When tensions get high, setting the IT guys up for a termination justifying failure goes a long way to keeping the budget trimmed of any severance obligations.
I'm not beckerman but I suspect that not giving a jury proper deference on an issue of fact such as applicability of fair use would be a reversible error.
I will of course be happy to be corrected if wrong.
How paradoxical then that the very act required to procreate is itself lethal to sperm?
Have sex? You're killing billions of sperms! Only a few make it inside. You murderer!!!!
On the other hand, we'd have a population problem very fast if every sperm fertilized an egg. Not to mention there are hardly enough eggs to go around for every sperm.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe I got this one mixed up with the guy who failed to bring in an expert witness.
I'm an idiot.
Please stop modding up the above comment.
The binary is a derivative work of the source.
It doesn't matter. The defense counsel is probably too incompetent to protest any legal error anyway.
Which is really what boils my blood about our legal system. Even blatant foul-ups are set in stone if nobody complains immediately.
It miscarries justice and forces lawyers to make motions simply to keep them from being estopped later.
Or he could just be stamping out any chance of jury nullification.
A supreme court case once positively affirmed the right of a jury to nullify the law.
Then it boils down to whether the applicability of fair use is a matter of fact or of law.
If there's a question of how much was shared or another disputed fact upon which the defense hinges, then it's an issue of fact reserved for the jury.
Please NYCL, save me from confusion.
We just had an article about how men produce more fluid semen when having sex with beautiful women.
You have a point about the resume.
When tensions get high, setting the IT guys up for a termination justifying failure goes a long way to keeping the budget trimmed of any severance obligations.
Fair use is a clear set of rules.
It's *applicability* is the gray area. And as a matter of fact (no pun intended), it's for a jury to decide.
Which is why the judge in this case is being a braindead moron.
cat /dev/urandom > /dev/dsp
Much better quality than the RIAA's crap.
And if they can tax that then I'll fire the first shot of the new revolution.
I'm not beckerman but I suspect that not giving a jury proper deference on an issue of fact such as applicability of fair use would be a reversible error.
I will of course be happy to be corrected if wrong.
1. First of all, it isn't up to the judge to preemptively prohibit an affirmative defense.
2. Second of all, whether or not fair use DOES apply is an issue of fact that is properly reserved for a jury to decide.
Either the judge is braindead, or he's setting the defense up for an appeal.
Probable cause is my favorite silver lining here.
Though any government powerful enough to force your anonymity out the window is also strong enough to brand you a criminal if you disagree.
Remember, the government that is strong enough to give you what you want (security) is strong enough to take away everything you have (freedom).
Better yet would be the ISPs doing egress filtering making sure no martians get out.
A DDoS against someone else can still chew up YOUR bandwidth.
Maybe the attack got AT&T's tubes clogged up, and the block was drano.
You could call it a quarantine.
Simple.
We confiscate the data regarding the treatment and the nazis don't get to patent or profit from their R&D. Instead, it gets turned around.
The IP version of asset forfeiture. Just as we seize drug money and use it to hire cops, we should seize immoral research and turn it around for good.
How paradoxical then that the very act required to procreate is itself lethal to sperm?
Have sex? You're killing billions of sperms! Only a few make it inside. You murderer!!!!
On the other hand, we'd have a population problem very fast if every sperm fertilized an egg. Not to mention there are hardly enough eggs to go around for every sperm.
The problem is that if the big CEO gets his way with the congress critters in his pocket, he COULD take the homeless guy's liver.
The moral side of me agrees with you.
The "I'll do whatever the fuck I wanna" side thinks you should go to hell. How dare you infringe my right to do as I please?
Sadly, people think that free sex is a god given right and don't give a shit about the consequences.
I dare say that if sex were more restrained, we could cure AIDS in a heartbeat, along with every other STD out there.
Cursive is harder to read than print anyway.
Personally I think it's an excessively flowery style that does more for the writer's artistic ego than it does the reader's comprehension.
Though I'd much rather see "doctor print" go away first.
Isn't that machines will outsmart us.
But that some evil person will hack the smart machine.
I wouldn't mind having a machine overlord, except that I don't trust anyone smart enough to program it.
True, and if only their own interest counts, that would be a good choice.
Things is, it's not good sportsmanship to "game the rules" that way.
"Moar protein plz!"
-- E. Coli
Could a quantum computer be used to solve this?