Suing someone who cannot pay doesn't make much economic sense, but it makes perfect game theory sense if you can scare the person into submission. Look up SLAPP for an example. Threatening someone with a lawsuit and giving them an incentive to comply by promising to lift it if they do is a powerful weapon.
And for the same reason that pulling a gun on someone will let you rob a bank or kidnap someone.
If there was actually a bit of competition in the area I'd be satisfied with that explanation.
But when a long term contract means I'm locked into whatever they see fit to hide in the fine print, I'm not exactly at liberty to take my business elsewhere, now am I?
Just to press further, I would be much more in favor of stricter gun laws if us citizens also got better law enforcement in exchange. Pay our police departments well enough that they can be responsive and effective enough to where the average citizen won't feel the need to keep a gun by his side to feel safe.
Personally, I think that guns need to go. However, if we outlaw guns, the criminals will be the last ones to give them up. Which means that without a strong police force to protect the newly unarmed citizens until the crooks have been disarmed, the average american citizen would be crazy to give up his guns. And rightly so.
I think that the fact that the right to bear arms and the duty to keep a militia were mentioned in the same amendment is no coincidence. Why would the authors of the BoR have even mentioned militias in the first place?
That said, I think that having a trusty rifle or shotgun by your side can do wonders for your home security, particularly if the cops are slow, or worse, such as corrupted. Burglars get break shy if they think the homeowner might be armed.
All this talk about turning the other cheek while letting burglars rob you blind is sickening. Someone breaks into your house, you damn well have the right to use deadly force. Not necessarily to kill them, unless of course your life is threatened, but to apprehend them. It's like making a citizen's arrest in your own home.
And if they continue to resist even at gun point, it's probably safe to assume that either they're well armed themselves, or they're batshit insane. Either way, escalation is most likely justified. And someone reaching for your weapon and attempting to disarm you is most definitely dangerous.
The point is this: The second amendment isn't a blanket endorsement of keeping a gun whenever you want. Guns have appropriate uses. Hunting, self defense, defense of others, apprehension of criminals, and the like. Using a gun to commit a crime is obviously not a cool one.
But anyone thinking that the second gives us the right to overthrow the government is reaching and asking to get burned. Those who think that small arms are enough to do the job obviously have forgotten about "provide for the common defense", and I'll be damned if anyone's going to honestly think that the framers ever intended for a state militia to stand a fighting chance against a national army.
Medical marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.
A possible outcome is that the messages in question will be subpoena'ed and forwarded to the DEA.
That said, T-Mobile, even if acting in the interests of not supporting illegal solicitation of drug business, is way out of line to be going after the marketing company over the actions of one of it's own clients.
And the solution is to make the router not work until its password has been set. No networking, no configuration, no anything except a "Set password" screen, itself only accessible from a computer connected directly to one of the downstream ports.
The problem is that it's better marketing to make stuff, even security sensitive things like routers, work out of the box. Convenience is a bigger boost to the bottom line for the router factory. And of course, once it's been sold, it's the IT department's problem.
The constitution these days isn't worth the paper it's written on.
All that matters is:
1. What SCOTUS says it means 2. How many cases SCOTUS actually has time to review (they reject certiorari for a lot of them). 3. How many cases actually survive the legal grind long enough to get there to begin with.
If SCOTUS screws up, doesn't have the time to handle your case, or you never make it there, you're screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Suing someone who cannot pay doesn't make much economic sense, but it makes perfect game theory sense if you can scare the person into submission. Look up SLAPP for an example. Threatening someone with a lawsuit and giving them an incentive to comply by promising to lift it if they do is a powerful weapon.
And for the same reason that pulling a gun on someone will let you rob a bank or kidnap someone.
Perverse incentives cannot be avoided in a world where everyone looks out "for number one" first and foremost.
You cannot give a selfish person power and expect him not to abuse it.
The reason they're called traps is because they make it so it is impossible to both drive safely and obey the limit.
Same deal with short yellows being coupled with red light cameras.
If there was actually a bit of competition in the area I'd be satisfied with that explanation.
But when a long term contract means I'm locked into whatever they see fit to hide in the fine print, I'm not exactly at liberty to take my business elsewhere, now am I?
