The line about being better that many guilty men go free than a single innocent man be punished comes from John Adams' closing arguments -- at the trial of British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.
This is one of the most insightful comments I've seen in a while. We need three more moderators to bump it up:)
My father considered a Ph.D. many years ago (he already had an M.A.). It interested him, but I was 5 or six by then, and he didn't want to miss all of my growing up. He stayed a high school teacher, made a lot less, but left around 6:30 so that he could be home by 3:30 or so. We also had summers for family vacations.
As burnout got worse in my law practice, I realized that it was "now or never"--my oldest was 3, and the next was 2. I took the plunge, and defend a week from monday. [btw, anyonw need an attorney/economist/statistician with impressive programming skills for the next year:) ]
Teaching with the occasional antitrust case certainly will pay less than other options that I have and had, but there's no way in H*** that I'm not going to be around for my kids growing up. And if I take a year-round research job for the next couple of years, it's going to be with the understanding that I can take off additional unpaid time in addition to regular vacation. The job just pays the bills; family is what's important.
While I'm at it, I did work at home for a few months as I closed down my practice. The hardest part is that two year olds just can't understand that just because daddy's in the house doesn't mean he can play:( They cry. You cry.
hawk, esq., soon to be Ph.D., who's going nuts because his family's on the other side of the country due to an illness
One was to register for a conference, and was used to check that the data was complete (not that this justified it). The other used it ust as gratuitiously, to get at the realaudio broadcast of foxnews.
Aside from that, I have yet to see a useful application of java or javascript on a webpage. But then, I also beleive in jail time for blinking text or gifs . . .
No, that's just not right
on
uCsimm News
·
· Score: 2
Go pull an old intel catalgo, or something else with details. The 4004 and 8008 had very little in common. The 8008 had general memory addressing (14 bits), while the 4004 adressed memory *chips*, with a different address space for RAM and ROM. Both were meant for what we'd now call embedded applications (they weren't meant to be desktops), but it was possible to build a general purpose machine around the 8008. The 4004 tended to end up in cash registers and calculators.
The 4 bit and 8 bit lines were just plain different. The 4040 was an enhanced 4004, and the 8080 a (much) enhanced 8008. But the 4040 was real, and they sold them. If it wasn't so deeply buried in my basement, I'd pull my old intel parts catalog to give you the citations for it.
The 8088 is an 8086 with an 8 bit bus, so even though it's less powerful (seems to me the hit was about 30%), it probably comes after the 8086 in the sequence
All were grand, mystical, things that captured the imagination. Feats of man over nature, with cleverness taking the prize.
The more efficient diesl locomotive replaced the steam engine, but without the grandeur. A modern fuel-injected engine is more efficient and reliable than an older engine, but is incomprehensible.
The 8 bit machines had the same beauty; building a working computer out of parts meant to control traffic lights and microwaves was an act of genius. And the contortions made by programmers to maximize performance were similar acts, marvelous as much for having been done as for what they actually been accomplished.
I once owned a dos machine, to do my scholarly writing article for law school in 1988. 4dos made life less painful, but it seems to me that it did lead to more crashes. I opened my practice, and the first time I noted that I had bars on my window was when I was about ready to throw the dos machine through the window. I became a mac developer, bought a mac (then another, then . ..):) and never looked back until I found lyx, and bought a linux (now FreeBSD) box.
>The title of "queen" is probably used to be >evocative for the movie because that makes her a >special character, and likely because she is >not a democraticly elected political figure.
Little girls want daddy to take them to movies with princesses & queens. Trust me on this:)
If princess Leia had been just senator leia, mine would no doubt have liked the movies, but the princess (ok, and "the gold guy", not to be confused with "the glass guy" from Toy Story) gave them a focal point.
And to use modern words that I'm suspicious of, they could find worse role models than Leia . ..tough and resourcefull, while very female . . .
>Haven't British monarch's been 'elected' by >parliment since Cromwell's days?
I don't know why I'm replying to a three week old post (guess I'll email the author:), but to *at least* the war of the roses--especeially when a lesser claimant took the throne:) It was also used a an excuse for tossing kings (James). But if the current queen can make it a few more years, it could also be their solution to the Charles problem . . .
