Has the author of this blog got any scientific results to back up his claims? The NY State Bar has a statistical analysis of who passed its bar exam.
http://www.nybarexam.org/NCBEREP.htm
like bar exams or medical license exams, where very often the well-qualified and knowledgeable fail the exam.
IMHO there are only two reasons why the well-qualified and knowledgeable fail such exams.* They didn't study or they studied the wrong materials. We have all had that one exam we did REALLY poorly on and we would like to blame someone other than ourselves for our bad grade. This post merely plays to those emotions with anecdotal evidence. Mod me as troll if you like, but you know its true.
* How can someone be considered qualified and knowledgable about a subject if they can not pass the test, which determines whether the are? I assume the blog writer means generally intellegent people.
The operative phrase here is "reasonable expectation of privacy". A court order is needed to over come that reasonable expectation. A cop can breach the reasonable expectation without a court order but the evidence will be inadmissible in court to prosecute you, and you will have a civil suit against the cop for violating your civil rights. The cop can be prosecuted criminally also, but no DA is going to push something like that unless there is significant out cry. Cops are citizens the same laws apply to all citizens.
A cop's reasonable expectation of privacy is no different than a normal person, therefore if they can video tape you while preforming a traffic stop, you can video tape them also.
The law seems to create the ultimate privacy because it is so vauge that even using your ears could be considered "intentionally intercepting" another person's conversation. Remember it applies to everyone not just cops, and everyone is liable for this law INCLUDING cops. (Cops aren't above the law, they are charged with DUI if they are driving drunk on duty, or assault if they ruff somebody up) This law is so vauge it could be unconstitutional because it does not specify how exactly you can break it.
This has happened before in other states, the charge gets quitely dropped once the defendant gets an attorney. The defendant's attorney will remind the assistant DA how much hell he will catch from his political party if the defendant is successful in getting the law over turned and the bad law will remain on the books.
Also notice the fact that the last sentince in TFA seems to point to the fact that the founders of this abomination are AUSTRALIANS who are under investigation by the australian government for tax evasion.
So, its a double edged sword, is the US filed with Nutters or is every other nation so intolerant that America is the only place that respects religious freedom?
Just saying, its interesting that foreigners are behind the museum, whether to profit or preach.
"[Researchers} found a clear link between high prenatal testosterone exposure, indicated by the longer >>index
The researchers also compared the finger-lengths ratios to all the children's SAT scores and found that a relatively longer >>ring
I think the above contradictory quote clearly shows that there is no link, just that today was a slow day for the media.
The prosecutor bluffing. You should have fought it instead of agreeing. Also your story is not applicable to the present situation because, the judge never even got involved. You were just arguing with the prosecutor, if you had stuck with it the judge/ jury would have sided with you.
File a complaint against the prosecutor, in the state bar or with the state attorney general, if you feel you were treated wrongfully. They are not as willing to bend to local politics.
Why did you need to use FOIA to get a copy of the police report? You can't defend yourself if you do not know the charges, therefore you have to be given all the evidence against you by the police. If you were not given a police report, that is grounds for immediate dismissal of the case against you. My friends have used this point to get out of stupid tickets numerous times.
Mr. Crooke's case is a civil case. In a civil case there is the plaintiff and the defendant. In a criminal case there is a prosecutor (the state) and a defendant. In a civil case if the defendant wins, and proves some additional facts (like that the suit was BS) then the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's costs.
The FTC _ONLY_ investigates mergers that would form monopolies which would hinder competition and hurt consumers. This merger would not hinder competition because other search engines and online advertising companies exist and compete with google. And even if google would gain a monopoly of some sort, it would have to be proven that the monopoly would hurt consumers financially, seeing how google is free... near impossible.
Guaranteed that the FTC does nothing, not it's job to worry about privacy.
Hal Leonard sent emails to people who support MXtabs, trying to convience authors of music that MXtabs is illegal. Those authors then forwarded the email the MXTabs, asking MXTabs "whats all this then?" MXTabs responded very intellegently to Hal Leonards' FUD.
Hal Leonards' business model is dying, it is trying to spread FUD about MXTabs, but it is not threatening to (sue/bring legal action against) anyone. It can't! It doesn't have the right to do so, just like it can't publish the 'tabs' on MXTab's site, because copyright law prevents them from doing so. Hal Leonards wants the authors to break their contract with MXTabs and then sign a contract with Hal Leonards.
