Explain to me exactly how your family becomes liable for loans they did not agree to--especially on your death, upon which federal student loans are forgiven anyway.
Yes, if it's a manufacturer's FFL (TFA didn't specify, but it seems to be the case from context), it does cover production of semi-automatic firearms as well as pump-action, bolt-action, revolvers, and most others. Machine guns are separate, being (as TFA notes) covered by the National Firearms Act, not the Gun Control Act. For right now, federally speaking, domestically-made semi-automatic firearms don't have any special or unique status. If Senator Feinstein gets her way, of course, that will change, but it's the case currently.
Simply put, you thought wrong. It also is not illegal to attempt suicide in the United States. If you attempt suicide, you can expect to be locked up, but that won't be because you broke the law--it'll be for your protection, and you'll be "locked up" in a hospital. And generally, that will be for no more than a few days.
Suicide is not a form of murder (murder by definition is the killing of another person, with certain other elements), nor is it illegal in any of the United States. Assisting someone else to commit suicide is illegal in most states, but suicide itself is not.
I suspect the poster you're replying to is actually talking about the money transfer services like Western Union, not true bank wire transfers. Wire transfers have to go into a bank account, and the ownership of that bank account is known (by the receiving bank, at least, if not by the sender). They're not used very often in the U.S., though, because they tend to be expensive--$25 to send, and $15 to receive, seem to be common fees, though they can vary.
So if I were to dig up dirt on someone to damage their reputation, EVEN THOUGH true, I can be sued for libel because my intent wasn't to spread information necessary but to damage someone (the difference being the Halloween Documents vs your credit card details.
You're right, you can't be sued for libel in the U.S. for that. You can, however, be sued on one of the invasion of privacy torts (publication of private facts, most likely). Just because it's true doesn't mean that you have absolute license to print it.
No, the "merits" had already been decided--due to Spamhaus' default (for whatever reason, they didn't properly argue to the court that they weren't subject to its jurisdiction), e360 had already "won" on the merits. The only question remaining was how much harm they had suffered from Spamhaus' actions--and since they didn't produce any appropriate evidence on that subject, they were awarded $3.
Spamhaus almost certainly would have won on the merits, if they had competently argued them. Alternatively, they probably would have gotten the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, if they had competently argued that. As it was, they didn't competently argue anything until it was too late to avoid judgment against them.
Precisely. The concerns listed at Justin Mason's site are incorrect, and no parens are needed here. However, the search as written will not run, because the "and pre/2" is syntactically incorrect.
And yes, as some others have speculated, the ! is the approximate equivalent of the * in the computer world--it's a wildcard matching any number of characters (but on LexisNexis, unlike in *nix, it can only be used at the end of a word).
Do you know how long we have to leave them on in order to save money?
Interestingly, Mythbusters checked this out just a few weeks ago, and their methodology seemed pretty sensible. IIRC, their conclusion was that the start-up current spike for a CFL bulb was equal to about.25 sec. of running time.
The time shifting abilities of PRV's are great when watching live shows, but really the only people for whom the PVR experience is "revolutionary" are folks too stupid to program their VCR's to begin with.
So tell me, how do you watch one recorded show while your VCR is recording another one? There's also the nice feature where the TiVo recognizes when the time slot of a show changes for a particular showing, and automatically changes the recording time. Sure, you could do the same thing by checking TV Guide periodically, but it's a definite convenience...
You've been duped if you think that you can breach a contract after you've signed on the dotted line simply because it's easier to do so.
But of course you can! You'll just have to pay up. Only in rare cases (most commonly involving the sale of real estate) will you actually be ordered to perform your part of the contract. If the contract's provisions are such that it'd be "easier" (or cheaper, or whatever) to breach and pay the damages than to perform, you're not only permitted, but encouraged, to breach.
If the chipmakers violated their licenses, they have broken the law
Not so. Others have chimed in on this point as well, most making the point that "breaking the law" almost invariably refers to committing a crime, which is true. One point that I didn't see raised in the other comments is that many judges (most notably Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals) actually encourage parties to breach contracts when it would be cheaper for them to pay the damages than to perform (this is what's known as the "efficient breach" theory).
That said, if the chipmakers violated their licenses, and if the MPAA can demonstrate that that violation caused them some monetary harm, then yes, the MPAA is justified in trying to recover the harm. The first would be pretty easy to prove--the second, nearly impossible.
