So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint.
Not so much. The judge merely established a baseline in an offhand comment. The judge never said that if the content were worse than what is seen on TV then the game could be banned. It's also easy to argue that network TV restrictions are tighter than what could be reasonably expected for games. Television decency occurs because networks ceded First Amendment rights in exchange for a piece of the public airwaves, which are regulated by the FCC. Cable TV, for example, has no similar restrictions, and privately traded games are unlikely to be held to the same standards either.
The article doesn't say whether he was supposed to have access to the documents during the normal course of his job. There's always a problem with trying to pass judgement on cases reported in the news without having all of the relevant facts.
So let me get this straight. His "crime" was the fact he alert people to the fact that the local elections were flawed due to the use of uncertified equipment? Is it their argument that because of this people might have disengaged from local politics and that hurts society and thus requires punishment? That's not just absurd, it's scarey.
No, he's accused of illegally accessing confidential information from a computer. An analogous case might be if your neighbor suspected you of criminal activity and broke into your house to find evidence. The evidence might pan out, but that doesn't excuse the B&E.
You almost had it. Google's ownership of copyrights actually does allow them to set the terms that they have. You can use their service however you see fit for the most part, but you can't COPY (or rebroadcast, or make a derivative work from, etc.) the information except under the rights they grant. It's not a contract; it's a license. It's the same mechanism the GPL uses to restrict what can be done with GPL-licensed software.
95% of software development problems would be solved by having good, descriptive, well thought out specs.
If you ever see one of these let me know.
Re:SCO v. DaimlerChrysler case is closed
on
SCO Targets UK Firms
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Almost closed. The judge dismissed the case, but without prejudice, meaning that SCO does have the option to try again on the same matter. However, the judge ordered that if they DO try to file another suit over the matter they will have to pay all of DC's legal costs for the previous litigation. Basically, regardless of what SCO does DC will only have to pay the costs for one case.
that's bullshit. my tax dollars hard at work and yet i'm not able to see what's going on?
Just because you are nosy doesn't mean you have the right to know other people's business. Courts generally make as much information available to the public as is reasonable, but the litigants' interest has to balanced with the public's. After all, it's the litigants that usually have the most at stake. There's no good reason that some poor soul blindsided with a lawsuit should automatically have all of his private matters made public.
If you believe that then you are not familiar with the facts of the case. I suggest reading up on them before casting blame on the plaintiff. Consider, at least, that the jury that DID hear all of the facts unanimously found for the plaintiff. People don't like frivolous lawsuits, and McDonalds could probably afford better lawyers than she, so please don't blame the award on the gullibility of juries in the face of slick lawyerin'.
It seems to be a common problem in high-concept sci-fi. From IMDB:
Continuity: Criswell's opening narration begins: "Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future." A moment later, though, he is placing the same events in the past, telling how "what happened on that fateful day" must no longer be kept secret.
Except that it is the job of the judiciary to intervene if legislation oversteps the power granted to the legislature. The MA court did not specifically legalize gay marriage. What it did was reject, on Constitutional grounds, a law banning gay marriage. It's a fine point, but an important one. It's part of the system of checks and balances. There are more checks and balances--the US Supreme Court can still override them on appeal.
For example, because water often comes from rivers, and rivers cross state boundaries. California's water consumption is of significant importance to those of us in Arizona.
The article has nothing to do with whether you get a lawyer as a defendant in a criminal trial (and you most assuredly are not _entitled_ to a lawyer otherwise). The only question is whether a private agency has an obligation to make it easy for you to be your own lawyer.
That's one reason attorneys get to demand the big bucks. There's a tremendous volume of case law and statutes which must be researched for any case. All that work has to be compensated somehow unless you want to do it yourself.
What Lexis-Nexus and WestLaw have done is collate and cross-reference this incredible volume of data. Why shouldn't they be compensated for performing an immensely useful service by the people who use the service?
