can't even have honest discussion *here*, then there's no hope of ever having honest discussion in the political arena.
My point wasn't that research is bad. My point was that it is hypocritical to criticize one proposed solution for not being immediate, while at the same time advocating another solution that is also not immediate.
The estimates I have seen have said that it will take ten years for additional drilling to have any effect.
I always think its funny when democrats use this as part of their argument against offshore drilling. How long have the democrats been opposed to offshore drilling? It's been more than ten years (take a second and let the irony sink in).
Also, it's not like any of the democrats proposals will have any kind of instantaneous effect anyway. Additional funding for new technologies will certainly not have any immediate effect on oil prices. The democrats also want to increase taxes on oil companies, which will certainly not make the price go down.
There is a big difference between a case that is filed and a case that goes to trial. So both statistics could be right. Plaintiffs could win 57% of cases filed AND 88% of cases that go to trial.
Many cases never go to trial. They are resolved either through a 12(b)(6) motion (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) or through summary judgment.
OT Note: 12(b)(6) motions used to be called demurrer motions. The name was changed because non attorneys had no idea what a demurrer motion was. But the name was changed to "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The phrase is way too large, and way too unwieldy, so everyone just refers to it as the 12(b)(6) motion, and non attorneys have no idea what that means, so we're back where we started, except with the lame 12(b)(6) term instead of the (comparably awesome) demurrer term.
There is a difference between case law and binding precedent. Courts can look at case law even from other jurisdictions as persuasive (ie not binding) authority. This is very common in the United States; I'm not sure how common it is in the UK.
Courts are also bound by their own previous decisions, not just those from higher courts. Previous decisions can be overruled, but it should be a rare event when a court overrules its own previous decision. stare decisis, and all that.
A jury trial can establish case law, and stop this happening again.
No, actually, it can't. To have case law, you have to have a judicial decision. Juries don't write judicial decisions. You could possibly get a judicial decision from pre-trial or post-trial motions, but those would be completely independent from any jury decision.
There's so much misinformation on/. about precedent.
The other common one I see *all the time* is when people point to a settlement agreement and say that it sets a precedent. Again, for settlements, there is no judicial decision, so there is no legally binding precedent. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
It's great to hear debate on this issue... but this is a scientific issue, and we should test it with science. Google is a big company. They should conduct their own experiment and publish the results if they want to refute the FCC test.
Every state bar requires a background check before allowing anyone to sit for the bar exam. The background check of Jack Thompson would reveal the Florida disbarment, and there is approximately a zero percent chance that any state bar association would let him sit for the exam.
12 years? Only takes 7 to become an attorney. Four years of undergrad + three of law school. Although to many students the three years of law school may *feel* like eight years, it is actually only three :]
Unfortunately the Republicans haven't been that great in Congress either. From 2002 to 2006 both the House and the Senate were controlled by Republicans, and during those four years there were huge spending increases.
I would love to have seen Bush use his veto pen to kill large spending bills, but it just didn't happen.
The Bush administration was pushing for *more* regulation of Fannie and Freddie since 2003, long before the housing bubble was on the radar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html
10c/msg? What provider do you have? That's dirt cheap nowadays. I thought they all hiked it to 15c.
No, they are required by law to show the search warrant when asked.
To me, their refusal clearly indicates that they didn't have one.
The Constitution is a living document... otherwise the federal government wouldn't have this power.
A real question here is *why* the FDA is so hell bent on blocking testing for mad cow disease... and I think we all know the reason why... the tests would reveal that mad cow disease is rampant within the US Beef supply.
As additional support for this theory, I offer this factoid: The US response to mad cow disease was to institute new regulations that mandated cows be slaughtered before they could reach the age that mad cow disease can first exhibit symptoms. This regulation does nothing to stop the spread of mad cow disease, of course, but it is very effective at sweeping the problem under the rug.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat a bacon cheeseburger. Mmmmmm.
I like steam. Even though it's DRM, I feel it's a good trade of. They get their DRM, and I get the ability to reinstall any of my games with a single click. And I don't have to keep the CD in the drive. And there is a friends interface. And there are achievements.
It's the closest thing to xbox live available on pc. And there's no subscription fee.
Should he have been prosecuted? Yes.
