When I worked at a restaurant, we just clocked in and out by using a pin number. If you forgot to clock in/out, you didn't get paid for that shift. I'm guessing, but it was probably both cheaper and more accurate than a biometric system.
The problem the print division at the NYT faces is that the cost per printed copy is directly dependent on subscription volume. So if folk stop taking the paper copy, they cost to produce it increases - you have all the same costs for typesetting and running a print works, you just saved some cents worth of paper and a blob of ink.
This is true only if the NYT staff really, really sucks at math. The cost to produce the paper version of the NYT is relatively fixed; the income derived from selling the paper version is not. If half of print circulation dissapears (while the cost to produce the paper does not materially change), NYT can make up the lost revenue by selling the online version (note, without the cost of ink and paper) at practically the exact same cost as the paper version. If I can get the paper version for $175 a year, the online version should not cost nearly twice as much. By charging this much, the NYT must believe that for every person who subscribes to the electronic version, 2 people drop their paper.
NYT has missed the window in which they can gouge early adopters. People are used to getting their news for free, from multiple sources, on the internet. If you are going to charge for web content, you have to have something that no one else brings to the market. The WSJ gives subscribers a free physical paper with every online subscription (which includes to the minute updates, sometimes interesting discussions of financial issues, and the ability to ignore non-subscribing spammers on forums). The NYT apparently just wants to offer double the price. Economics was never my strong suit, but I somehow don't think that this will work.
Capitalizing a word in a sentence does not provide emphasis nor does it make the sentence any more accurate when it is wrong.
Following it up the chain, you chose to purchase a service (software, by purchasing a computer that came with an OS; I know from personal experience that you can purchase a computer, working out of the box, without windows for less money than with, with minimal personal effort, much like you can purchase uncooked ingredients from which you will prepare on your own instead of buying prepared meals from a restaurant) and are complaining that you can't sell the benefits of that service. To really let this sink in, you would not hire a tax attorney and them claim that you should be able to resell the service your purchased because the IRS dropped their case against you. NOr would you purchase the services of a tax attorney to complete your return in 2005 and then ask them to represent you on your 2009 return. While they would be required to be responsible for the information you provided for 2005, even in 2009, filing future returns is not required (nor should they be expected).
Much like how you can purchase ingredients, prepare a meal, and resell it, you can purchase computer parts, a software license that you have not activated (eaten), and resell it. You cannot and should not be able to purchase a service, use it, and then resell it. From my previous example, I can't get my car waxed, and then sell the right to a car waxing (even though I can sell the car).
Purchasing software is not just technically not a tax, it is a tax in no way, shape, or form. To claim otherwise is a lie.
If you bought XP at the release, you got 10 years of free updates. Now, you still get to use it. Your OS is not rented, but if you don't have the newer release, you don't get free updates. How is this renting?
Its not a windows tax, its a purchase of software. Believe it or not, my commodore 64 still works.
If windows was just a picture, it wouldn't work, and no one would buy it. Sarcasm or not (and I assume it must be), there is nothing insightful about your post. Just insulting to logic. I pay my local car wash place to clean and wax my car. Am I paying a polymer tax, or just taking advantage of a service? Just because people choose to pay for unecessary items that they could produce on their own doesn't mean that they were required to buy them or didn't weigh the cost/benefit of purchase vs do it yourself.
I pay a sales tax, income tax, vehicle registration tax, capital gains, currency transactions, but the cost of windows is not a tax.
Your house contractor not contacting you makes sense. You bought the house, they built the front door, contract is complete, no updates are even possible, all work is done. Software doesn't work that way. Your car, on the other hand, validates your ownership every time you turn the key to start it.
A better example would be your car insurance, which provides an intangible service, requiring you to note the VIN of the insured vehicle so that they can note that you still own the vehicle when you make a claim. Much like how Microsoft might verify that you have a license for windows when you call tech support for help.
By your own standards, this ruling by this judge is not surprising, because it has a large amount of direct and historical legal precedent.
I will use an example that in current times, in the US, is largely considered to be illegal. If the internet was in common use around the time of slavery, this judge would have made the ruling that you cannot purchase slaves using the internet in communities that did not allow slavery. The judge would not have ruled that slavery itself was not allowed in other communities. If someone purchase a slave in one community and moved the slave to another community, the seller would not be responsible. If the seller delivered to that community, however, they would be responsible. If you can download slaves, the person(s) downloading are responsible for knowing local standards. If you are getting slaves shipped, the seller is responsible.
Nothing to see here, really. Paul Little, who cannot produce pornography in middle district of florida, is incarcerated only because he distributed through the postal mail, obscene materials, to middle district florida. He can't be arrested in california for it. The reason he is in prison now is because investigators purchased the materials and got them shipped to Florida. If it had only been online, there would not have been such a charge (simple disclaimer, don't download if illegal in your area, just like every website).
Note that I didn't claim the mindset of the United States judicial system was uniqe; simply that it works, depsite differences from state to state. The issue was the phrasing 'made for you,' which is wholly innacurate. If you believe that legal decisions are 'made for you,' then your judicial system is very different than that of the US.
Are you getting child porn in the mail from unknown sources, opening, viewing, and keeping it?
There has never, and will never be a federal or state case where someone gets arrested because someone received spam that may have contained illegal items.
Your ridiculous example has never occurred, and will never occur. Stop spreading lies, some dumb ass might actually believe you.
Presumably, an amish community would never use the internet, therefore they would not find anything on it objectionable.
