I agree with you. Microsoft is deliberately stopping Wine users to update their MS Office if the Windows Update webservice detects the program is running on top of Wine.
According to the FA, that just isn't true. It's just updates to Windows that they're not supplying to wine users.
Most of them are done by slamming a car into a concrete wall, which grossly skews the data in favor of small cars that wouldn't survive a real collision and against larger cars that would.
A more accurate test would be to slam it into a ton or ton and a half block, perhaps on locked tires.
While I'm at it: I never get to use coupons. It's rare that, even with doubling, they reduce the price down to that of the generics . ..
1) That's an entirely different issue than you painted above, in which you risked prosecution.
2) Yes, it is a much bett system this way. We have an "adversary system," the principle of which is that if both sides are argued to the best of their ability, the truth will come out. Other basic principles are "stare decisis"--once a legal issue is decided, it should remain so, and "res judicata"--once a factual issue has been detrmined, it should remain so.
Generally speaking, people who do not have a direct interest in a matter will not devote the same level of time and effort into a matter as those who do. This leaves the possiblities that the farmers are permanently hurt because some yahoo launched a half-baked challenge, or that the issue must be relitigated repeatedly.
Also, what you might conceivably want to due in the future is irrelevant. For the same reasons, the jurisdiction of the federal (and most state) courts is limited to *actual* cases and controversies.
You don't get sizable cash reserves by propping things up until you figure out how to lose money--you get them by propping up until you can *implement* your plan . ..
It's a contractual issue, and they *can't*. They've deliberately set up theri agreements this way.
This was actually litigated in another context a couple of years ago. A compy (etoys? itoys?) had pledged that if you provided your email, it would never be released to any third party under any circumstances. The compnay found itself in bankruptcy, and other companies tried to buy the list. The privacy conditions were upheld. (ISTR that in the end, Disney bought it out to destroy the list or some such).
As a lawyer, writing letters to adversaries or potential adversaries is an art.
You need to phrase your thret in such a way that it seems polite, but explains quite clearly that you are about to latch your jaws around his throat if he doesn't do as he's told.
In one of these, I once pointed out to the California DMC that the US Constitution did not allow its, err, imperial pretensions, as it was demanding that a Nevada license be surrendered.
assuming that your "friend" wasn't working for lawyers who actually sent the lettes, each and every one of those letters (if as you described them) constituted the unauthorised practice of law.
This would be grounds to not admit a candidate to the bar, and, depending upon state, the failure to disclose this in the application to the bar could be grounds for disbarrment.
My take on the 10th Amendment is that all levels of government must be granted power before that power can be exercised.
The 10th applies only to the feds.
Generally, the states have a general "police power," but this comes from the people of that state through the state constitution, and generally describes the extent of that power. Some of this in turn is handed to the feds, and some is delegated to the cities, counties, and other subdivisions. In many (perhaps all) states, it is clearly within the power of the state government ot actually abolish the subdivisions.
The commerce clause did take a seventy year beating, but it's on the rebound, so there is hope:)
And you are correct about agencies needing explicit authority to regulate; Congress is *not* free to delegate its discretion, just implementation (and that's questionable, too, but that's another can of worms).
Not true. For 200+ years, Congress has just said that 99% of their rules are allowed because they affect interstate commerce in some vague, tertiary way, and they do have the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
No, not 200+ years. That goes back to the New Deal, when the Supreme Court tossed out the rest of the Constitution over interstate commerce.
However, in the past few years, the pendulum has been swinging back, as courts have found the commerce power to not extend to carjackings, guns at school, and a couple of other issues. In the carjacking case, they noted that armed robbery was fundamentally intrastate, happening at a specific point.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you can somehow construe this as legal advice, the circus wants you as a contortionist.
The 10th would only affect whether or not Congress had the power, not whether or not htey delegated it.
Even assuming that Congress *does* have it, it would have to explicitly grant authority for this function to the FCC (or any other administrative agency). OTOH, if Congress doesn't have it, there is no way, whether it granted it or not, that the FCC could excercise it.
This would enable you, for example, to appeal the criminal convictions of anyone. It would allow you to sue over any license the government granted anyone.
You only have standing in a matter, whether the other party is a person or the government, when you are *directly* affected.
I'll also toss in an observation that whil the library *association* likely doesn't have standing, the individual libraries probably would have standing on their own. The courts rejected association and taxpayer standing a long time ago.
However, if you can't find someone that is *actually* affected that is willing to litigate if you pay the bills, it also says something about the importance of what you're doing . ..
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense.
I can't believe that anyone would say such a thing.
Truly outrageous.
The french are responsible at least a third of the time.
hawk, wondering how long it takes someone to link this to the macmini . . .
That's a very nice thing for them to do. It's very useful for society, too. Your assements on damages are correct as well.
.
They get their data a lot sooner by testing the car early rather than waiting for enough too have real accidents . .
Financially, though, it's largely a wash for them, as long as they can estimate the losses.
hawk
I agree with you. Microsoft is deliberately stopping Wine users to update their MS Office if the Windows Update webservice detects the program is running on top of Wine.
.
According to the FA, that just isn't true. It's just updates to Windows that they're not supplying to wine users.
Sounds basically reasonable to me . .
hawk
But if you go back to the time that there were multiple successful commercial word processors, they all pretty much did this.
Generally, word, word perfect, and wordstar could read the *prior* version of their competitors' files, but not the current version.
It hardly started with micorsoft.
hawk
/me starts foaming at the mouth and falls over dead, knocking the NetBSD box into the bathtub
Hey! No dying twice in the same post!
Yes, that's the one I'm trying to think of that led to my "most" . . .
ALso, they're not so much trying to *reduce* fatalities as to estimate them.
hawk
There's a problem with the crash tests, though.
