Last time I checked, "Texan" isn't a race, or even an ethnic group. The comment may have been in poor taste, and ad hominem at that, but it wasn't racist.
My reply to this (I heard it many, many times as a salesman) was "so you've never had a piece of electronics break on you?" If I was feeling really confident about my customer I might say "you don't think they get the price down this low by using top quality parts do you?" That actually worked more often than you'd think.
What makes you think employees install the crapware? What a rediculous waste of time that would be, to have employees in every store open every computer box and install software on every machine, when they can probably image hard drives at the factory or wherever for a tiny fraction of the cost? I know when I sold computers, we didn't open the boxes at all if we could help it (looks bad if the customer gets an obviously opened box), and certainly didn't steal recovery CDs.
In this case, I'll bet the only reason her lawyer is pushing the judgment is so they can collect the fees for their time. If she were collecting something she'd never see it except for maybe pennies on the dollar from the collection agency. What's wrong with her lawyer getting paid in a timely fashion? I know all lawyers are evil scumbags who get filthy rich drinking the sweat off the brow of the normal folks like us (except YOUR lawyer, if she's a good one, YOUR lawyer walks on clouds). But people like the law clerks and support staff need to get paid, overhead expenses need to be paid, and the lawyer deserves to get paid too.
Mostly when a law firm takes on a file for a client with not a lot of money, it's on the basis that the lawyer will either take a cut of the judgement or take their costs when those are awarded. This is a very risky way of practising law, because if you lose, usually your client doesn't have a pot to piss in anyway, and you're out the fees. Many many lawyers spend a long time living, and running their practices, week to week until they get enough client turnover to build up some reserves. Of course this woman's lawyers want to get paid. Do you work 35 hours or more a week for free? Got student loans to pay? What makes you think lawyers are any different?
that's funny, the only Gmail box I have that's full of spam is the "Spam" box. I get maybe one spam in my inbox a month, and haven't had a false positive in at least a year, probably longer. Maybe you need to be more careful with your e-mail address.
Corporations aren't people and aren't treated legally as people, except insofar as their owners are people. Bzzzt. Wrong. A corporation is treated as a person in the sense that the corporation as a whole is legally responsible for its actions, and not its constituent parts (the people who make up the corporation). This is what protects the average joe at the bottom of the heap from being personally liable for what his employer tells him he has to do. Neither he nor his employer is responsible for those actions. This is what is wrong with corporate personhood. When a bunch of people in the corporate body behave badly as a representative of the corporation, it's the corporation that gets punished, not the people doing the wrong thing. This absolves everyone from the employees to the board, to the shareholders, from responsibility for their collective actions. Corporations have rights to free speech qua corporations, not because of the rights of the constituent parts. You will notice that the right to free speech of corporations is curtailed in ways that a natural person's right to free speech isn't (i.e. false advertising laws, etc). You should also have observed that your rights as a person are much broader than your rights as a part of your corporation.
Various forms of financial entities are granted rights of possession and litigation in line with their purpose as financial entities, but they aren't treated as people in general. The supposed "person-hood" that financial entities have is an extension of the actual, physical person-hood that their owners have -- corporations have rights to free speech because their owners have rights to free speech, and I don't see any pratical way to change that, short of opressing the person-hood of business owners.
Re:Lots of linux stories on the front page
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 1
Are you new?
Re:Round 1 over; Now for round 2
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
Ooops, but this isn't a criminal Trial, and the guarantees for a speedy Trial are much less stringent. The Court balances the need for swift justice with the need to get things done right. In a civil Trial, there is generally much less harm done by taking time than there is by rushing things, since there is no Defendant sitting in a jail cell waiting for a decision. The Plaintiff isn't hurt by waiting longer for a decision, because they get paid interest right up until the judgement is made, on whatever amount is awarded. Besides, even a criminal wouldn't want a speedy Trial if the judge were going to simply haul them in and yell "guilty!" at the arraignment.
I've got the worms, where's my can-opener.
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
*Ahem*
If Novell owns the copyrights to Unix.
Re:Judge should be disgusted with himself
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
On the grounds that SCO were denied their shot to make their case. On the grounds that parts of the SCO claims in SCO v. IBM relied on claims made in SCO v. Novell, and vice-versa. You would be singing a different tune if it were a "little guy" and not SCO who was the Plaintiff, but SCO gets all the same rights as the fellow who got T-Boned by a drunk, when it comes to Tort law (whether corporations should get the same rights as persons is open for debate, but the fact remains that they do). Justice must not only be served, but be seen to be served. When it comes to throwing out a Plaintiff's claim, judges are notoriously leery of doing so by way of motion, it's much safer legally to let things go to Trial. To get rid of a claim before Trial, you have to be sure. Not mostly, not even 99%. A judge who dismissed a claim before Discovery was even complete would likely be overturned on appeal, for that reason alone.
Re:Judge should be disgusted with himself
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Quite often, especially if a judge can see that the Plaintiff has no chance, the judge will bend over backwards, give amazing amounts of leeway, give them the benefit of every procedural rule, knowing that when the Plaintiff is skewered, there will be no appeal. Without knowing much about the matter as it played out, I'd guess that this is the case here. A successful appeal of this ruling would stretch things out for many more years to come: we may be thankful that Kimball let SCO get away with as much as it did.
