The problem is that it gives the plaintiffs a strong reason not to back down, even if they want to. Their choices become: 1) say "I'm sorry" and get fined by the judge, or 2) say "oh, crud" and throw in every legal resource at their disposal in the hope that you'll get scared (or go bankrupt) and give in. Yeah, we sure can't have people punished for abusing the legal system. Chaos would ensue!
I've read that when kidnapping became a capital crime, that the percentage of victims killed skyrocketed because the kidnappers perceived that their odds of escaping justice were better with a dead witness. If they were caught, they'd be executed anyway, so why not do everything possible to stack the deck? That may or may not be true, and there's a quantitative difference between kidnapping and a civil lawsuit, but I think the principle stands. Yeah, that gets trotted out a lot but there is scant evidence to back up the claim.
Did you even bother to read the ruling?
For purposes of this court order, a "negative keyword" or "negative adword" shall mean a
special kind of advertiser keyword matching option that allows an advertiser to prevent its advertisement
from appearing when the specific terms are a part of a given user's internet search or search string. It
does not infer that the Defendant may use the specified negative keywords or adwords for any other
purpose. This imagined legal back door you've constructed doesn't exist.
This post is brought to you by Hans Reiser's shredded anus, which is by now no doubt being passed around the jail house like a pack of smokes. His poor anus probably now resembles a pastrami sandwich that fell apart. I wonder if he'll describe that experience in the passive voice...
Hey dipshit, you might want to learn to read better. Here's quoting from that page you linked.
Article the sixth [Amendment IV] IV is Latin numerals for 4 not 6, moron.
BTW here's more.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am6
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. God damn, you fail pretty hard on all counts.
Bull. What country has stronger free speech protections? You mean actual free speech protections or do you mean pretty words written on a document that the government flat out ignores at whim? The US certainly has plenty of the latter.
Reasonable people disagree. This idea that the death penalty would be fine if we could just insure ABSOLUTELY INFALLIBLE JUSTICE is ridiculous, both because it is impossible, and because it is never required for any other human endeavor. Of course it is. Good thing that I don't hold onto such an idea.
What about people who live their entire life in prison, then die, although they're innocent? It has happened, far more often than mistaken application of the death penalty. Should we ban life imprisonment? The difference being it's much easier to remedy a wrongful life imprisonment by releasing the person, while it's impossible to give someone's life back once you've executed them.
Don't read your history books much do you? I suggest you read up on the Robber Barons. Yep that lack of government regulation really stopped them from creating monopolies and exploiting their customers for all it was worth. LOL.
Funny - I hold the US has the best rights record in the world. Well of course you do. Your jingoism dictates that you say that. If you'd do anything more than a shallow glance you'd notice that the US has a dismal human rights record.
We certainly have the best (though I'd like it to still be better) rights record on freedom of speech. More jingoism.
Then again, you're probably one of those people who thinks capital punishment (e.g. the death penalty) for the brutal rape and murder of children is a "violation of human rights." Nope. I think it's a violation of human rights because it's not only been shown that there were and still are numerous innocent people on death row but that innocent people have been put to death. I find it rather inhumane that one could support a system that has been proven to execute innocent people.
Things are more expensive in NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, London, etc. than in smaller places like Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha, etc. I love how you put Seattle in the "big cities" list while you put Dallas in the "smaller places" list. This despite the fact that Dallas is both bigger geographically (385 sq mi vs 142.5 sq mi) and has a bigger population (1,232,940 vs 582,174). LOL. Besides you don't find any major game company in Omaha.
I think you're missing the point. This is about having a paper trail to verify the results of the electronic machines, not throwing all the voting machines into a landfill.
Well those articles were apparently wrong. Atari had a device like this for gaming decades ago. It wasn't as fine-grained as this but it worked. Not to mention that they've been using things like this in the medical field for over a decade. Plus the fact that OCZ demoed the device at CES. So to be honest, it doesn't really matter what some article you linked can say because they were clearly wrong.
Yes it does. No it doesn't. All I said was that there is a business model in which one sells support rather than the software. Since there are companies that use that business model (a number of Linux companies) you can't claim you've invalidated what I said. The problem is you've attacked me by trying to imply that I hold some stance that every company must use that business model which is just patently false.