If anything MXtabs should sue Hal Leonard for defamation. It is prima faecia defamation to allege that say someone is doing something illegal. MXtabs also has a good case against Hal Leonard for intentional interference with contract, they are wrongfully claiming, MXtabs is doing something illegal to conveience authors, to breach their contract with MXTabs. Hal Leonards' actions are wrongful because MXTabs has contracts with authors to allow MXTabs to distribute the 'Tabs', thus MXTabs is acting LEGALLY.
It would be the same if you wrote a book and created a contract with your buddy A to publish the book on A's website. Along comes book publisher B, who tries to convience you that A is acting illegally and you should let B publish your book in print form. B's arguement is complete garbage because you and A have a contract allowing A to publish your book on A's website.
As for GuitarTabs.com, I am not sure. He has a more difficult case because he admits that people transcribed the tabs by listening to the copyrighted music, if they did this with lyrics it would be copyright infringement. But we are talking about 'tabs' not lyrics, the case law is cloudy. An arguement could be made that tabs are functional aspects of music and therefore not protected by copyright but... that is a difficult arguement.
Note: I use the term author because all artists are called authors by US copyright law. The term includes musicians, sculptors, software writers, and any other creative persons.
They say the best leaders, lead by example. Are you surprised that his underlings are trying to "re-brand" DRM into a more palatable form to confuse consumers into accepting it?
While you could be right that there is a maleviolent factor, I think the more likely factor is incompetence.
There is an old adage: "Those who can't do, teach" (I don't agree, but this saying exists. This is not a dig at professors, teachers or other competent people, let me finish)
I would like to replace that adage with this: "Those who can't do, become administrators"
Anyone who has had to be disciplind by college administration, (Dean of Students, associated underlings, or otherwise) may have noticed that they are typically: less educated than you, were the kids that screwed around in school, have an inferiority complex, and are paid based on "results" i.e. giving out punishments.
This combination means that if your name comes across your desk, you get the book thrown at you. Because if you don't get the harshest punishment possible, then they aren't doing their job. They have that job because they didn't work as hard as you, and they know it.
The constitution protects everyone on US soil, not just citizens. Your statement is completely ignorant. Why do you think all those people are in Gitmo? Because as soon as they step onto US soil they are protected by the constitution. Citizenship is irrelevant.
Corporations, LLCs, LLPs, etc. are legal persons under the law; Human beings are natuarl persons.
Natural persons have the right to vote, legal persons do not. No matter how much legal persons lobby, it doesn't do any good if natural persons vote for a natural person that isn't devoid of ethics. If you are pissed at the system, get up from behind your computer and go vote.
Don't be so quick to demand the recision of rights. If we switched out verizon's name for a more Slashdot friendly legal person I think you would be screaming the exact opposite. EFF, a legal person, FSF, a legal person, Slashdot, a legal person. It is amasing how blind people are to the facts and only care about the individuals involved. Which is exactly why natural persons who are devoid of ethics get votes. They just whisper that they are on your side, and then voters blindly follow them no matter what the facts say.
That being said, Verizon will lose this motion, it is a poor arguement. Directly citing the Constitution is like calling somebody a Nazi, it means you have no other arguements left. But I haven't read the actual court papers, just TFA.
Alas, the Canadian Mint site is not cooperating with my SUSE installation/Firefox browser. Too bad.
I will have to look elsewhere for the poppy coins.
Surprising that Americans were ignorant of such a collectable thing. They love beanie-babies you would think they would know about such unique coins from our neighbors to the north.
By the way, Canadian money is made by and controlled by the Canadian government... Do you know who makes and controls US currency? If you guessed the US government, you should check again.
Do you have any information to back that up? Last time I checked all US bills and most US coins have US Treasury mints marks printed on them. All US Treasury mints are in the US. All the paper for US bills are made from recycled cotton (jeans) in one paper mill in MA, where the watermarks and security bands are embedded during the paperforming process. The fact that this papermill has a monopoly on paper for US bills has caused considerable consternation among those who would like to cut the cost of creating money. Metal for US coins is similarly controlled.
I am not trying to flame/be a troll, I honestly would like to know your sources.
Also, do the Candian mints sell uncirculated collector sets like the US mints? These poppy coins seem pretty neat, I would like to get a collector set.
What makes you think they write a C&D letter for every incident? Most contracts/pre-nuptuals/court filings/C&D letters are taken from form books, programers don't rewrite a header file everytime they want to use cout, neither do lawyers.
Also these are C&D letters, not DMCA take down notices, which means they can be vauge, and cover future postings of the key. DMCA takedown notices are specific to past events, C&D letters can cover present and future events.