A terrorist is someone who causes harm in order to achieve an end. You know, surgeons do cause harm when they cut into you. They have a good reason (usually), but harm is caused. Or how about the tax man? Taking your hard earned money from you to build a road or educate someone else's child is certainly harmful to you, and may not even do you any good. What about the parent who spanks their child? Or grounds a child? What about the revolutionary heroes of the American War of Independence? All terrorists? Do you want to maybe rethink your position?
Apple doesn't win when their phone is locked to one provider, because their phone is then tied to that provider's fluctuating customer base. Likely the "cut" they get from AT&T (if they do indeed get a cut, which is not self-evident) would be less than the profit they get on selling handsets. Being locked to one carrier restricts sharply the number of handsets Apple can sell, and my bet is that Apple will get out of that lock-in as fast as they can. Remember that there is a rather large market outside of the US for hardware sales that Apple could be tapping into if they unlocked the hardware. Steve Jobs, being a shrewd businessman and capitalist, likely has his eye on that market. I suspect that since he's launching a new hardware line in a ferociously competitive market, he can't make too many ultimatums to the carriers, or they'd just tell him to go piss up a rope. If the iPhone is a hit, that would give him more leverage to get more of what he wants from the carriers. I don't think this would be necessarily be better for consumers, but really, it can't be much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to pirate that stuff, it's Public Domain. Remember when creative works pass into the Public Domain? Boy, I miss those days...
Your government is showing us a perfect example right now of why invading a country whose people don't want to be free never works.
Last time I checked, "Texan" isn't a race, or even an ethnic group. The comment may have been in poor taste, and ad hominem at that, but it wasn't racist.
My reply to this (I heard it many, many times as a salesman) was "so you've never had a piece of electronics break on you?" If I was feeling really confident about my customer I might say "you don't think they get the price down this low by using top quality parts do you?" That actually worked more often than you'd think.
What makes you think employees install the crapware? What a rediculous waste of time that would be, to have employees in every store open every computer box and install software on every machine, when they can probably image hard drives at the factory or wherever for a tiny fraction of the cost? I know when I sold computers, we didn't open the boxes at all if we could help it (looks bad if the customer gets an obviously opened box), and certainly didn't steal recovery CDs.
Except nobody buys a Zune.
Hrm, I may be mistaken, but I believe it's the judgement that sets the precedent, not the date the damages are paid.
that's funny, the only Gmail box I have that's full of spam is the "Spam" box. I get maybe one spam in my inbox a month, and haven't had a false positive in at least a year, probably longer. Maybe you need to be more careful with your e-mail address.
Are you new?
Ooops, but this isn't a criminal Trial, and the guarantees for a speedy Trial are much less stringent. The Court balances the need for swift justice with the need to get things done right. In a civil Trial, there is generally much less harm done by taking time than there is by rushing things, since there is no Defendant sitting in a jail cell waiting for a decision. The Plaintiff isn't hurt by waiting longer for a decision, because they get paid interest right up until the judgement is made, on whatever amount is awarded. Besides, even a criminal wouldn't want a speedy Trial if the judge were going to simply haul them in and yell "guilty!" at the arraignment.
*Ahem* If Novell owns the copyrights to Unix.
On the grounds that SCO were denied their shot to make their case. On the grounds that parts of the SCO claims in SCO v. IBM relied on claims made in SCO v. Novell, and vice-versa. You would be singing a different tune if it were a "little guy" and not SCO who was the Plaintiff, but SCO gets all the same rights as the fellow who got T-Boned by a drunk, when it comes to Tort law (whether corporations should get the same rights as persons is open for debate, but the fact remains that they do). Justice must not only be served, but be seen to be served. When it comes to throwing out a Plaintiff's claim, judges are notoriously leery of doing so by way of motion, it's much safer legally to let things go to Trial. To get rid of a claim before Trial, you have to be sure. Not mostly, not even 99%. A judge who dismissed a claim before Discovery was even complete would likely be overturned on appeal, for that reason alone.
Quite often, especially if a judge can see that the Plaintiff has no chance, the judge will bend over backwards, give amazing amounts of leeway, give them the benefit of every procedural rule, knowing that when the Plaintiff is skewered, there will be no appeal. Without knowing much about the matter as it played out, I'd guess that this is the case here. A successful appeal of this ruling would stretch things out for many more years to come: we may be thankful that Kimball let SCO get away with as much as it did.
Apple doesn't win when their phone is locked to one provider, because their phone is then tied to that provider's fluctuating customer base. Likely the "cut" they get from AT&T (if they do indeed get a cut, which is not self-evident) would be less than the profit they get on selling handsets. Being locked to one carrier restricts sharply the number of handsets Apple can sell, and my bet is that Apple will get out of that lock-in as fast as they can. Remember that there is a rather large market outside of the US for hardware sales that Apple could be tapping into if they unlocked the hardware. Steve Jobs, being a shrewd businessman and capitalist, likely has his eye on that market. I suspect that since he's launching a new hardware line in a ferociously competitive market, he can't make too many ultimatums to the carriers, or they'd just tell him to go piss up a rope. If the iPhone is a hit, that would give him more leverage to get more of what he wants from the carriers. I don't think this would be necessarily be better for consumers, but really, it can't be much worse.