It's the letterhead they're printed on, not the contents, that matters.
And this works in the little guys favor, too. I saw many situations where a record club, or homeowners group, collection agency, IRS, or whatever, was steamrolling the little guy.For about $100, they could have me send out the hostile letter, often *with the exact same information*, and the problem would suddenly go away.
The letter from a lawyer gets looked at by someone further up is part of it, I suppose. And it also adds a bit more credibility to the threat.
No, it's not fair that someon has to pay the $100. I might have been willing to work for free, but my secretary and kids weren't willing to skip meals:)
>But now we have ASCAP stepping in and saying that >if I'm setting up a little page saying how >much I like They Might Be Giants, and I want to >link to emusic.com where they have some >sample clips of TMBG music that they sell >(legally), I have to pay a license fee, or be >faced with a lawsuit that I can't afford, >regardless of whether or not the lawsuit is >frivolous.
No, it doesn't. Read the article. They're *quite* clear that a link to another page is not what they're talking about.
>>If you would like to link to ASCAP's Site, >>please read and comply with the following >>guidelines and all applicable laws. A Web site >>that links to ASCAP's Site:
>>May link to, but not replicate, ASCAP's content.
... >>Should not create a browser or border >>environment around ASCAP content.
... >OK, These are actually perfectly reasonable >requests. There are a lot of issues with framing >other people's content, especially if you put ads >in those border frames.
Read the article. This is the situation where they're asking for license fees.
About 10 seconds. I was there as a linux consultant, but they wanted to show me the windows version. As I sat down and hit something, it lost control of the windowing system. I asked, "but can't you kill things now." Not if the program you use to kill them is out of control . . .
I've also used it to download onto floppies for initial linux boot disks, and to transfer files since the floppy on my desktop went south. The P90's in that lab under wfwg (oops, not NT; haven't checkec again) had 20-25% of the networking performance of a 486/66 under linux.
Hmm, that's not why I'm posting this, that was a sidenote.
10 seconds of really trying to use NT, one crash.
Three years of linux, macbsd, and now freebsd:
macbsd: 1 kernel panic in 4-6 months of use. Apparently related to using a not-quite-ready driver for X.
debian: 2.5 years on my desk, no crashes or panics in 24/7 operation. We did have some panics while setting up scsi, but that's because we had no idea what kind of card it was, and had to use trial & error (insmod, then read). With the card identified, no more crashes. debian: 1 year, we thought we had a crash on my boss's machine, but there were no logs indicating this after we reset it. When I went over to reset it when it happened again, it turned out that the problem wasn't a crash, but that half that building had dropped of the campus network. freebsd: last three or four months, my desktop, I've found that accessing the defective floppy drive can clobber the kernel. It takes a couple of hours, but it never stops trying to access it (linux returns an error), and it slowly dies.
OK, so my NT sample is quite small, but in those 10 seconds, I had more real crashes than in 3 years of bsd & linux.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm probably not admitted in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer who is.
This isn't about patent, and it isn't about copyright. Forget about those, neither apply.
It's about trademark, and particularly, "trade dress," the appearance of the product.
Apple does *not* need to have filed any paperwork to have this protection, at least not in Common Law countries (generally, those that speak english and otherwise inherited the british legal system). *Use* of a trademark establishes it in the markets in which it is used. The filing of a trademark simply gives notice to areas where it is not used, and prevents anyone else from acquiring a trademark after filing.
The appearance of the iMac is distinctive. It qualifies for this protection, just as the Coca-Cola bottle (as has been noted elsewhere).
This does *not* mean that other companies cannot have translucent cases, or egg-shaped cases, etc. But if the thing looks exactly like an iMac, it's violating apple trademarks. If it vaguely resembles it so that it only reminds the viewer of an iMac, it's likely to be O.K. Somewhere in between is a cutoff point where it's too similar, and is likely to be mistaken for the other, imply a relation, or dilute the value of the trademark.
There's also a few links and comments in roger_ford 's comments, which deserves another couple of moderation kicks.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm probably not admitted in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer who is.
This isn't about patent, and it isn't about copyright. Forget about those, neither apply.