As far as a lawyer's responsibility to inform, the client is the one who makes the decision. The lawyer could tell the client chances of winning are zero, and the client can say "I don't care, I want to go forward." Your agruement that AACS's lawyers must not have told the AACS that its chances of winning are slim, because nobody would do what the AACS did if they knew they were not going to win is unpersuasive. People constantly think the rules don't apply to them, hence people still smoke and have risky unprotected sex. Dumb, but people still do it.
A lawyer is the client's fiducary, not the client's mommy. Your mommy can say, "Oh no, you don't want to do that", your fiduciary can't. The fiduciary must follow the client's instructions even if the fiduciary disagrees, it is the clients decision. Your bank is another example of a fiduciary, your bank lets you take out a mortgage even if you shouldn't. Because you are an adult who can make his own decisions.
Infact, a lawyer will be disciplined if he does not follow the clients instructions, no matter how half baked, as long as they are not criminal or frivolous. The fact that people are arguing about this case on digg and slashdot shows that the case is NOT frivolous. As long as two people do not agree and the law is unclear, a claim is not frivolous. The DMCA is really unclear, and AACS is fighting for its business model. There is no way the AACS and the digg users who posted the key will ever agree, so the courts have to decide who is right under the law.
But no lawsuit has been filed, just C&D letters, so the frivolity discussion is premature.
A legal clinics are typically free, so this also removes RIAA's threat that "you are going to spend more in attorney's fees fighting us, so you should just settle for $X,000".
EU and American copyright laws only apply within the borders of those nations and no international treaty requires a term of more than 50 years for copyright. Therefore the CTEA aka Sono Bono Copyright Act aka Mickey Mouse Protection Act, are irrelevant in China.
The characters (mickey mouse, donald duck, etc) are in the public domain in China. As for shreik, Hello Kitty, and other newer characters which can also be see in the pictures, i don't know their exact creation dates; but if it is post 1957, the park infringes on the copyright of their creators.
Slashdot Mirror
Has the author of this blog got any scientific results to back up his claims? The NY State Bar has a statistical analysis of who passed its bar exam. http://www.nybarexam.org/NCBEREP.htm
like bar exams or medical license exams, where very often the well-qualified and knowledgeable fail the exam.
IMHO there are only two reasons why the well-qualified and knowledgeable fail such exams.* They didn't study or they studied the wrong materials. We have all had that one exam we did REALLY poorly on and we would like to blame someone other than ourselves for our bad grade. This post merely plays to those emotions with anecdotal evidence. Mod me as troll if you like, but you know its true.
* How can someone be considered qualified and knowledgable about a subject if they can not pass the test, which determines whether the are? I assume the blog writer means generally intellegent people.
The operative phrase here is "reasonable expectation of privacy". A court order is needed to over come that reasonable expectation. A cop can breach the reasonable expectation without a court order but the evidence will be inadmissible in court to prosecute you, and you will have a civil suit against the cop for violating your civil rights. The cop can be prosecuted criminally also, but no DA is going to push something like that unless there is significant out cry. Cops are citizens the same laws apply to all citizens.
A cop's reasonable expectation of privacy is no different than a normal person, therefore if they can video tape you while preforming a traffic stop, you can video tape them also.
The law seems to create the ultimate privacy because it is so vauge that even using your ears could be considered "intentionally intercepting" another person's conversation. Remember it applies to everyone not just cops, and everyone is liable for this law INCLUDING cops. (Cops aren't above the law, they are charged with DUI if they are driving drunk on duty, or assault if they ruff somebody up) This law is so vauge it could be unconstitutional because it does not specify how exactly you can break it.
This has happened before in other states, the charge gets quitely dropped once the defendant gets an attorney. The defendant's attorney will remind the assistant DA how much hell he will catch from his political party if the defendant is successful in getting the law over turned and the bad law will remain on the books.
77% maybe... missed the shift key?
Also notice the fact that the last sentince in TFA seems to point to the fact that the founders of this abomination are AUSTRALIANS who are under investigation by the australian government for tax evasion.
So, its a double edged sword, is the US filed with Nutters or is every other nation so intolerant that America is the only place that respects religious freedom?
Just saying, its interesting that foreigners are behind the museum, whether to profit or preach.
Quote from your first article, emphasis added:
"[Researchers} found a clear link between high prenatal testosterone exposure, indicated by the longer >>index The researchers also compared the finger-lengths ratios to all the children's SAT scores and found that a relatively longer >>ring
I think the above contradictory quote clearly shows that there is no link, just that today was a slow day for the media.