The judge's ruling, however, simply means that if the amish find something objectionable, they are not permitted to view such a website. The amish community would not be permitted to use such a website (such as for purchasing things from it). The website would be forbidden from selling things or dealing directly with the amish. This is already true for methods that don't involve websites, so the ruling isn't exactly a new concept.
You dumbfucks in [not the US] sure do seem to misinterpret a lot of US legal issues, especially the very concept of how legal decisions are made in the United States. They are not 'made for us' like they are in certain countries that people left explicitly to create the United States. There is a court system here where literally anyone can argue the merits of the validity of any legal issue and a political process where any individual state can overturn any law or create a new one at any time according to the whims of the people (see prohibition, gay marriage); so long as its not a specific item directly mentioned as a federal power (right to assemble, freedom of the speech, etc).
The first point I made was simply to establish your lack of credibility. You placed "loosing" in quotes, meaning that you purposefully chose the incorrect spelling, and thus the incorrect meaning. The meaning of nintendo is not changed by the lack of capitalization. The meaning of loose vs lose is of considerable importance.
It is clear that if I had only made my second point, you would have had no response (instead of acknowledging your error, which you have yet to do). Instead, you turn this into a grammar war, which was not my intent.
Reread my post and get the message, which is that nintendo is correct in asserting that they have lost sales due to criminal activity. Try to stay on topic next time (just because no one else does doesn't mean you can't).
I defined criminal not only in words, but in terms of logic and feelings, under which the man who illegally released materials that he did not have permission to release is a criminal, not matter what basis is used.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether individuals have a right to share things that they actually own. I didn't argue against the right of first sale or claim that you can't cook dinner for your next date because they didnt pay for it.
What the fuck are you doing ranting about words that have never been part of my thought process, never mind what I actually have said?
You need to calm down, use the logic and feelings that you claim I didn't incorporate, and apologize.
The number of copies actually sold is irrelevant. The damages from releasing without having the right to release is the problem.
First of all, nintendo hires good lawyers, who would spell check their complaint, and would complain about losing sales, not "loosing" them (I don't care what part of englandindiaturkmenistan you come from, how the hell do people keep making this error that first graders who are still learning the alphabet wouldn't?). Furthermore, the claim that releasing a game without permission to the general public causes lost sales is about as valid as a claim gets. The fact that none of these sales generated money for nintendo is legally irrelevant; its about the ability to control intangible assets of a corporation. Nintendo's case, to put it in football terms, isn't just a blowout, its GT vs Cumberland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Cumberland_vs._Georgia_Tech_football_game).
Crime has many definitions, and there isnt a single one where this man is not a criminal.
There is a legal definition of wrong, misdemeanor, tort, or felony. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.
There is also the moral definition of crime, an offense, serious wrongdoing, sin. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.
There is the dictionary defintion, an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.
Finally, there is the "I didn't graduate from high school, but I tried to," mentally handicapped, how you explain it to a small child when you are a bad parent who hides the real world from their children definition, which simply states that crime is a foolish, senseless, or shameful act. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.
If you happen to have another definition of crime in which this man is not a criminal, you are trying to use a different word.
IANAL, but no, Verizon has not criminally defrauded you. Especially if the contract you signed says that the definition of internet service is ever changing, and subject to that definition that is available at all times of services, provide that you receive notice of all material changes to that service (which it does).
Selling internet service and not delivering the full advertise service is merely breach of contract. This is a civil infraction, which you could sue for only if loss of 4chan access actually damaged you (in which case you could get a refund for all periods in which 4chan was not available and you were materially harmed).
The value of an objective point of view is not that we should discuss the appropriate penalty for robbing a bank with those who keep all of their money hidden under their mattress. Just because you have no knowledge of a subject doesn't mean that you have something of value to add.
Did I just fail to oppose your point by countering your example and implying that your point is invalid? No, I opposed your point by countering your example and implying that your point is invalid. It just seemed like a better idea than claiming that your choices were to accept my view or be wrong.
Reread your posts and check for grammar and logic. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that two posts ago (645 AM), you acknowledged that you should budget properly for possible civic duty (which you misstated as working for free, which, as I have pointed out, is not what jury duty consists of. Jury service is not a volunteer position. I don't see how you could possibly confuse the two). In your most recent post, you claim that either I have to be wrong or jurors have lost earnings (wow, look at how objective that idea is), like getting hit by a truck while driving the company van and getting lost wages while you recover (both choices are fail). Before that, you called the US government (which you don't live under) oppressive for its jury practices, based on your experience of having never lived in the US nor served on a jury.
Well dumb-ass, you only got one thing right; the discussion is over.
Its not magical, you idiot. When you sue someone, they by definition have the right to defend themselves, generally a a matter of public record. When you extort someone, they do not get a chance to defend themselves (unless whatever you are trying to extort them with is a lie, in which case if you follow through, they will sue you for slander/defamation of character depending on method and likely make it a matter of public record that you have committed a crime). There is a huge difference.
Yes, but you would need some sort of proof of having taken the course, with the ability to stop those who had not taken the course from using the internet. No, wait, that would be some form of internet license...
I'm guessing that you either don't live in the US or have never served on a jury, but your overall hatred of the US judicial system makes me wonder if your personal psychological issues might be getting in the way of logic.
Legally, your electricity cannot be turned off because you miss one or two payments. If you accumulate enough debt on heat, you are going to have to put a deposit down to keep your heat on, but I can assure you that if your finances put you in that situation, jury duty is not going to be the cause.