It's about trademark, and particularly, "trade dress," the appearance of the product.
Apple does *not* need to have filed any paperwork to have this protection, at least not in Common Law countries (generally, those that speak english and otherwise inherited the british legal system). *Use* of a trademark establishes it in the markets in which it is used. The filing of a trademark simply gives notice to areas where it is not used, and prevents anyone else from acquiring a trademark after filing.
The appearance of the iMac is distinctive. It qualifies for this protection, just as the Coca-Cola bottle (as has been noted elsewhere).
This does *not* mean that other companies cannot have translucent cases, or egg-shaped cases, etc. But if the thing looks exactly like an iMac, it's violating apple trademarks. If it vaguely resembles it so that it only reminds the viewer of an iMac, it's likely to be O.K. Somewhere in between is a cutoff point where it's too similar, and is likely to be mistaken for the other, imply a relation, or dilute the value of the trademark.
There's also a few links and comments in roger_ford 's comments, which deserves another couple of moderation kicks.
Re:How long can a company guard a product's featur
on
iMac Clone Gets Sued
·
· Score: 2
> there's no such thing as a fuel injected bug
Yes there is. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the U.S., from 75 to 79 the bug had fuel injection.
Unless you meant to say that it didn't work well:)
And I have a fuller post elsewhere about the trademark issues.
Permission was granted to use a machine to run a security site, and the maintainer used it for other purposes. I'm not a member of the bar in that state, but in several others, this additional use would be theft of compter services--by a security site . . .
He also did the "East of Eden" (or was it West???) series, in which very primitive, pre-technological, humans stumble into intelligent dinosaurs with advanced biotech . . .
Many other good things too, but the stainless steel rat stuff are still my favorites.
hawk, who is amazed at McDonald's ability to charge a higher price than its competitors for a product with no flavor, and didn't realize the obvious analogy until he typed the first part of this run-on fragment
Actually, I don't belong to the Iowa Bar, but to California & Nevada.
The DA certainly doesn't ignore the complaints (in the two or three instances I've seen), but what I'm getting at is that all the bar can do is call the DA, just the same as any citizen (though they'll probably be lent an ear much faster:)
The bar can't directly discipline a non-lawyer, since they only have jurisdiction over lawyers. It's handled as a criminal offense. In states where the bar is more tightly integrated with the state Supreme Court (from which it gets its power), I presume direct action along lines of contempt of court is (or could be) possible.
hawk, esq., the recovering lawyer (haven't sued anyone in more than five years [applause])
>Complete with higly paid professional lawyers... ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Would you want amateur lawyers?
I once encountered a "self proclaimed lawyer." Actually, I encountered her victims, and my time cleaning up the mess was primarily pro bono. The real ugly thing about these is that the bar associations are powerless to stop them, as they have no jurisdiction over non-lawyers--all they can do is pass information to the district attorney.
ANd while there are rare exceptions, Lincoln was right about those who represent themeselves having fools for clients . . .
In the late 80's or early 90's, this was done on usenet, and people actually engaged in conversations with it. (And how does thinking that I'm a progam make you feel?).
And earlier than that, when usenet was primarily passed by modem over toll phone calls, it was widely suspected that rlr@att[mumble] was an AI program designed to boost phone traffic (still carried predominantly by AT&T) by getting everyone mad at him.
net.flame was a single (and usually reasonably civilized an literate) newsgroup, but net.flame.rlr was proposed (the third block was rare at the time, there were only 40 or so net.* groups altogether). And I proposed an ancestor of the kill file, literally a hardcoded program that would grep for his name in the newsspool (a single directory at the time) and mark any messages from him as read in the appropriate groups in.newsrc. I never got around to writing it, but I got plenty of requests for it.
Hows that for "good old days" reminiscing? One troll on the entire usenet:)
Slashdot Mirror
The line about being better that many guilty men go free than a single innocent man be punished comes from John Adams' closing arguments -- at the trial of British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.
This is one of the most insightful comments I've seen in a while. We need three more moderators to bump it up :)
:) ]
:( They cry. You cry.