Just to press further, I would be much more in favor of stricter gun laws if us citizens also got better law enforcement in exchange. Pay our police departments well enough that they can be responsive and effective enough to where the average citizen won't feel the need to keep a gun by his side to feel safe.
Personally, I think that guns need to go. However, if we outlaw guns, the criminals will be the last ones to give them up. Which means that without a strong police force to protect the newly unarmed citizens until the crooks have been disarmed, the average american citizen would be crazy to give up his guns. And rightly so.
How the hell are we supposed to reason with a government when the corporations have bought more of their ears than we'll ever possess?
You cannot choose between Kodos and Kang and expect to get Quimby.
I think that the fact that the right to bear arms and the duty to keep a militia were mentioned in the same amendment is no coincidence. Why would the authors of the BoR have even mentioned militias in the first place?
That said, I think that having a trusty rifle or shotgun by your side can do wonders for your home security, particularly if the cops are slow, or worse, such as corrupted. Burglars get break shy if they think the homeowner might be armed.
All this talk about turning the other cheek while letting burglars rob you blind is sickening. Someone breaks into your house, you damn well have the right to use deadly force. Not necessarily to kill them, unless of course your life is threatened, but to apprehend them. It's like making a citizen's arrest in your own home.
And if they continue to resist even at gun point, it's probably safe to assume that either they're well armed themselves, or they're batshit insane. Either way, escalation is most likely justified. And someone reaching for your weapon and attempting to disarm you is most definitely dangerous.
The point is this: The second amendment isn't a blanket endorsement of keeping a gun whenever you want. Guns have appropriate uses. Hunting, self defense, defense of others, apprehension of criminals, and the like. Using a gun to commit a crime is obviously not a cool one.
But anyone thinking that the second gives us the right to overthrow the government is reaching and asking to get burned. Those who think that small arms are enough to do the job obviously have forgotten about "provide for the common defense", and I'll be damned if anyone's going to honestly think that the framers ever intended for a state militia to stand a fighting chance against a national army.
Especially now that he has motive. HP just sued the guy, after all.
No he doesn't.
The shares were forfeited back to HP, they have to sell them.
Gee, maybe that's one of the reasons our economy is in the toilet right now.
The US Courts don't buy, so much as get bought.
Why not practice what you preach?
Thought so.
Demanding that someone else give up their share of the great pie just so you can steal their slice is unethical.
Just say that you copied stuff from /dev/urandom because you like to listen to it better than pirating crap from the RIAA.
The irony...
They aren't showing that they aren't corrupt lying scum.
They're showing that they're too powerful to care.
Medical marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.
A possible outcome is that the messages in question will be subpoena'ed and forwarded to the DEA.
That said, T-Mobile, even if acting in the interests of not supporting illegal solicitation of drug business, is way out of line to be going after the marketing company over the actions of one of it's own clients.
That's right.
Thirst for power and oppression of dissent is engrained in the very core of humanity's political genes.
There is no escape.
Or hacking email accounts belonging to political dissidents.
Simple.
What GP posted also goes for firmware developers.
And the solution is to make the router not work until its password has been set. No networking, no configuration, no anything except a "Set password" screen, itself only accessible from a computer connected directly to one of the downstream ports.
The problem is that it's better marketing to make stuff, even security sensitive things like routers, work out of the box. Convenience is a bigger boost to the bottom line for the router factory. And of course, once it's been sold, it's the IT department's problem.
Becuase it's a pain in the ass to settle, and the PHBs won't put up with things getting in the way of actual work.
If Iran cared only about the afterlife they may still kill a few "infidels" to earn a ticket to heaven.
Those "72 virgins" aren't free, you know.
The constitution these days isn't worth the paper it's written on.
All that matters is:
1. What SCOTUS says it means
2. How many cases SCOTUS actually has time to review (they reject certiorari for a lot of them).
3. How many cases actually survive the legal grind long enough to get there to begin with.
If SCOTUS screws up, doesn't have the time to handle your case, or you never make it there, you're screwed.
Pounds are a bit heavier than dollars.
I would not put it past Sony to do this.
They already pulled a similar stunt with the PS3.
They don't need to understand technology.
All they need to understand is dollars, those coming from the entertainment industry lobbyists.