I will state as a point of fact, and not of speculation, that at no point in time, has anyone, ever, in the history of US trials, told their children that christmas presents are an entitlement and that jury service has prevented their children from receiving such an entitlement. If I'm wrong, I am personally embarrassed for how improperly they have raised their children. Furthermore, if you are going to put any non-necessity up on a pedestal, you have to budget for it. If you are going to pretend that christmas presents/vacation in a foreign country/ car payments higher than rent payments/etc are more important that food and shelter, you damn well better start saving for them before November.
No judge has ever allowed a multi-month trial to occur without asking every prospective juror if there are any reasons that they would be unable to fulfill the duty of jury service. At this point, a juror could point out that he/she would be financially unable to do so because they would not be able to pay their rent.
The disjoint in the thinking occurs when you assume that a desire to reduce costs for either the general public (through a general taxation method that would be a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars) or those involved in litigation is related to why we have trials with juries. The purpose of a jury is to provide an impartial finder of fact (ie, was a law broken). The purpose of a judge, in contrast, is to interperate the law and instruct the jury as to such.
We do not have an oppressive government; we have the government that we have chosen for ourselves. This is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Society has determined that part of living in this country and reaping its benefits (such as laws, public utilities, roads, and a general sense of order) has a cost, which includes taxes and public service (including jury duty). You aren't "working for free" so much as not being a fucking mooch, you asinine, worthless piece of shit. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The least imposing jury duty experience involves showing up, waiting for your name to be called, not having it be called, and going back to work. It takes about 30 minutes. The worst imaginable work experience is choosing to vote after work because you have too much to do, getting to the line at the polls at 7 when they close at midnight, and getting to vote at 1159 PM when your candidate is down 10%. This is much, much worse than the vast majority of jury duty experiences.
Your exemption based on profession still required effort on your behalf; you had to file a written application for exemption and receive a certificate of exemption to be certain that you are formally released from attendance in the event of selection of jury service.
I suppose the "real world" can ignore the realm of law, except of course in a court of law, where it applies and by default would exist when conducting jury duty. Do you live in some fantasy "real world" where the realm of law doesn't apply? Next time you get a speeding ticket, try to tell a judge that you live in the "real world" and see how much of your court costs get removed. I assume your profession does not Personally, I live in a real world where law actually applies.
I will ignore the absurdity of asking why minors are not allowed on juries (although, if you read the question aloud, you will not hat parents or guardians of minors are responsible for the actions of minors). As for why we have age requirements for public office, ask the framers of the constitution of the United States(as well as the drafters of individual state constitutions). There are 6 states that have no age qualification, so if you have a real issue with this, move to one of those or use the legal system to try and change that. James Madison argued that 30 be the age required in order to serve in the US Senate. George Mason pointed out that 21 year olds did not possess sufficient maturity to serve in the House, as their political beliefs were "too crude and erroneous to merit an influence on public opinions" (1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787). While the legal requirement for President of the US is 35, our youngest president was 43 when sworn in.
I didn't claim that only old people have stupid ideas; rather that old people are less likely to change them.
You do realize that both cases you mention, in which someone took multiple hours to vote, and jury trials that last longer than a day, are outliers, and certainly not the expectation. Most of the time, even when juries are picked, cases are settled out of court (often, explicitly because a jury has been picked).
Once you are picked for a jury, there is no imposition on you until the trial date begins, so there is no interference on the time between being chosen and serving.
You say you would give up a few weeks every year for jury duty once you retire, but when is that? Do we set a required age at which you are considered to be retired, even if you are working? Additionally, do you really believe that age has anything to do with ability when it comes to being a member of a jury?
An an invalid note, while you might believe that you would enjoy spending your retirement with a required automatic jury service, you might not feel that way when you actually retire. Maybe you will want to travel in winter, when your required 5 week service occurs. G-d forbid maybe you will do something with your retirement, and won't have nothing better to do. Much more importantly, the views of people who are of all ages, and not just those who collect social security, creates a much more unbiased jury than that of just those who have a lifetime of accumulated racism, regret, and built up hatred of jury duty. Some of us younger folk don't hate everyone and everything yet, or haven't been stuck in our views of how to interperate laws for 50 years.
A solution for bias that cannot be removed through random sampling cannot be biased sampling.
Your response, for the most part, does not make sense.
Name one person who has ever starved to death or lost their home because of jury duty.
I don't believe whining can exist on an internet forum, and that you have misinterpreted the tone of my points.
Lawyers provide service to a client. If you think that such a service is too expensive, shop around. You can probably find a lawyer who doesn't charge a thing unless they win the case. You can also find one who charges upfront, and is much likely to win. Assuming one person makes exactly 1,000,000 annually on a jury, and the rest make nothing, and that trial lasts for one day, the cost of jury member's salaries would be $500 (assumes 2000 hour work year and 8 hour day on week schedule with 2 weeks vacation). If instead, the combined salary of everyone on the jury is half of that (a couple people make a couple hundred grand, the rest are unemployed), and the trial lasts 3 days, the cost would be $750. If you are filing a lawsuit over nonpayment of contract fees for 5 grand, that's a significant portion of your cost, that gets incurred whether or not your case actually goes to trial. Nevermind the absurd cost of 95% of potential jurors who just get called in and don't actually have to show up at the trial.
I don't understand your next sentence, because it is factually incorrect (as for bias...axe tp grind).
The next point was to explain why most of the time, employers are not required to pay employees for time spent on a jury. Generally, if a court case is expected to take a long time, everyone involved knows well in advance, and employees chosen as jurors are given time to either take a leave of abscence or delay their jury until such time that they are available to do so. No one serves on a jury and works a salaried position afterwards on the same day, don't be absurd.