My father considered a Ph.D. many years ago (he already had an M.A.). It interested him, but I was 5 or six by then, and he didn't want to miss all of my growing up. He stayed a high school teacher, made a lot less, but left around 6:30 so that he could be home by 3:30 or so. We also had summers for family vacations.
As burnout got worse in my law practice, I realized that it was "now or never"--my oldest was 3, and the next was 2. I took the plunge, and defend a week from monday. [btw, anyonw need an attorney/economist/statistician with impressive programming skills for the next year
Teaching with the occasional antitrust case certainly will pay less than other options that I have and had, but there's no way in H*** that I'm not going to be around for my kids growing up. And if I take a year-round research job for the next couple of years, it's going to be with the understanding that I can take off additional unpaid time in addition to regular vacation. The job just pays the bills; family is what's important.
While I'm at it, I did work at home for a few months as I closed down my practice. The hardest part is that two year olds just can't understand that just because daddy's in the house doesn't mean he can play
hawk, esq., soon to be Ph.D., who's going nuts because his family's on the other side of the country due to an illness
>you don't hunt for food with a handgun..
>vegetarianism for all.
If all you're after is vegetables, why would you use anything bigger than a handgun? Killer turnips? Mutated venus fly traps?
vegetarians for all. preferably grilled.
One was to register for a conference, and was used to check that the data was complete (not that this justified it). The other used it ust as gratuitiously, to get at the realaudio broadcast of foxnews.
Aside from that, I have yet to see a useful application of java or javascript on a webpage. But then, I also beleive in jail time for blinking text or gifs . . .
Go pull an old intel catalgo, or something else with details. The 4004 and 8008 had very little in common. The 8008 had general memory addressing (14 bits), while the 4004 adressed memory *chips*, with a different address space for RAM and ROM. Both were meant for what we'd now call embedded applications (they weren't meant to be desktops), but it was possible to build a general purpose machine around the 8008. The 4004 tended to end up in cash registers and calculators.
The 4 bit and 8 bit lines were just plain different. The 4040 was an enhanced 4004, and the 8080 a (much) enhanced 8008. But the 4040 was real, and they sold them. If it wasn't so deeply buried in my basement, I'd pull my old intel parts catalog to give you the citations for it.
>4004, 8008, 8080, 8088, 8086, 80186, 80286
^
4040
The 8088 is an 8086 with an 8 bit bus, so even though it's less powerful (seems to me the hit was about 30%), it probably comes after the 8086 in the sequence
All were grand, mystical, things that captured the imagination. Feats of man over nature, with cleverness taking the prize.
The more efficient diesl locomotive replaced the steam engine, but without the grandeur. A modern fuel-injected engine is more efficient and reliable than an older engine, but is incomprehensible.
The 8 bit machines had the same beauty; building a working computer out of parts meant to control traffic lights and microwaves was an act of genius. And the contortions made by programmers to maximize performance were similar acts, marvelous as much for having been done as for what they actually been accomplished.
But those days are gone. *sniff*
just like GNU/Linux :)
.) :) and never looked back until I found lyx, and bought a linux (now FreeBSD) box.
I once owned a dos machine, to do my scholarly writing article for law school in 1988. 4dos made life less painful, but it seems to me that it did lead to more crashes. I opened my practice, and the first time I noted that I had bars on my window was when I was about ready to throw the dos machine through the window. I became a mac developer, bought a mac (then another, then . .
Gee, I wish I'd read this when it was fresh . . .
:)
.tough and resourcefull, while very female . . .
>The title of "queen" is probably used to be
>evocative for the movie because that makes her a
>special character, and likely because she is
>not a democraticly elected political figure.
Little girls want daddy to take them to movies with princesses & queens. Trust me on this
If princess Leia had been just senator leia, mine would no doubt have liked the movies, but the princess (ok, and "the gold guy", not to be confused with "the glass guy" from Toy Story) gave them a focal point.
And to use modern words that I'm suspicious of, they could find worse role models than Leia . .
>Haven't British monarch's been 'elected' by
:), but to *at least* the war of the roses--especeially when a lesser claimant took the throne :) It was also used a an excuse for tossing kings (James). But if the current queen can make it a few more years, it could also be their solution to the Charles problem . . .