Should he have been extradited? No.
He should have been prosecuted in Britain. It's not like what he did *isn't* illegal there.
And also ISPs would lose a strong liability shield without the law.
The DMCA take down provision doesn't get enough credit on /.
While I'm no fan of the DMCA on the whole, I actually like the takedown provisions. They provide valuable protection for ISPs.
My only problem with the provision is that in practice, it has been widely abused. The law itself provides a remedy against abuse. Those abusing the law can be charged with perjury. Unfortunately, no one has ever been charged with perjury for false take down notices, so the abuse continues. It would only take a few perjury charges a year to keep everyone honest...
They can be played over the Internet, but they can't *really* be played over the Internet. It's just not the same.
Things like D&D, and even just miniatures games have never translated well. It doesn't mean people don't play them over the Internet, but people who like to play them offline don't want to substitute online play.
Poker is a prime example. Internet poker is popular, but it is a very different game than poker played around a table with people you can see.
I was actually excited about Gleemax when it was first announced. I haven't tried to use it recently, but when it was first launched it was lacking many key features.
When it launched it didn't even have a "friend" feature. Hopefully this was fixed by now.
What it really needed though was a way to list games you played, and a way to search for other gamers on the site by region and game. The site was supposed to be targeted to people who play traditional games (pen&paper, tabletop, board, card, etc). These gamers can't really play over the Internet, so they need to meet people in real life to play. A solid site to meet other people to play these games with would have been huge.
Because they're doing it wrong.
I bought the HG:L CE + lifetime subscription.
I could never really get into the game though. Part of it was that I was busy with other stuff at the time, but part of it was just that the game didn't really draw me in like other games have.
ad hominem
We're supposed to be technical people here on /. If we can't even have honest discussion *here*, then there's no hope of ever having honest discussion in the political arena.
My point wasn't that research is bad. My point was that it is hypocritical to criticize one proposed solution for not being immediate, while at the same time advocating another solution that is also not immediate.
The estimates I have seen have said that it will take ten years for additional drilling to have any effect.
I always think its funny when democrats use this as part of their argument against offshore drilling. How long have the democrats been opposed to offshore drilling? It's been more than ten years (take a second and let the irony sink in).
Also, it's not like any of the democrats proposals will have any kind of instantaneous effect anyway. Additional funding for new technologies will certainly not have any immediate effect on oil prices. The democrats also want to increase taxes on oil companies, which will certainly not make the price go down.
I only rent though, I don't buy.
I guess I can live with DRM on a rental, but not on a purchase.
And we wonder why we have so many people in prison...
There is a big difference between a case that is filed and a case that goes to trial. So both statistics could be right. Plaintiffs could win 57% of cases filed AND 88% of cases that go to trial.
Many cases never go to trial. They are resolved either through a 12(b)(6) motion (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) or through summary judgment.
OT Note: 12(b)(6) motions used to be called demurrer motions. The name was changed because non attorneys had no idea what a demurrer motion was. But the name was changed to "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The phrase is way too large, and way too unwieldy, so everyone just refers to it as the 12(b)(6) motion, and non attorneys have no idea what that means, so we're back where we started, except with the lame 12(b)(6) term instead of the (comparably awesome) demurrer term.
IANAL, but I am a (apparently whiny) law student.
There is a difference between case law and binding precedent. Courts can look at case law even from other jurisdictions as persuasive (ie not binding) authority. This is very common in the United States; I'm not sure how common it is in the UK.
Courts are also bound by their own previous decisions, not just those from higher courts. Previous decisions can be overruled, but it should be a rare event when a court overrules its own previous decision. stare decisis, and all that.
A jury trial can establish case law, and stop this happening again.
/. about precedent.
No, actually, it can't. To have case law, you have to have a judicial decision. Juries don't write judicial decisions. You could possibly get a judicial decision from pre-trial or post-trial motions, but those would be completely independent from any jury decision.
There's so much misinformation on
The other common one I see *all the time* is when people point to a settlement agreement and say that it sets a precedent. Again, for settlements, there is no judicial decision, so there is no legally binding precedent. Period.
I don't think most IT workers have seen infinite snacks since the dot com days... These days you're lucky to get free coffee.