Employers are legally required to allow employees the opportunity to vote, even it means they cannot work while they do so. They are not required to pay hourly workers for time missed voting. Salaried workers still have to get their work done, even if they take time off to vote. My analogy is valid.
Your employer is not legally required to pay you while you perform jury duty (depending on where you live, they may be required to pay for 5 days, unless your employment agreement states otherwise, but most people don't live in California or New Jersey). Preserving your income is irrelevant. This is done to avoid bias because courts costs would skyrocket and professionals would almost never be chosen due to the cost. You would not want to make it impossible to try to file a lawsuit because one of the randomly chosen jurors happens to make 7 figures.
Meanwhile, if you work on salary, you are obligated to get your job done. If you are a contractor, you may include a clause that allows for time extensions in the event that you are unable to conduct the requirements of a contract, and your employer has the right to accept those clauses or reject you as a contractor. Hourly workers cannot be pressured to work without pay under any circumstances. If you lose hours permanently due to jury duty service, I'm guessing you probably had other issues with the position to begin with, and might perhaps be better off working somewhere else anyway.
Jury duty is a random selection of eligible citzens. If society would be better off by not having you perform your responsibility (for example, if jury duty occurs during a previously scheduled open heart surgery that you will be conducting), you can get it rescheduled, not excepted. Jury duty can only be waived in very specific circumstances that cause one to be ineligible; such as mental disability.
Currently, there are things that make one more likely to be called to jury duty, specifically owning a driver's license, being registered to vote, and owning land. These make jury duty non-random in the sense that bias already exists. It varies by county, city, and state as to how these items are weighted (and if they are weighted). On the other hand, depending on where you live, if you skip jury duty, you can lose your license, right to vote, or be fined relatively large amounts of money. I don't see these as bad things, nor do I see the possibility of other future items of bias being bad simply because they cause the jury selection system to be biased. I certainly believe that discussion is warranted before new exceptions are created, but if you want to personally have a say in such, you do have the opportunity to run for office, support local political candidates, participate in local government, and even vote. Some might say that these things are also responsibilities as a US citizen.
Meanwhile, I have to speculate regarding a very different point than the one you responded to because currently jurors are not determined by who has internet access (nor is there any basis for concluding that any direct bias from the juror selection process exists due to use or lack of use of the internet).
IANAL, but you should review your contract law a bit...
Under violation of the implied warranty of merchantability, consumer would be entitled to receiving the money that he spent on the game back, or another copy of the software itself, provided that the problem was in fact a software issue (consumer is SOL if his computer hardware doesn't run the game because system requirements aren't met or if his computer has a virus that isn't provably caused by use of the software). Possibly, if merchant has no replacement copies and consumer has to find a more expensive method of obtaining a working copy, consumer would be entitled to the difference in price from original merchant, provided that the error in consumer's use of software occurred due to something the merchant did. A sealed copy of software from an in person sale or even through the mail is unlikely. If you pay to download, I'm guessing a quick (2 hour) call to customer service, a screenshot of your ip address, and you can download again. Yes, you have to call customer service and talk to someone rationally, not just yell at them while they record you so that they have a defense against your unreasonable lawsuit that you will end up paying court costs for, because you do have an obligation to take steps to remedy your damages in any tort lawsuit (if you get hit by a car, you cannot refuse to go to a doctor and then try to claim medical damages, for example).
Nevermind that the merchant can ignore all of this simply by having a clause (like every merchant) refusing refunds on opened software merchandise. It can only be exchanged for the exact same software, and generally only in a reasonable, time limited window (most places, its 7 days, except for most of California and places that are not in the US). If you don't agree with the store policy, you would not have bought the game from them (implied contracts work both ways).
As for false advertising, you would not be suing the merchant, but rather the publisher (ie, the one who created the advertisement that you unfairly relied upon).
Your lawsuit, by the way, gets thrown out because it has no merit, so the merchant doesn't lose anything except maybe an hour of his monthly contracted sales support staff's time that merchant has to pay for whether you yell at 'someone in [foreign country] who can only read to you from a script' or not.
Serving as a juror is a responsibility as a US citizen, and whatever you get paid for doing so is an honorarium, not a salary. Payments for pain and suffering, on the other hand, are generally settlements for tort liabilites, and the honorarium you receive for completing jury duty is not compensation for completing jury duty. It is so that the normal expenses that you would not otherwise suffer (such as lunch and parking) become a net cost of 0.
News flash - you don't get paid for voting either.
If more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors, I assume it will either have no effect or would improve the ability of jurors to listen to the facts of individual cases, as they are supposed to be doing in determining their verdicts. One of the main purposes of a jury is so that outside influences (such as newspapers, television, and internet) are not influential. It would be more like only people who have not determined their personal stance on the death penalty being allowed on a capital case. If only pro death-penalty (your idea is just stupid) people were allowed on a capital case, the defending lawyer would simply be getting a free shot at getting his client off, because a death verdict would be thrown out pretty much automatically on appeal.
First of all, there are no aliens. Grow up. Furthermore, because this is/., if there were aliens, they wouldn't want earth.
Second, the purchase of tobacco is a personal choice. Tobacco does not kill people. The cumulative effects of burning and ingesting carcinogens over time is linked to death, but quite frankly, KFC kills more than cigarettes. No one chooses to enter a flight that happens to have a bomb on it.
Slashdot Mirror
When I worked at a restaurant, we just clocked in and out by using a pin number. If you forgot to clock in/out, you didn't get paid for that shift. I'm guessing, but it was probably both cheaper and more accurate than a biometric system.
