Yeah! All those people so allergic to cats that they would pay thousands for a kitten that didn't set them off should be rushing to the shelters and, uh, uhm, . . . doing something about it between sneezes! Yes, that's it! They should all jerk their knees--for the children!
Actually, it all started with cross-polarization of the chrono-gizmo during the alignment of the tachyon technobabbler by a future version of the farmer, who was actually an alternate version of an engineer suffering from timeline amnesia due to not having been born.
It was just another bad episode of one of the Star Trek spinoffs with a TLA after the colon. Don't worry; the whole episode didn't happen.
hawk, wondering if royalties are really due when a station runs an episode that, by its own terms, never happened
These are *Nevada Teachers*. The salary isn't enough to live on here.
I belive that the starting salar is $24k with a masters. While a significant portion of the summer is vacation (nothing close to all of it), the hours during the year tend to exceed forty per week.
Even five years ago, this was a relatively inexpensive place to live. That is no longer true, with the median house price flirting with $300k. We've gone from well under to well over. Auto insurance is also outrageous, due to the bad drivers from around the country (which is far worse than bad local driving habits, which are at least expected by other drivers).
Utilities are fairly mild in winter (though it's harsh by California standards:), but a lot of AC is needed during the summer (though you can work wonders with a swamp cooler; I was [barely] below $100 last August. $300 and rising is more typical).
These teachers aren't taking second jobs for extra money, but to survive.
Even if it were for extra money, it wouldn't come close to doubling your income. You use up all of your exemptions and deductions on the first job, and pay a higher tax bracket on the second.
Something's up if the Confederacy was still issuing messages 137 years ago--in 1869, five ears after that little meeting at the courthouse . . .:)
(yes, the figures come from the article, which describes the letter appearing in a 1999 catalog, which was indeed 137 years after the message. The article then calls it "recently" decoded in a 2006 article.
The ever-alert slashdot editors caught this, of course . . .
compared to that, yes. But there is *no* real good for which a monopolist can charge whatever it wants and not cut its demand. There *is* an optimal price (and resultant quantity) for *every* monopolized good.
>If you had a monopoly on bread you could charge whatever you liked, >because people have to buy bread whatever it costs.
No, you couldn't.
There are plenty of substitutes for bread.
Even milk has natural limits. While the price would certainly go up with a monopoly in a product, even an essential one, people will still reduce consumption in the face of a price increase. The only good for which demand would truly be perfectly inelastic (no response to price change) would be oxygen. Milk and addictive goods such as tobacco are highly inelastic, but consumption does change.
>Suppose they were probably having to bear in mind the ages of their fans though.
That does become an issue. On their last tour, the Rolling Stones weren't quite sure how to react to the ladies throwoing their Depends onto the stage . . .:)
In this case, there pretty clearly isn't a contract with offer and acceptance. The offer is made when the land is actually put up for auction *by the seller*.
The case is a clear enough loser (and a good example of the "fool for a client" principle) that the only way that a lawyer *could* take it would be in a "good faith effort to *change* the law."
> take a look at Linux's block layer, where you can switch to different >I/O schedulers at runtime (echo foobar >/sys/block/hda/queue/scheduler); >and then you can insmod and rmmod ioschedulers at runtime aswell.
But I don't want to die. Please, no! I don't want to be rmmodded for another scheduler. I'm only fifteen milliseconds old!
Oh, wait. *I'm* the scheduler. I'm just not going to schedule that rmmod ans insmod. *cackle* Let's see Mr. User deal with *that*!:)
>...and a nuclear strike wouldn't spare Rambo [*].
*You* obviously haven't been to a Hollywood movie in a while . . . Once the sequel train starts, the hero can survive the complete destruction of the entire universe in an antimatter explosion . . .
And be sure to read far enough to see who initially brought up Horton as an issue . . .
For those outside the US, Horton, a convicted murderer, was on a weekend furlough--and for some reason, just didn't come back, and raped a woman while out.
It became an issue in the general election, as the Democrat was the governeror and supported the program. However, it had already been an issue in the primary, started by another Democrat.