The prosecutor bluffing. You should have fought it instead of agreeing. Also your story is not applicable to the present situation because, the judge never even got involved. You were just arguing with the prosecutor, if you had stuck with it the judge/ jury would have sided with you.
File a complaint against the prosecutor, in the state bar or with the state attorney general, if you feel you were treated wrongfully. They are not as willing to bend to local politics.
Why did you need to use FOIA to get a copy of the police report? You can't defend yourself if you do not know the charges, therefore you have to be given all the evidence against you by the police. If you were not given a police report, that is grounds for immediate dismissal of the case against you. My friends have used this point to get out of stupid tickets numerous times.
Mr. Crooke's case is a civil case. In a civil case there is the plaintiff and the defendant. In a criminal case there is a prosecutor (the state) and a defendant. In a civil case if the defendant wins, and proves some additional facts (like that the suit was BS) then the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's costs.
The FTC _ONLY_ investigates mergers that would form monopolies which would hinder competition and hurt consumers. This merger would not hinder competition because other search engines and online advertising companies exist and compete with google. And even if google would gain a monopoly of some sort, it would have to be proven that the monopoly would hurt consumers financially, seeing how google is free... near impossible.
Guaranteed that the FTC does nothing, not it's job to worry about privacy.
Why did you put "legal" in quotes?
Hal Leonard sent emails to people who support MXtabs, trying to convience authors of music that MXtabs is illegal. Those authors then forwarded the email the MXTabs, asking MXTabs "whats all this then?" MXTabs responded very intellegently to Hal Leonards' FUD.
Hal Leonards' business model is dying, it is trying to spread FUD about MXTabs, but it is not threatening to (sue/bring legal action against) anyone. It can't! It doesn't have the right to do so, just like it can't publish the 'tabs' on MXTab's site, because copyright law prevents them from doing so. Hal Leonards wants the authors to break their contract with MXTabs and then sign a contract with Hal Leonards.
If anything MXtabs should sue Hal Leonard for defamation. It is prima faecia defamation to allege that say someone is doing something illegal. MXtabs also has a good case against Hal Leonard for intentional interference with contract, they are wrongfully claiming, MXtabs is doing something illegal to conveience authors, to breach their contract with MXTabs. Hal Leonards' actions are wrongful because MXTabs has contracts with authors to allow MXTabs to distribute the 'Tabs', thus MXTabs is acting LEGALLY.
It would be the same if you wrote a book and created a contract with your buddy A to publish the book on A's website. Along comes book publisher B, who tries to convience you that A is acting illegally and you should let B publish your book in print form. B's arguement is complete garbage because you and A have a contract allowing A to publish your book on A's website.
As for GuitarTabs.com, I am not sure. He has a more difficult case because he admits that people transcribed the tabs by listening to the copyrighted music, if they did this with lyrics it would be copyright infringement. But we are talking about 'tabs' not lyrics, the case law is cloudy. An arguement could be made that tabs are functional aspects of music and therefore not protected by copyright but... that is a difficult arguement.
Note: I use the term author because all artists are called authors by US copyright law. The term includes musicians, sculptors, software writers, and any other creative persons.
This is the CEO of HBO.
5 07071hbo1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0
They say the best leaders, lead by example. Are you surprised that his underlings are trying to "re-brand" DRM into a more palatable form to confuse consumers into accepting it?
While you could be right that there is a maleviolent factor, I think the more likely factor is incompetence.
There is an old adage: "Those who can't do, teach" (I don't agree, but this saying exists. This is not a dig at professors, teachers or other competent people, let me finish)
I would like to replace that adage with this: "Those who can't do, become administrators"
Anyone who has had to be disciplind by college administration, (Dean of Students, associated underlings, or otherwise) may have noticed that they are typically: less educated than you, were the kids that screwed around in school, have an inferiority complex, and are paid based on "results" i.e. giving out punishments.
This combination means that if your name comes across your desk, you get the book thrown at you. Because if you don't get the harshest punishment possible, then they aren't doing their job. They have that job because they didn't work as hard as you, and they know it.
The constitution protects everyone on US soil, not just citizens. Your statement is completely ignorant. Why do you think all those people are in Gitmo? Because as soon as they step onto US soil they are protected by the constitution. Citizenship is irrelevant.
Corporations, LLCs, LLPs, etc. are legal persons under the law; Human beings are natuarl persons.
Natural persons have the right to vote, legal persons do not. No matter how much legal persons lobby, it doesn't do any good if natural persons vote for a natural person that isn't devoid of ethics. If you are pissed at the system, get up from behind your computer and go vote.