The problem the print division at the NYT faces is that the cost per printed copy is directly dependent on subscription volume. So if folk stop taking the paper copy, they cost to produce it increases - you have all the same costs for typesetting and running a print works, you just saved some cents worth of paper and a blob of ink.
This is true only if the NYT staff really, really sucks at math. The cost to produce the paper version of the NYT is relatively fixed; the income derived from selling the paper version is not. If half of print circulation dissapears (while the cost to produce the paper does not materially change), NYT can make up the lost revenue by selling the online version (note, without the cost of ink and paper) at practically the exact same cost as the paper version. If I can get the paper version for $175 a year, the online version should not cost nearly twice as much. By charging this much, the NYT must believe that for every person who subscribes to the electronic version, 2 people drop their paper.
NYT has missed the window in which they can gouge early adopters. People are used to getting their news for free, from multiple sources, on the internet. If you are going to charge for web content, you have to have something that no one else brings to the market. The WSJ gives subscribers a free physical paper with every online subscription (which includes to the minute updates, sometimes interesting discussions of financial issues, and the ability to ignore non-subscribing spammers on forums). The NYT apparently just wants to offer double the price. Economics was never my strong suit, but I somehow don't think that this will work.
Capitalizing a word in a sentence does not provide emphasis nor does it make the sentence any more accurate when it is wrong.
Following it up the chain, you chose to purchase a service (software, by purchasing a computer that came with an OS; I know from personal experience that you can purchase a computer, working out of the box, without windows for less money than with, with minimal personal effort, much like you can purchase uncooked ingredients from which you will prepare on your own instead of buying prepared meals from a restaurant) and are complaining that you can't sell the benefits of that service. To really let this sink in, you would not hire a tax attorney and them claim that you should be able to resell the service your purchased because the IRS dropped their case against you. NOr would you purchase the services of a tax attorney to complete your return in 2005 and then ask them to represent you on your 2009 return. While they would be required to be responsible for the information you provided for 2005, even in 2009, filing future returns is not required (nor should they be expected).
Much like how you can purchase ingredients, prepare a meal, and resell it, you can purchase computer parts, a software license that you have not activated (eaten), and resell it. You cannot and should not be able to purchase a service, use it, and then resell it. From my previous example, I can't get my car waxed, and then sell the right to a car waxing (even though I can sell the car).
Purchasing software is not just technically not a tax, it is a tax in no way, shape, or form. To claim otherwise is a lie.
I don't follow.
If you bought XP at the release, you got 10 years of free updates. Now, you still get to use it. Your OS is not rented, but if you don't have the newer release, you don't get free updates. How is this renting?
Its not a windows tax, its a purchase of software. Believe it or not, my commodore 64 still works.
If windows was just a picture, it wouldn't work, and no one would buy it. Sarcasm or not (and I assume it must be), there is nothing insightful about your post. Just insulting to logic. I pay my local car wash place to clean and wax my car. Am I paying a polymer tax, or just taking advantage of a service? Just because people choose to pay for unecessary items that they could produce on their own doesn't mean that they were required to buy them or didn't weigh the cost/benefit of purchase vs do it yourself.
I pay a sales tax, income tax, vehicle registration tax, capital gains, currency transactions, but the cost of windows is not a tax.
Your house contractor not contacting you makes sense. You bought the house, they built the front door, contract is complete, no updates are even possible, all work is done. Software doesn't work that way. Your car, on the other hand, validates your ownership every time you turn the key to start it.
A better example would be your car insurance, which provides an intangible service, requiring you to note the VIN of the insured vehicle so that they can note that you still own the vehicle when you make a claim. Much like how Microsoft might verify that you have a license for windows when you call tech support for help.
By your own standards, this ruling by this judge is not surprising, because it has a large amount of direct and historical legal precedent.
I will use an example that in current times, in the US, is largely considered to be illegal. If the internet was in common use around the time of slavery, this judge would have made the ruling that you cannot purchase slaves using the internet in communities that did not allow slavery. The judge would not have ruled that slavery itself was not allowed in other communities. If someone purchase a slave in one community and moved the slave to another community, the seller would not be responsible. If the seller delivered to that community, however, they would be responsible. If you can download slaves, the person(s) downloading are responsible for knowing local standards. If you are getting slaves shipped, the seller is responsible.
Nothing to see here, really. Paul Little, who cannot produce pornography in middle district of florida, is incarcerated only because he distributed through the postal mail, obscene materials, to middle district florida. He can't be arrested in california for it. The reason he is in prison now is because investigators purchased the materials and got them shipped to Florida. If it had only been online, there would not have been such a charge (simple disclaimer, don't download if illegal in your area, just like every website).
Note that I didn't claim the mindset of the United States judicial system was uniqe; simply that it works, depsite differences from state to state. The issue was the phrasing 'made for you,' which is wholly innacurate. If you believe that legal decisions are 'made for you,' then your judicial system is very different than that of the US.
This has never been done, and would not work.
Are you getting child porn in the mail from unknown sources, opening, viewing, and keeping it?
There has never, and will never be a federal or state case where someone gets arrested because someone received spam that may have contained illegal items.
Your ridiculous example has never occurred, and will never occur. Stop spreading lies, some dumb ass might actually believe you.
Presumably, an amish community would never use the internet, therefore they would not find anything on it objectionable.