Not quite. Looking carefully, I found a sentence in which the author failed to use "Red Hat Enterprise Linux." There might be a scond one, but I missed it:)
It predates the web, so I haven'tfound it by casual searching (and am not interested enough in proving it to spend the needed time with paper), but at the time, Microsoft made a big deal about the trademark being "Microsoft Windows" rather than "Windows." Both the Apple II (at memory locations 12-15, iirc) and the TRS-80 (for its speech sy nthesizer, and possibly others), and I presume others that I don't recall (had Star been shown off by then?), used "windows" to describe a section of the screen. At the time of Windows 1.0, A trademark for "windows" *could not* have issued, as the term was already in common usage for the same concept (as well as the basic problem that a single common word cannot become a trademark)
hawk, esq., an attorney but not giving legal advice
Various technologies get accepted over time as reliable, while others have known issues. The phone is relaying entire sets of waves, not words. You still need a hearsay exception for the person at the other end of the phone.
The hearsay rule would apply to the original document. To use the photocopy in its place, the "best evidence" rule would apply: the copy can be used if and only if the original is unavailable (and even then, if there is fault on the part of the party trying to use it, it may not be allowed).
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice. Find a lawyer licensed in your jursidction for that!
Neither the British Statute of Frauds, nor that of any US jurisdiction of which I am aware (or any non-US Common Law jurisdiction, for that matter) requires a signature. A *writing* is required from the person against whom the contract is to be enforced.
The purpose of the statute was to deal with some then-common frauds. Particularly, perjured testimony as to the existenc eof an oral contract to sell land. People would bring in friends to falsely claim that someone had agreed to sell. Accordingly certain types of contract became unenforceable (not invalid) without the writing. Most importantly, contracts for the sale of real property (including leases of more than a year) required a writing.
Assuming that the eamil can be authenticated as having come from the sender, it would be sufficient to satisfy the statute. That does *not* necessarily mean, however, that the contract exists or can be proven . . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need some, go pay for it.
>The USA declared independence and is therefore independant of the British legal system.
Independent of the system, sure, but as for the law: the Constitution *explicitly* adopts the Common Law. Until a change in US or state law occurred, wehther by statute or Common Law (court precedent), British common law remained the same.
See (above?) for more on the Statute of Frauds, but precedents from other Common Law jurisdictions (pretty much the entire English speaking world) are persuasive but not binding upon other courts.
btw, a promise for a promise is adequate consideration.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get legal advice on slashdot, go sign somehting by email.
The big problem with email is the hearsay rule. Look at the path. *Every* one of those transitions is a "heard and said" which requires a hearsay exception (either an actual exception, or to fall outside the rule as "non hearsay").
You told your computer, and then it said . . .
Your ISP's first machine heard, and it said . . .
[lots more]
The recipient's ISP heard, and it said . . .
The mail server heard, and it said . . .
The your own computer heard, and it said . . .
Triple hearsay is rare in real courtrooms (but I knew a lawyer who dumbfounded a judge when he tried:). The typical email message is way past that.
This isn't to say that it isn't possible; I can easily envision a message being introduced if sufficient records are around, with sufficient testimony about the secirty on the machines. (There is a "catch-all" exception to hearsay).
Also, the hearsay rule only applies to the use of the statement (email message) to prove what was said within it, not to proving *that* it was said.
Slashdot Mirror
mmm, a dog that could help my daughers with algebra. Now *that* would get me to own one again . . .
hawk
. . . stepping on a whole, moving mouse in the middle of the night.
. . . or dealing with a wife who has just done so . . .
hawk
Yeah! All those people so allergic to cats that they would pay thousands for a kitten that didn't set them off should be rushing to the shelters and, uh, uhm, . . . doing something about it between sneezes! Yes, that's it! They should all jerk their knees--for the children!
hawk
Actually, it all started with cross-polarization of the chrono-gizmo during the alignment of the tachyon technobabbler by a future version of the farmer, who was actually an alternate version of an engineer suffering from timeline amnesia due to not having been born.