At least in the US market, there are no overlapping VW and Audi models (the closest is the Audi A4 and VW Passat, but they're on different chassis). Porsche is a different company entirely. They've borrowed some of VW's technology in the past, but they're not the same company.
IANAL, but I don't think it's necessarily a precedent.
IAAL,BIANYL. It doesn't necessarily set a precedent for unrelated parties, but it'll probably preclude SCO from suing anybody else over these demand letters. The mechanism that would do that would be collateral estoppel. From law.com's dictionary:
collateral estoppel
n. the situation in which a judgment in one case prevents (estops) a party to that suit from trying to litigate the issue in another legal action. In effect, once decided, the parties are permanently bound by that ruling.
Xenons are a pack of bulbs you can buy for around 30$ they only last around 6-7 months, and run off a bit higher voltage, (some will melt wirieng harnesses)
No, they run at exactly the same voltage as the stock bulbs--the same voltage as the rest of your car's electrical system. Some of them run at a higher wattage, which (since the voltage is the same) means more current, which is what sometimes melts wiring harnesses. The more-powerful bulbs are illegal for street use, but that doesn't seem to be enforced much (if at all).
Oh, and the blue-tinted bulbs (not all Xenons are tinted) are just stupid. You're paying a premium price to get bulbs that, by measurement, produce less light, and produce it in a color range which is harder to focus on.
Possibility of SCO case to get thrown out is not possible in my opinion.
Possible, but not very likely. Dismissal is certainly an option for the court as a discovery sanction, but it's a pretty extreme one, and it would need to be done (or at least approved) by the District Judge, not the magistrate who's currently handling the hearings.
At least it wouldn't be a smart move from IBM if they would succed to get this far. This would lead to other possible complaints from SCO side, and state would be far from peace.
Disagree, for a couple of reasons. First, dismissing SCO's case would still leave IBM's counterclaims standing (and, in fact, strengthened considerably, since a large part of the basis for those counterclaims is that SCO filed suit without a good reason). By the time IBM's countersuit is over, SCO is likely to be nothing more than a smoking hole in the ground. Second, a dismissal at this stage of the proceedings would almost certainly be with prejudice, which means SCO can't turn around and re-file the same complaint against IBM. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a decision on the merits of the case, which would bar SCO from suing anybody else on these grounds.
System V from the BSD OSes is
public domain. That has been decided by a court of law.
No, that has not been decided by a court of law. The judge in the BSD case, in non-binding dicta, expressed doubt that any copyright on the SysV codebase could be enforced. However, since that issue wasn't actually before him at the time, that statement isn't binding on anybody (though if SCO ever gets around to filing a copyright infringement action against anybody based on SysV copyrights, it'll almost certainly be introduced to try to persuade the relevant court).
Now, if the judge had written something to the effect of "I find that there is no enforceable copyright in the SysV code", any copyright claim based on that material would be immediately sunk. Since he didn't, such a claim would still be sunk, but it'd take more work to sink it.
Well, in my case, the accelerator does directly control the fuel quantity--but then, I drive a diesel (no throttle plate in a diesel). However, your point that the fossil fuel is a catalyst is simply incorrect. A catalyst, by definition, facilitates or speeds a chemical reaction without itself being consumed in the reaction. Gasoline (or diesel fuel, or whatever else) is consumed in the operation of the engine, which is why we have to keep filling the tanks. It isn't a catalyst; it's one of the components in the chemical reaction that drives the engine (oxygen is another one).
it _does_ create two classes of speech, something the government cannot regulate.
Yes, it affects different classes of speech differently. No, it's not true that the government cannot regulate it. One of the most fundamental principles of First Amendment jurisprudence is that commercial speech gets less protection under the First Amendment than does, say, political speech. I'd have thought this case would have been a slam dunk in the other direction, but I haven't yet read the opinion.
Not exactly--they will "defend you as an HP user and represent you in Court" and pay any judgment against you should you lose. That's what indemnity does.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me exactly how your family becomes liable for loans they did not agree to--especially on your death, upon which federal student loans are forgiven anyway.
Yes, if it's a manufacturer's FFL (TFA didn't specify, but it seems to be the case from context), it does cover production of semi-automatic firearms as well as pump-action, bolt-action, revolvers, and most others. Machine guns are separate, being (as TFA notes) covered by the National Firearms Act, not the Gun Control Act. For right now, federally speaking, domestically-made semi-automatic firearms don't have any special or unique status. If Senator Feinstein gets her way, of course, that will change, but it's the case currently.