>parliment since Cromwell's days?
I don't know why I'm replying to a three week old post (guess I'll email the author
You don't have to go that far. Just have a link rather than a frame, and you're fine.
It's the letterhead they're printed on, not the contents, that matters.
And this works in the little guys favor, too. I saw many situations where a record club, or homeowners group, collection agency, IRS, or whatever, was steamrolling the little guy.For about $100, they could have me send out the hostile letter, often *with the exact same information*, and the problem would suddenly go away.
The letter from a lawyer gets looked at by someone further up is part of it, I suppose. And it also adds a bit more credibility to the threat.
No, it's not fair that someon has to pay the $100. I might have been willing to work for free, but my secretary and kids weren't willing to skip meals
hawk, esq.
>But now we have ASCAP stepping in and saying that
>if I'm setting up a little page saying how
>much I like They Might Be Giants, and I want to
>link to emusic.com where they have some
>sample clips of TMBG music that they sell
>(legally), I have to pay a license fee, or be
>faced with a lawsuit that I can't afford,
>regardless of whether or not the lawsuit is >frivolous.
No, it doesn't. Read the article. They're *quite* clear that a link to another page is not what they're talking about.
>>If you would like to link to ASCAP's Site,
>>please read and comply with the following
>>guidelines and all applicable laws. A Web site >>that links to ASCAP's Site:
>>May link to, but not replicate, ASCAP's content.
...
>>Should not create a browser or border >>environment around ASCAP content.
...
>OK, These are actually perfectly reasonable
>requests. There are a lot of issues with framing
>other people's content, especially if you put ads
>in those border frames.
Read the article. This is the situation where they're asking for license fees.
hawk, esq.
> How long did you use NT for?
About 10 seconds. I was there as a linux consultant, but they wanted to show me the windows version. As I sat down and hit something, it lost control of the windowing system. I asked, "but can't you kill things now." Not if the program you use to kill them is out of control . . .
I've also used it to download onto floppies for initial linux boot disks, and to transfer files since the floppy on my desktop went south. The P90's in that lab under wfwg (oops, not NT; haven't checkec again) had 20-25% of the networking performance of a 486/66 under linux.
Hmm, that's not why I'm posting this, that was a sidenote.
10 seconds of really trying to use NT, one crash.
Three years of linux, macbsd, and now freebsd:
macbsd: 1 kernel panic in 4-6 months of use. Apparently related to using a not-quite-ready driver for X.
debian: 2.5 years on my desk, no crashes or panics in 24/7 operation. We did have some panics while setting up scsi, but that's because we had no idea what kind of card it was, and had to use trial & error (insmod, then read). With the card identified, no more crashes.
debian: 1 year, we thought we had a crash on my boss's machine, but there were no logs indicating this after we reset it. When I went over to reset it when it happened again, it turned out that the problem wasn't a crash, but that half that building had dropped of the campus network.
freebsd: last three or four months, my desktop, I've found that accessing the defective floppy drive can clobber the kernel. It takes a couple of hours, but it never stops trying to access it (linux returns an error), and it slowly dies.
OK, so my NT sample is quite small, but in those 10 seconds, I had more real crashes than in 3 years of bsd & linux.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm probably not admitted in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer who is.
This isn't about patent, and it isn't about copyright. Forget about those, neither apply.
It's about trademark, and particularly, "trade dress," the appearance of the product.
Apple does *not* need to have filed any paperwork to have this protection, at least not in Common Law countries (generally, those that speak english and otherwise inherited the british legal system). *Use* of a trademark establishes it in the markets in which it is used. The filing of a trademark simply gives notice to areas where it is not used, and prevents anyone else from acquiring a trademark after filing.
The appearance of the iMac is distinctive. It qualifies for this protection, just as the Coca-Cola bottle (as has been noted elsewhere).
This does *not* mean that other companies cannot have translucent cases, or egg-shaped cases, etc. But if the thing looks exactly like an iMac, it's violating apple trademarks. If it vaguely resembles it so that it only reminds the viewer of an iMac, it's likely to be O.K. Somewhere in between is a cutoff point where it's too similar, and is likely to be mistaken for the other, imply a relation, or dilute the value of the trademark.