The judge's ruling, however, simply means that if the amish find something objectionable, they are not permitted to view such a website. The amish community would not be permitted to use such a website (such as for purchasing things from it). The website would be forbidden from selling things or dealing directly with the amish. This is already true for methods that don't involve websites, so the ruling isn't exactly a new concept.
You dumbfucks in [not the US] sure do seem to misinterpret a lot of US legal issues, especially the very concept of how legal decisions are made in the United States. They are not 'made for us' like they are in certain countries that people left explicitly to create the United States. There is a court system here where literally anyone can argue the merits of the validity of any legal issue and a political process where any individual state can overturn any law or create a new one at any time according to the whims of the people (see prohibition, gay marriage); so long as its not a specific item directly mentioned as a federal power (right to assemble, freedom of the speech, etc).
The first point I made was simply to establish your lack of credibility. You placed "loosing" in quotes, meaning that you purposefully chose the incorrect spelling, and thus the incorrect meaning. The meaning of nintendo is not changed by the lack of capitalization. The meaning of loose vs lose is of considerable importance.
It is clear that if I had only made my second point, you would have had no response (instead of acknowledging your error, which you have yet to do). Instead, you turn this into a grammar war, which was not my intent.
Reread my post and get the message, which is that nintendo is correct in asserting that they have lost sales due to criminal activity. Try to stay on topic next time (just because no one else does doesn't mean you can't).
I defined criminal not only in words, but in terms of logic and feelings, under which the man who illegally released materials that he did not have permission to release is a criminal, not matter what basis is used.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether individuals have a right to share things that they actually own. I didn't argue against the right of first sale or claim that you can't cook dinner for your next date because they didnt pay for it.
What the fuck are you doing ranting about words that have never been part of my thought process, never mind what I actually have said?
You need to calm down, use the logic and feelings that you claim I didn't incorporate, and apologize.
The number of copies actually sold is irrelevant. The damages from releasing without having the right to release is the problem.
First of all, nintendo hires good lawyers, who would spell check their complaint, and would complain about losing sales, not "loosing" them (I don't care what part of englandindiaturkmenistan you come from, how the hell do people keep making this error that first graders who are still learning the alphabet wouldn't?). Furthermore, the claim that releasing a game without permission to the general public causes lost sales is about as valid as a claim gets. The fact that none of these sales generated money for nintendo is legally irrelevant; its about the ability to control intangible assets of a corporation. Nintendo's case, to put it in football terms, isn't just a blowout, its GT vs Cumberland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Cumberland_vs._Georgia_Tech_football_game).
You are an idiot.
Crime has many definitions, and there isnt a single one where this man is not a criminal.
There is a legal definition of wrong, misdemeanor, tort, or felony. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.
There is also the moral definition of crime, an offense, serious wrongdoing, sin. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.
There is the dictionary defintion, an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.
Finally, there is the "I didn't graduate from high school, but I tried to," mentally handicapped, how you explain it to a small child when you are a bad parent who hides the real world from their children definition, which simply states that crime is a foolish, senseless, or shameful act. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.
If you happen to have another definition of crime in which this man is not a criminal, you are trying to use a different word.
IANAL, but no, Verizon has not criminally defrauded you. Especially if the contract you signed says that the definition of internet service is ever changing, and subject to that definition that is available at all times of services, provide that you receive notice of all material changes to that service (which it does).
Selling internet service and not delivering the full advertise service is merely breach of contract. This is a civil infraction, which you could sue for only if loss of 4chan access actually damaged you (in which case you could get a refund for all periods in which 4chan was not available and you were materially harmed).
The value of an objective point of view is not that we should discuss the appropriate penalty for robbing a bank with those who keep all of their money hidden under their mattress. Just because you have no knowledge of a subject doesn't mean that you have something of value to add.
Did I just fail to oppose your point by countering your example and implying that your point is invalid? No, I opposed your point by countering your example and implying that your point is invalid. It just seemed like a better idea than claiming that your choices were to accept my view or be wrong.
Reread your posts and check for grammar and logic. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that two posts ago (645 AM), you acknowledged that you should budget properly for possible civic duty (which you misstated as working for free, which, as I have pointed out, is not what jury duty consists of. Jury service is not a volunteer position. I don't see how you could possibly confuse the two). In your most recent post, you claim that either I have to be wrong or jurors have lost earnings (wow, look at how objective that idea is), like getting hit by a truck while driving the company van and getting lost wages while you recover (both choices are fail). Before that, you called the US government (which you don't live under) oppressive for its jury practices, based on your experience of having never lived in the US nor served on a jury.
Well dumb-ass, you only got one thing right; the discussion is over.
"I don't live in the US, nor have I served on a jury."
Good, you have acknowledged that you have no idea what you are talking about. The rest of your post is just stupid.
Its not magical, you idiot. When you sue someone, they by definition have the right to defend themselves, generally a a matter of public record. When you extort someone, they do not get a chance to defend themselves (unless whatever you are trying to extort them with is a lie, in which case if you follow through, they will sue you for slander/defamation of character depending on method and likely make it a matter of public record that you have committed a crime). There is a huge difference.
Yes, but you would need some sort of proof of having taken the course, with the ability to stop those who had not taken the course from using the internet. No, wait, that would be some form of internet license...
I'm guessing that you either don't live in the US or have never served on a jury, but your overall hatred of the US judicial system makes me wonder if your personal psychological issues might be getting in the way of logic.
Legally, your electricity cannot be turned off because you miss one or two payments. If you accumulate enough debt on heat, you are going to have to put a deposit down to keep your heat on, but I can assure you that if your finances put you in that situation, jury duty is not going to be the cause.