Let's look at a real company, for example, Adobe Systems. I've used Photoshop since version 4 - I've never once contacted Adobe for support. I have purchased several books on Photoshop and even attended some seminars. None of that resulted in money flowing back to Adobe.
Now, how is Adobe supposed to pay it's developers? For the record, I think that Adobe is an annoying company to work with - I'm not happy with their lack of cross platform licensing, I'm not happy with their clumsy activation system and I'm not particularly happy with their upgrade path. However, no other company has managed to step up to the plate and deliver another high end pixel editing program. I think you people need to re-read what I actually typed. Here let me quote the only statements that I've made in this thread since you people seem illiterate:
Plenty of Linux companies make money. It's called selling support. Wow, that was hard.
And if I had noses on my feet I could smell the ground I walk on. Since neither that or what you describe in your post will ever happen in reality it doesn't invalidate my point (which is based on an actual business models of real companies). Do you see anything in my statement that says that all business could sustain themselves with only selling support? No. Did you see anything in my statement that said selling software was unethical? No. Did I say anywhere that all companies had to follow such a business model? No. All I did was answer a persons question of how a company could make money if they didn't sell their product and I provided an example of a business model that a number of businesses do use. That was it. Whatever else you are attacking me for is someone else's statements and has completely naught to do with anything I've actually said.
And GIMP doesn't do it. In fact, if GIMP is the best that FOSS can produce, it pretty much invalidates your argument entirely. It just isn't a robust enough package for routine professional use. What argument? I never made any argument. All I did was give an example of a business model that certain companies use who don't necessarily sell their product. That was it. I wasn't making any argument that all business had to use such a model or even could sustain themselves on such a model. The fact that the gimp is a crappy program (Oh wait, I bet you thought I was going to be some huge gimp supporter, right?) doesn't invalidate anything that I said. The Gimp's crapiness in no way changes the fact that there are companies that bring in the bulk of their revenue by selling support instead of their software product. No matter how much you try to claim it does, it really doesn't. BTW for you idiots who apparently can't read, the person who said that selling software was unethical was hummassa and not me. Here's a link to his post: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=268567&c id=20216163 So please, stop attacking me for a position you and others have falsely attributed to me as I don't agree with either him or RMS's stance on the issue. Thanks for playing.
Slashdot Mirror
He's super serial.
This post is brought to you by Hans Reiser's shredded anus, which is by now no doubt being passed around the jail house like a pack of smokes. His poor anus probably now resembles a pastrami sandwich that fell apart. I wonder if he'll describe that experience in the passive voice...
The funniest and also saddest part of your post is your being serious.
The National Weather Service Reports that the Sky is Blue
Don't read your history books much do you? I suggest you read up on the Robber Barons. Yep that lack of government regulation really stopped them from creating monopolies and exploiting their customers for all it was worth. LOL.
Yep gotta love that wonderful naturalistic fallacy.
Non sequitur. None of what you said excuses the state sponsored murder of innocent people.
But you're forget the fact that Christians are the stalwarts of religious tolera... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.
Awwww, the user behind this AC post must be really PMSing today to mod me down.
Yeah, we sure can't have companies worrying about the security of classified information if it's going to hurt the bottom line!
So you're saying that you're a Muslim?
I think you're missing the point. This is about having a paper trail to verify the results of the electronic machines, not throwing all the voting machines into a landfill.
I for one welcome our new CEO scamming overlords.
Well those articles were apparently wrong. Atari had a device like this for gaming decades ago. It wasn't as fine-grained as this but it worked. Not to mention that they've been using things like this in the medical field for over a decade. Plus the fact that OCZ demoed the device at CES. So to be honest, it doesn't really matter what some article you linked can say because they were clearly wrong.
You're way behind the times. Stuff like this has been in use for a few decades now in varying levels of accuracy in how it can translate the impulses.
The part that was quoted had the word mistyped. The word is later correctly spelled as biopotential.
Sorry I didn't any anything remotely close to that. You seem to be attributing someone else's statements to me.