There's also a few links and comments in roger_ford 's comments, which deserves another couple of moderation kicks.
hawk, esq.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm probably not admitted in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer who is.
This isn't about patent, and it isn't about copyright. Forget about those, neither apply.
It's about trademark, and particularly, "trade dress," the appearance of the product.
Apple does *not* need to have filed any paperwork to have this protection, at least not in Common Law countries (generally, those that speak english and otherwise inherited the british legal system). *Use* of a trademark establishes it in the markets in which it is used. The filing of a trademark simply gives notice to areas where it is not used, and prevents anyone else from acquiring a trademark after filing.
The appearance of the iMac is distinctive. It qualifies for this protection, just as the Coca-Cola bottle (as has been noted elsewhere).
This does *not* mean that other companies cannot have translucent cases, or egg-shaped cases, etc. But if the thing looks exactly like an iMac, it's violating apple trademarks. If it vaguely resembles it so that it only reminds the viewer of an iMac, it's likely to be O.K. Somewhere in between is a cutoff point where it's too similar, and is likely to be mistaken for the other, imply a relation, or dilute the value of the trademark.
There's also a few links and comments in roger_ford 's comments, which deserves another couple of moderation kicks.
> there's no such thing as a fuel injected bug
:)
Yes there is. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the U.S., from 75 to 79 the bug had fuel injection.
Unless you meant to say that it didn't work well
And I have a fuller post elsewhere about the trademark issues.
Permission was granted to use a machine to run a security site, and the maintainer used it for other purposes. I'm not a member of the bar in that state, but in several others, this additional use would be theft of compter services--by a security site . . .
that someone hacked into and planted a new directory on the server for a security site . . .
He also did the "East of Eden" (or was it West???) series, in which very primitive, pre-technological, humans stumble into intelligent dinosaurs with advanced biotech . . .
Many other good things too, but the stainless steel rat stuff are still my favorites.
The fingers would probably be tasty.
hawk, who is amazed at McDonald's ability to charge a higher price than its competitors for a product with no flavor, and didn't realize the obvious analogy until he typed the first part of this run-on fragment
Actually, I don't belong to the Iowa Bar, but to California & Nevada.
:)
The DA certainly doesn't ignore the complaints (in the two or three instances I've seen), but what I'm getting at is that all the bar can do is call the DA, just the same as any citizen (though they'll probably be lent an ear much faster
The bar can't directly discipline a non-lawyer, since they only have jurisdiction over lawyers. It's handled as a criminal offense. In states where the bar is more tightly integrated with the state Supreme Court (from which it gets its power), I presume direct action along lines of contempt of court is (or could be) possible.
hawk, esq., the recovering lawyer (haven't sued anyone in more than five years [applause])
If you want me to argue both sides, you'll have to pay me twice :)
>Complete with higly paid professional lawyers ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Would you want amateur lawyers?
I once encountered a "self proclaimed lawyer." Actually, I encountered her victims, and my time cleaning up the mess was primarily pro bono. The real ugly thing about these is that the bar associations are powerless to stop them, as they have no jurisdiction over non-lawyers--all they can do is pass information to the district attorney.
ANd while there are rare exceptions, Lincoln was right about those who represent themeselves having fools for clients . . .
In the late 80's or early 90's, this was done on usenet, and people actually engaged in conversations with it. (And how does thinking that I'm a progam make you feel?).
.newsrc. I never got around to writing it, but I got plenty of requests for it.
:)
And earlier than that, when usenet was primarily passed by modem over toll phone calls, it was widely suspected that rlr@att[mumble] was an AI program designed to boost phone traffic (still carried predominantly by AT&T) by getting everyone mad at him.
net.flame was a single (and usually reasonably civilized an literate) newsgroup, but net.flame.rlr was proposed (the third block was rare at the time, there were only 40 or so net.* groups altogether). And I proposed an ancestor of the kill file, literally a hardcoded program that would grep for his name in the newsspool (a single directory at the time) and mark any messages from him as read in the appropriate groups in
Hows that for "good old days" reminiscing? One troll on the entire usenet