I will state as a point of fact, and not of speculation, that at no point in time, has anyone, ever, in the history of US trials, told their children that christmas presents are an entitlement and that jury service has prevented their children from receiving such an entitlement. If I'm wrong, I am personally embarrassed for how improperly they have raised their children. Furthermore, if you are going to put any non-necessity up on a pedestal, you have to budget for it. If you are going to pretend that christmas presents/vacation in a foreign country/ car payments higher than rent payments/etc are more important that food and shelter, you damn well better start saving for them before November.
No judge has ever allowed a multi-month trial to occur without asking every prospective juror if there are any reasons that they would be unable to fulfill the duty of jury service. At this point, a juror could point out that he/she would be financially unable to do so because they would not be able to pay their rent.
The disjoint in the thinking occurs when you assume that a desire to reduce costs for either the general public (through a general taxation method that would be a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars) or those involved in litigation is related to why we have trials with juries. The purpose of a jury is to provide an impartial finder of fact (ie, was a law broken). The purpose of a judge, in contrast, is to interperate the law and instruct the jury as to such.
We do not have an oppressive government; we have the government that we have chosen for ourselves. This is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Society has determined that part of living in this country and reaping its benefits (such as laws, public utilities, roads, and a general sense of order) has a cost, which includes taxes and public service (including jury duty). You aren't "working for free" so much as not being a fucking mooch, you asinine, worthless piece of shit. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The least imposing jury duty experience involves showing up, waiting for your name to be called, not having it be called, and going back to work. It takes about 30 minutes. The worst imaginable work experience is choosing to vote after work because you have too much to do, getting to the line at the polls at 7 when they close at midnight, and getting to vote at 1159 PM when your candidate is down 10%. This is much, much worse than the vast majority of jury duty experiences.
Your exemption based on profession still required effort on your behalf; you had to file a written application for exemption and receive a certificate of exemption to be certain that you are formally released from attendance in the event of selection of jury service.
I suppose the "real world" can ignore the realm of law, except of course in a court of law, where it applies and by default would exist when conducting jury duty. Do you live in some fantasy "real world" where the realm of law doesn't apply? Next time you get a speeding ticket, try to tell a judge that you live in the "real world" and see how much of your court costs get removed. I assume your profession does not Personally, I live in a real world where law actually applies.
I will ignore the absurdity of asking why minors are not allowed on juries (although, if you read the question aloud, you will not hat parents or guardians of minors are responsible for the actions of minors). As for why we have age requirements for public office, ask the framers of the constitution of the United States(as well as the drafters of individual state constitutions). There are 6 states that have no age qualification, so if you have a real issue with this, move to one of those or use the legal system to try and change that. James Madison argued that 30 be the age required in order to serve in the US Senate. George Mason pointed out that 21 year olds did not possess sufficient maturity to serve in the House, as their political beliefs were "too crude and erroneous to merit an influence on public opinions" (1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787). While the legal requirement for President of the US is 35, our youngest president was 43 when sworn in.
I didn't claim that only old people have stupid ideas; rather that old people are less likely to change them.
You do realize that both cases you mention, in which someone took multiple hours to vote, and jury trials that last longer than a day, are outliers, and certainly not the expectation. Most of the time, even when juries are picked, cases are settled out of court (often, explicitly because a jury has been picked).
Once you are picked for a jury, there is no imposition on you until the trial date begins, so there is no interference on the time between being chosen and serving.
You say you would give up a few weeks every year for jury duty once you retire, but when is that? Do we set a required age at which you are considered to be retired, even if you are working? Additionally, do you really believe that age has anything to do with ability when it comes to being a member of a jury?
An an invalid note, while you might believe that you would enjoy spending your retirement with a required automatic jury service, you might not feel that way when you actually retire. Maybe you will want to travel in winter, when your required 5 week service occurs. G-d forbid maybe you will do something with your retirement, and won't have nothing better to do. Much more importantly, the views of people who are of all ages, and not just those who collect social security, creates a much more unbiased jury than that of just those who have a lifetime of accumulated racism, regret, and built up hatred of jury duty. Some of us younger folk don't hate everyone and everything yet, or haven't been stuck in our views of how to interperate laws for 50 years.
A solution for bias that cannot be removed through random sampling cannot be biased sampling.
What?
Your response, for the most part, does not make sense.
Name one person who has ever starved to death or lost their home because of jury duty.
I don't believe whining can exist on an internet forum, and that you have misinterpreted the tone of my points.
Lawyers provide service to a client. If you think that such a service is too expensive, shop around. You can probably find a lawyer who doesn't charge a thing unless they win the case. You can also find one who charges upfront, and is much likely to win. Assuming one person makes exactly 1,000,000 annually on a jury, and the rest make nothing, and that trial lasts for one day, the cost of jury member's salaries would be $500 (assumes 2000 hour work year and 8 hour day on week schedule with 2 weeks vacation). If instead, the combined salary of everyone on the jury is half of that (a couple people make a couple hundred grand, the rest are unemployed), and the trial lasts 3 days, the cost would be $750. If you are filing a lawsuit over nonpayment of contract fees for 5 grand, that's a significant portion of your cost, that gets incurred whether or not your case actually goes to trial. Nevermind the absurd cost of 95% of potential jurors who just get called in and don't actually have to show up at the trial.
I don't understand your next sentence, because it is factually incorrect (as for bias...axe tp grind).