It was just another bad episode of one of the Star Trek spinoffs with a TLA after the colon. Don't worry; the whole episode didn't happen.
hawk, wondering if royalties are really due when a station runs an episode that, by its own terms, never happened
*Now* you tell me that people will pay $4k for these things.
*sigh*
I *had* a hypoallergenic cat almost 20 ears ago. A great many people with cat allergies could handle him without problem.
Heck, *I* didn't find out that I had cat allergies.
But he's ten years gone, and I'd had him fixed anway.
hawk, once more feeling fame and fortune slip through his fingers
Also, DOS was 16 bit, not 8. The data bus in the original IBM PC, the IBM XT, and the XT clones was 8 bit, but the instruction set was 16 bit.
Dos was a knock-off (and alleged theft) of CP/M, which was the most popular 8 bit operating systems.
hawk
These are *Nevada Teachers*. The salary isn't enough to live on here.
:), but a lot of AC is needed during the summer (though you can work wonders with a swamp cooler; I was [barely] below $100 last August. $300 and rising is more typical).
I belive that the starting salar is $24k with a masters. While a significant portion of the summer is vacation (nothing close to all of it), the hours during the year tend to exceed forty per week.
Even five years ago, this was a relatively inexpensive place to live. That is no longer true, with the median house price flirting with $300k. We've gone from well under to well over. Auto insurance is also outrageous, due to the bad drivers from around the country (which is far worse than bad local driving habits, which are at least expected by other drivers).
Utilities are fairly mild in winter (though it's harsh by California standards
These teachers aren't taking second jobs for extra money, but to survive.
Even if it were for extra money, it wouldn't come close to doubling your income. You use up all of your exemptions and deductions on the first job, and pay a higher tax bracket on the second.
hawk
I dunno.
:)
Something's up if the Confederacy was still issuing messages 137 years ago--in 1869, five ears after that little meeting at the courthouse . . .
(yes, the figures come from the article, which describes the letter appearing in a 1999 catalog, which was indeed 137 years after the message. The article then calls it "recently" decoded in a 2006 article.
The ever-alert slashdot editors caught this, of course . . .
hawk
compared to that, yes. But there is *no* real good for which a monopolist can charge whatever it wants and not cut its demand. There *is* an optimal price (and resultant quantity) for *every* monopolized good.
hawk
>If you had a monopoly on bread you could charge whatever you liked,
>because people have to buy bread whatever it costs.
No, you couldn't.
There are plenty of substitutes for bread.
Even milk has natural limits. While the price would certainly go up with a monopoly in a product, even an essential one, people will still reduce consumption in the face of a price increase. The only good for which demand would truly be perfectly inelastic (no response to price change) would be oxygen. Milk and addictive goods such as tobacco are highly inelastic, but consumption does change.
hawk
>Suppose they were probably having to bear in mind the ages of their fans though.
:)
That does become an issue. On their last tour, the Rolling Stones weren't quite sure how to react to the ladies throwoing their Depends onto the stage . . .
hawk
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice.
In this case, there pretty clearly isn't a contract with offer and acceptance. The offer is made when the land is actually put up for auction *by the seller*.
The case is a clear enough loser (and a good example of the "fool for a client" principle) that the only way that a lawyer *could* take it would be in a "good faith effort to *change* the law."
hawk, esq.
Finding a stack of $100 bills inside the unmarked door would be a bit more like it . . .
hawk
>You make an interesting point,
Uhm, it was a joke.
hawk
> take a look at Linux's block layer, where you can switch to different
:)
>I/O schedulers at runtime (echo foobar >/sys/block/hda/queue/scheduler);
>and then you can insmod and rmmod ioschedulers at runtime aswell.
But I don't want to die. Please, no! I don't want to be rmmodded for another scheduler. I'm only fifteen milliseconds old!
Oh, wait. *I'm* the scheduler. I'm just not going to schedule that rmmod ans insmod. *cackle* Let's see Mr. User deal with *that*!
hawk
>...and a nuclear strike wouldn't spare Rambo [*].