Simply put, you thought wrong. It also is not illegal to attempt suicide in the United States. If you attempt suicide, you can expect to be locked up, but that won't be because you broke the law--it'll be for your protection, and you'll be "locked up" in a hospital. And generally, that will be for no more than a few days.
Suicide is not a form of murder (murder by definition is the killing of another person, with certain other elements), nor is it illegal in any of the United States. Assisting someone else to commit suicide is illegal in most states, but suicide itself is not.
I suspect the poster you're replying to is actually talking about the money transfer services like Western Union, not true bank wire transfers. Wire transfers have to go into a bank account, and the ownership of that bank account is known (by the receiving bank, at least, if not by the sender). They're not used very often in the U.S., though, because they tend to be expensive--$25 to send, and $15 to receive, seem to be common fees, though they can vary.
So if I were to dig up dirt on someone to damage their reputation, EVEN THOUGH true, I can be sued for libel because my intent wasn't to spread information necessary but to damage someone (the difference being the Halloween Documents vs your credit card details.
You're right, you can't be sued for libel in the U.S. for that. You can, however, be sued on one of the invasion of privacy torts (publication of private facts, most likely). Just because it's true doesn't mean that you have absolute license to print it.
That's why most banks will require a personal guarantee from the owners of a small corp/LLC.
No, the "merits" had already been decided--due to Spamhaus' default (for whatever reason, they didn't properly argue to the court that they weren't subject to its jurisdiction), e360 had already "won" on the merits. The only question remaining was how much harm they had suffered from Spamhaus' actions--and since they didn't produce any appropriate evidence on that subject, they were awarded $3.
Spamhaus almost certainly would have won on the merits, if they had competently argued them. Alternatively, they probably would have gotten the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, if they had competently argued that. As it was, they didn't competently argue anything until it was too late to avoid judgment against them.
Precisely. The concerns listed at Justin Mason's site are incorrect, and no parens are needed here. However, the search as written will not run, because the "and pre/2" is syntactically incorrect.
And yes, as some others have speculated, the ! is the approximate equivalent of the * in the computer world--it's a wildcard matching any number of characters (but on LexisNexis, unlike in *nix, it can only be used at the end of a word).
I saw the /. writeup, and thought it sounded like where I work. Surprise, it is! Not as a coder, though.
That said, if the chipmakers violated their licenses, and if the MPAA can demonstrate that that violation caused them some monetary harm, then yes, the MPAA is justified in trying to recover the harm. The first would be pretty easy to prove--the second, nearly impossible.
Disclaimer: IAAL,BIANYL.
At least in the US market, there are no overlapping VW and Audi models (the closest is the Audi A4 and VW Passat, but they're on different chassis). Porsche is a different company entirely. They've borrowed some of VW's technology in the past, but they're not the same company.
Oh, and the blue-tinted bulbs (not all Xenons are tinted) are just stupid. You're paying a premium price to get bulbs that, by measurement, produce less light, and produce it in a color range which is harder to focus on.
The hearing was delayed until Feb. 6. The reasons for the delay seem uncertain.
Standard disclaimer: IAAL,BIANYL.
Now, if the judge had written something to the effect of "I find that there is no enforceable copyright in the SysV code", any copyright claim based on that material would be immediately sunk. Since he didn't, such a claim would still be sunk, but it'd take more work to sink it.
Well, in my case, the accelerator does directly control the fuel quantity--but then, I drive a diesel (no throttle plate in a diesel). However, your point that the fossil fuel is a catalyst is simply incorrect. A catalyst, by definition, facilitates or speeds a chemical reaction without itself being consumed in the reaction. Gasoline (or diesel fuel, or whatever else) is consumed in the operation of the engine, which is why we have to keep filling the tanks. It isn't a catalyst; it's one of the components in the chemical reaction that drives the engine (oxygen is another one).
I assume that should read "SGI's code changes" at the beginning?
Yes, it affects different classes of speech differently. No, it's not true that the government cannot regulate it. One of the most fundamental principles of First Amendment jurisprudence is that commercial speech gets less protection under the First Amendment than does, say, political speech. I'd have thought this case would have been a slam dunk in the other direction, but I haven't yet read the opinion.
Not exactly--they will "defend you as an HP user and represent you in Court" and pay any judgment against you should you lose. That's what indemnity does.