The next point was to explain why most of the time, employers are not required to pay employees for time spent on a jury. Generally, if a court case is expected to take a long time, everyone involved knows well in advance, and employees chosen as jurors are given time to either take a leave of abscence or delay their jury until such time that they are available to do so. No one serves on a jury and works a salaried position afterwards on the same day, don't be absurd.
Employers are legally required to allow employees the opportunity to vote, even it means they cannot work while they do so. They are not required to pay hourly workers for time missed voting. Salaried workers still have to get their work done, even if they take time off to vote. My analogy is valid.
Your employer is not legally required to pay you while you perform jury duty (depending on where you live, they may be required to pay for 5 days, unless your employment agreement states otherwise, but most people don't live in California or New Jersey). Preserving your income is irrelevant. This is done to avoid bias because courts costs would skyrocket and professionals would almost never be chosen due to the cost. You would not want to make it impossible to try to file a lawsuit because one of the randomly chosen jurors happens to make 7 figures.
Meanwhile, if you work on salary, you are obligated to get your job done. If you are a contractor, you may include a clause that allows for time extensions in the event that you are unable to conduct the requirements of a contract, and your employer has the right to accept those clauses or reject you as a contractor. Hourly workers cannot be pressured to work without pay under any circumstances. If you lose hours permanently due to jury duty service, I'm guessing you probably had other issues with the position to begin with, and might perhaps be better off working somewhere else anyway.
Jury duty is a random selection of eligible citzens. If society would be better off by not having you perform your responsibility (for example, if jury duty occurs during a previously scheduled open heart surgery that you will be conducting), you can get it rescheduled, not excepted. Jury duty can only be waived in very specific circumstances that cause one to be ineligible; such as mental disability.
Currently, there are things that make one more likely to be called to jury duty, specifically owning a driver's license, being registered to vote, and owning land. These make jury duty non-random in the sense that bias already exists. It varies by county, city, and state as to how these items are weighted (and if they are weighted). On the other hand, depending on where you live, if you skip jury duty, you can lose your license, right to vote, or be fined relatively large amounts of money. I don't see these as bad things, nor do I see the possibility of other future items of bias being bad simply because they cause the jury selection system to be biased. I certainly believe that discussion is warranted before new exceptions are created, but if you want to personally have a say in such, you do have the opportunity to run for office, support local political candidates, participate in local government, and even vote. Some might say that these things are also responsibilities as a US citizen.
Meanwhile, I have to speculate regarding a very different point than the one you responded to because currently jurors are not determined by who has internet access (nor is there any basis for concluding that any direct bias from the juror selection process exists due to use or lack of use of the internet).
IANAL, but you should review your contract law a bit...
Under violation of the implied warranty of merchantability, consumer would be entitled to receiving the money that he spent on the game back, or another copy of the software itself, provided that the problem was in fact a software issue (consumer is SOL if his computer hardware doesn't run the game because system requirements aren't met or if his computer has a virus that isn't provably caused by use of the software). Possibly, if merchant has no replacement copies and consumer has to find a more expensive method of obtaining a working copy, consumer would be entitled to the difference in price from original merchant, provided that the error in consumer's use of software occurred due to something the merchant did. A sealed copy of software from an in person sale or even through the mail is unlikely. If you pay to download, I'm guessing a quick (2 hour) call to customer service, a screenshot of your ip address, and you can download again. Yes, you have to call customer service and talk to someone rationally, not just yell at them while they record you so that they have a defense against your unreasonable lawsuit that you will end up paying court costs for, because you do have an obligation to take steps to remedy your damages in any tort lawsuit (if you get hit by a car, you cannot refuse to go to a doctor and then try to claim medical damages, for example).
Nevermind that the merchant can ignore all of this simply by having a clause (like every merchant) refusing refunds on opened software merchandise. It can only be exchanged for the exact same software, and generally only in a reasonable, time limited window (most places, its 7 days, except for most of California and places that are not in the US). If you don't agree with the store policy, you would not have bought the game from them (implied contracts work both ways).
As for false advertising, you would not be suing the merchant, but rather the publisher (ie, the one who created the advertisement that you unfairly relied upon).
Your lawsuit, by the way, gets thrown out because it has no merit, so the merchant doesn't lose anything except maybe an hour of his monthly contracted sales support staff's time that merchant has to pay for whether you yell at 'someone in [foreign country] who can only read to you from a script' or not.
Serving as a juror is a responsibility as a US citizen, and whatever you get paid for doing so is an honorarium, not a salary. Payments for pain and suffering, on the other hand, are generally settlements for tort liabilites, and the honorarium you receive for completing jury duty is not compensation for completing jury duty. It is so that the normal expenses that you would not otherwise suffer (such as lunch and parking) become a net cost of 0.
News flash - you don't get paid for voting either.
If more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors, I assume it will either have no effect or would improve the ability of jurors to listen to the facts of individual cases, as they are supposed to be doing in determining their verdicts. One of the main purposes of a jury is so that outside influences (such as newspapers, television, and internet) are not influential. It would be more like only people who have not determined their personal stance on the death penalty being allowed on a capital case. If only pro death-penalty (your idea is just stupid) people were allowed on a capital case, the defending lawyer would simply be getting a free shot at getting his client off, because a death verdict would be thrown out pretty much automatically on appeal.
First of all, there are no aliens. Grow up. Furthermore, because this is /., if there were aliens, they wouldn't want earth.
Second, the purchase of tobacco is a personal choice. Tobacco does not kill people. The cumulative effects of burning and ingesting carcinogens over time is linked to death, but quite frankly, KFC kills more than cigarettes. No one chooses to enter a flight that happens to have a bomb on it.
Also, its billions, not millions.