*You* obviously haven't been to a Hollywood movie in a while . . . Once the sequel train starts, the hero can survive the complete destruction of the entire universe in an antimatter explosion . . .
hawk
And be sure to read far enough to see who initially brought up Horton as an issue . . .
For those outside the US, Horton, a convicted murderer, was on a weekend furlough--and for some reason, just didn't come back, and raped a woman while out.
It became an issue in the general election, as the Democrat was the governeror and supported the program. However, it had already been an issue in the primary, started by another Democrat.
hawk
>Everything about it shouts "press release",
:)
Not quite. Looking carefully, I found a sentence in which the author failed to use "Red Hat Enterprise Linux." There might be a scond one, but I missed it
hawk
It predates the web, so I haven'tfound it by casual searching (and am not interested enough in proving it to spend the needed time with paper), but at the time, Microsoft made a big deal about the trademark being "Microsoft Windows" rather than "Windows." Both the Apple II (at memory locations 12-15, iirc) and the TRS-80 (for its speech sy
nthesizer, and possibly others), and I presume others that I don't recall (had Star been shown off by then?), used "windows" to describe a section of the screen. At the time of Windows 1.0, A trademark for "windows" *could not* have issued, as the term was already in common usage for the same concept (as well as the basic problem that a single common word cannot become a trademark)
hawk, esq., an attorney but not giving legal advice
It's been a while . . .
Various technologies get accepted over time as reliable, while others have known issues. The phone is relaying entire sets of waves, not words. You still need a hearsay exception for the person at the other end of the phone.
hawk
The hearsay rule would apply to the original document. To use the photocopy in its place, the "best evidence" rule would apply: the copy can be used if and only if the original is unavailable (and even then, if there is fault on the part of the party trying to use it, it may not be allowed).
hawk
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice. Find a lawyer licensed in your jursidction for that!
Neither the British Statute of Frauds, nor that of any US jurisdiction of which I am aware (or any non-US Common Law jurisdiction, for that matter) requires a signature. A *writing* is required from the person against whom the contract is to be enforced.
The purpose of the statute was to deal with some then-common frauds. Particularly, perjured testimony as to the existenc eof an oral contract to sell land. People would bring in friends to falsely claim that someone had agreed to sell. Accordingly certain types of contract became unenforceable (not invalid) without the writing. Most importantly, contracts for the sale of real property (including leases of more than a year) required a writing.
Assuming that the eamil can be authenticated as having come from the sender, it would be sufficient to satisfy the statute. That does *not* necessarily mean, however, that the contract exists or can be proven . . .
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need some, go pay for it.
>The USA declared independence and is therefore independant of the British legal system.
Independent of the system, sure, but as for the law: the Constitution *explicitly* adopts the Common Law. Until a change in US or state law occurred, wehther by statute or Common Law (court precedent), British common law remained the same.
See (above?) for more on the Statute of Frauds, but precedents from other Common Law jurisdictions (pretty much the entire English speaking world) are persuasive but not binding upon other courts.
btw, a promise for a promise is adequate consideration.
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get legal advice on slashdot, go sign somehting by email.
:). The typical email message is way past that.
The big problem with email is the hearsay rule. Look at the path. *Every* one of those transitions is a "heard and said" which requires a hearsay exception (either an actual exception, or to fall outside the rule as "non hearsay").
You told your computer, and then it said . . .
Your ISP's first machine heard, and it said . . .
[lots more]
The recipient's ISP heard, and it said . . .
The mail server heard, and it said . . .
The your own computer heard, and it said . . .
Triple hearsay is rare in real courtrooms (but I knew a lawyer who dumbfounded a judge when he tried
This isn't to say that it isn't possible; I can easily envision a message being introduced if sufficient records are around, with sufficient testimony about the secirty on the machines. (There is a "catch-all" exception to hearsay).
Also, the hearsay rule only applies to the use of the statement (email message) to prove what was said within it, not to proving *that* it was said.
hawk, esq.
Why, for the same reason they put VW engines into corvetetes, of course . . . :)
hawk