.
Most of them are done by slamming a car into a concrete wall, which grossly skews the data in favor of small cars that wouldn't survive a real collision and against larger cars that would.
A more accurate test would be to slam it into a ton or ton and a half block, perhaps on locked tires.
While I'm at it: I never get to use coupons. It's rare that, even with doubling, they reduce the price down to that of the generics . .
hawk
One of our head tech guys related his buddy's experience from the corporate world.
After spending half a day disinfecting the Anna Kourknova (?) virus from a department, he was called back in a couple oh hours.
Same user.
When asked why, he explained, "I didn't get to see the picture"
hawk
I tried that.
Then I went to buy gas.
I put the card in the machine, and waited.
"Beep," it said.
I showed it my ID.
"Beep."
"No, this is my ID. See?"
Still, it refused to look. "Beep."
The crowd got larger and larger, but it still refused to look at my id. "Beep."
Now I'm stuck on my bicycle.
hawk
I triggered one going *in* to a store at the mall right before Christmas.
The clerks at the adjacent counter laughed and asked, "You came from Fye's, didn't you".
I had to loke at my bag; I had no idea that the record store had a new name.
I didn't end up buying anything, and waved before I triggered it again going out.
hawk
Nah, that would be a "pennywit"
hawk
hawk
1) That's an entirely different issue than you painted above, in which you risked prosecution.
2) Yes, it is a much bett system this way. We have an "adversary system," the principle of which is that if both sides are argued to the best of their ability, the truth will come out. Other basic principles are "stare decisis"--once a legal issue is decided, it should remain so, and "res judicata"--once a factual issue has been detrmined, it should remain so.
Generally speaking, people who do not have a direct interest in a matter will not devote the same level of time and effort into a matter as those who do. This leaves the possiblities that the farmers are permanently hurt because some yahoo launched a half-baked challenge, or that the issue must be relitigated repeatedly.
Also, what you might conceivably want to due in the future is irrelevant. For the same reasons, the jurisdiction of the federal (and most state) courts is limited to *actual* cases and controversies.
hawk
> How much could they sell the information for?
Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
A a temporary restraining order would issue, preventing the transfer from taking place until they lost the litigation.
hawk
You don't get sizable cash reserves by propping things up until you figure out how to lose money--you get them by propping up until you can *implement* your plan . . .
hawk
Umm, you'll have to tell me where you planned to lunch today before I take that bet :)
hawk
No, they wouldn't.
It's a contractual issue, and they *can't*. They've deliberately set up theri agreements this way.
This was actually litigated in another context a couple of years ago. A compy (etoys? itoys?) had pledged that if you provided your email, it would never be released to any third party under any circumstances. The compnay found itself in bankruptcy, and other companies tried to buy the list. The privacy conditions were upheld. (ISTR that in the end, Disney bought it out to destroy the list or some such).
hawk
As a lawyer, writing letters to adversaries or potential adversaries is an art.
:)
You need to phrase your thret in such a way that it seems polite, but explains quite clearly that you are about to latch your jaws around his throat if he doesn't do as he's told.
In one of these, I once pointed out to the California DMC that the US Constitution did not allow its, err, imperial pretensions, as it was demanding that a Nevada license be surrendered.
Actually, they're a lot of fun to write
hawk, esq.
assuming that your "friend" wasn't working for lawyers who actually sent the lettes, each and every one of those letters (if as you described them) constituted the unauthorised practice of law.
This would be grounds to not admit a candidate to the bar, and, depending upon state, the failure to disclose this in the application to the bar could be grounds for disbarrment.
haw,, esq.
Glad to do it.
:)
My take on the 10th Amendment is that all levels of government must be granted power before that power can be exercised.
The 10th applies only to the feds.
Generally, the states have a general "police power," but this comes from the people of that state through the state constitution, and generally describes the extent of that power. Some of this in turn is handed to the feds, and some is delegated to the cities, counties, and other subdivisions. In many (perhaps all) states, it is clearly within the power of the state government ot actually abolish the subdivisions.
The commerce clause did take a seventy year beating, but it's on the rebound, so there is hope
And you are correct about agencies needing explicit authority to regulate; Congress is *not* free to delegate its discretion, just implementation (and that's questionable, too, but that's another can of worms).
hawk, esq.
hawk
Not true. For 200+ years, Congress has just said that 99% of their rules are allowed because they affect interstate commerce in some vague, tertiary way, and they do have the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
No, not 200+ years. That goes back to the New Deal, when the Supreme Court tossed out the rest of the Constitution over interstate commerce.
However, in the past few years, the pendulum has been swinging back, as courts have found the commerce power to not extend to carjackings, guns at school, and a couple of other issues. In the carjacking case, they noted that armed robbery was fundamentally intrastate, happening at a specific point.
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you can somehow construe this as legal advice, the circus wants you as a contortionist.
The 10th would only affect whether or not Congress had the power, not whether or not htey delegated it.
Even assuming that Congress *does* have it, it would have to explicitly grant authority for this function to the FCC (or any other administrative agency). OTOH, if Congress doesn't have it, there is no way, whether it granted it or not, that the FCC could excercise it.
hawk
Sure. And if they ever include ana ADB port again, I'm *set*.
hawk
Chaos, to start with :)
.
This would enable you, for example, to appeal the criminal convictions of anyone. It would allow you to sue over any license the government granted anyone.
You only have standing in a matter, whether the other party is a person or the government, when you are *directly* affected.
I'll also toss in an observation that whil the library *association* likely doesn't have standing, the individual libraries probably would have standing on their own. The courts rejected association and taxpayer standing a long time ago.
However, if you can't find someone that is *actually* affected that is willing to litigate if you pay the bills, it also says something about the importance of what you're doing . .
hawk