Don't be so quick to demand the recision of rights. If we switched out verizon's name for a more Slashdot friendly legal person I think you would be screaming the exact opposite. EFF, a legal person, FSF, a legal person, Slashdot, a legal person. It is amasing how blind people are to the facts and only care about the individuals involved. Which is exactly why natural persons who are devoid of ethics get votes. They just whisper that they are on your side, and then voters blindly follow them no matter what the facts say.
That being said, Verizon will lose this motion, it is a poor arguement. Directly citing the Constitution is like calling somebody a Nazi, it means you have no other arguements left. But I haven't read the actual court papers, just TFA.
Alas, the Canadian Mint site is not cooperating with my SUSE installation/Firefox browser. Too bad.
I will have to look elsewhere for the poppy coins.
Surprising that Americans were ignorant of such a collectable thing. They love beanie-babies you would think they would know about such unique coins from our neighbors to the north.
By the way, Canadian money is made by and controlled by the Canadian government... Do you know who makes and controls US currency? If you guessed the US government, you should check again.
Do you have any information to back that up? Last time I checked all US bills and most US coins have US Treasury mints marks printed on them. All US Treasury mints are in the US. All the paper for US bills are made from recycled cotton (jeans) in one paper mill in MA, where the watermarks and security bands are embedded during the paperforming process. The fact that this papermill has a monopoly on paper for US bills has caused considerable consternation among those who would like to cut the cost of creating money. Metal for US coins is similarly controlled.
I am not trying to flame/be a troll, I honestly would like to know your sources.
Also, do the Candian mints sell uncirculated collector sets like the US mints? These poppy coins seem pretty neat, I would like to get a collector set.
What makes you think they write a C&D letter for every incident? Most contracts/pre-nuptuals/court filings/C&D letters are taken from form books, programers don't rewrite a header file everytime they want to use cout, neither do lawyers.
Also these are C&D letters, not DMCA take down notices, which means they can be vauge, and cover future postings of the key. DMCA takedown notices are specific to past events, C&D letters can cover present and future events.
As far as a lawyer's responsibility to inform, the client is the one who makes the decision. The lawyer could tell the client chances of winning are zero, and the client can say "I don't care, I want to go forward." Your agruement that AACS's lawyers must not have told the AACS that its chances of winning are slim, because nobody would do what the AACS did if they knew they were not going to win is unpersuasive. People constantly think the rules don't apply to them, hence people still smoke and have risky unprotected sex. Dumb, but people still do it.
A lawyer is the client's fiducary, not the client's mommy. Your mommy can say, "Oh no, you don't want to do that", your fiduciary can't. The fiduciary must follow the client's instructions even if the fiduciary disagrees, it is the clients decision. Your bank is another example of a fiduciary, your bank lets you take out a mortgage even if you shouldn't. Because you are an adult who can make his own decisions.
Infact, a lawyer will be disciplined if he does not follow the clients instructions, no matter how half baked, as long as they are not criminal or frivolous. The fact that people are arguing about this case on digg and slashdot shows that the case is NOT frivolous. As long as two people do not agree and the law is unclear, a claim is not frivolous. The DMCA is really unclear, and AACS is fighting for its business model. There is no way the AACS and the digg users who posted the key will ever agree, so the courts have to decide who is right under the law.
But no lawsuit has been filed, just C&D letters, so the frivolity discussion is premature.
Title should read: SCO Group's Anti-kids-spam registry "a Flop"
Brent Hatch is involved in SCO's crusade against linux. Many other similar players like Ralph Yarro and his CP80 crusade.
http://sconewsroundup.blogspot.com/ Has more info, and cites TFA.
A legal clinics are typically free, so this also removes RIAA's threat that "you are going to spend more in attorney's fees fighting us, so you should just settle for $X,000".
China's Copyright term is 50 years from publication (for corporations) or life of the author plus fifty years.
2 0020416_34754.htm
China's Copyright Law - Article 21. http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/flfg/xgflfg/t
EU and American copyright laws only apply within the borders of those nations and no international treaty requires a term of more than 50 years for copyright. Therefore the CTEA aka Sono Bono Copyright Act aka Mickey Mouse Protection Act, are irrelevant in China.
The characters (mickey mouse, donald duck, etc) are in the public domain in China. As for shreik, Hello Kitty, and other newer characters which can also be see in the pictures, i don't know their exact creation dates; but if it is post 1957, the park infringes on the copyright of their creators.