If you want to see prohibitive expense, imagine what it would take to accumulate a law library with all of this information in print.
It is your right to represent yourself, but there's no law that says that effective lawyerin' has to be easy or cheap.
No. However, he presumably signed some contract with the law firm which would prohibit him from revealing client secrets. That would be grounds for a civil suit against him brought by the law firm. If the lawyer(s) in question didn't take reasonable steps to keep the documents out of the public eye, then they would be violating attorney-client privilege and could be censured and sued by the DirecTV folks.
Blocking IR is the easy part. The problem is that your blocking substance would eventually heat up, and then would itself start emitting IR. Waste heat is a problem with no known easy solution because of the laws of thermodynamics. A human body generates heat, and that heat energy has to go somewhere. Generally it gets emitted as IR.
What you'd need is not so much an IR blocker (though it would have to do that as well), but something that can absorb a lot of heat without changing temperature much. You can't actually get around the fact that a garment made of such a substance would eventually heat up to something close to human body temperature, but you can at least delay the effect. To the best of my knowledge, we're nowhere near being able to do this with current technology.
I'm behind a (Microsoft-made) firewall here at work. The only thing that's supposed to go through is web traffic. In practice, though, what makes it through is pretty much any internet traffic originating on my system from a Microsoft program (e.g., Mozilla doesn't work, even when set up with the same proxy settings as IE, Media Player has no problem downloading content, etc.). Microsoft has the technical means to send whatever it likes to my system through periodic checks made by the client. I could probably figure out what to disable, but what about the average user?
Slashdot Mirror
IBM's lawyers moonlight for the RIAA?
So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint.
Not so much. The judge merely established a baseline in an offhand comment. The judge never said that if the content were worse than what is seen on TV then the game could be banned. It's also easy to argue that network TV restrictions are tighter than what could be reasonably expected for games. Television decency occurs because networks ceded First Amendment rights in exchange for a piece of the public airwaves, which are regulated by the FCC. Cable TV, for example, has no similar restrictions, and privately traded games are unlikely to be held to the same standards either.
Mechanical Investing, thankyouverymuch.
The article doesn't say whether he was supposed to have access to the documents during the normal course of his job. There's always a problem with trying to pass judgement on cases reported in the news without having all of the relevant facts.
So let me get this straight. His "crime" was the fact he alert people to the fact that the local elections were flawed due to the use of uncertified equipment? Is it their argument that because of this people might have disengaged from local politics and that hurts society and thus requires punishment? That's not just absurd, it's scarey.
No, he's accused of illegally accessing confidential information from a computer. An analogous case might be if your neighbor suspected you of criminal activity and broke into your house to find evidence. The evidence might pan out, but that doesn't excuse the B&E.
Which licenses its technology from Toyota.
You almost had it. Google's ownership of copyrights actually does allow them to set the terms that they have. You can use their service however you see fit for the most part, but you can't COPY (or rebroadcast, or make a derivative work from, etc.) the information except under the rights they grant. It's not a contract; it's a license. It's the same mechanism the GPL uses to restrict what can be done with GPL-licensed software.
95% of software development problems would be solved by having good, descriptive, well thought out specs.
If you ever see one of these let me know.
Almost closed. The judge dismissed the case, but without prejudice, meaning that SCO does have the option to try again on the same matter. However, the judge ordered that if they DO try to file another suit over the matter they will have to pay all of DC's legal costs for the previous litigation. Basically, regardless of what SCO does DC will only have to pay the costs for one case.
that's bullshit. my tax dollars hard at work and yet i'm not able to see what's going on?
Just because you are nosy doesn't mean you have the right to know other people's business. Courts generally make as much information available to the public as is reasonable, but the litigants' interest has to balanced with the public's. After all, it's the litigants that usually have the most at stake. There's no good reason that some poor soul blindsided with a lawsuit should automatically have all of his private matters made public.
What was your experience with the editor of 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of D&D?
If you believe that then you are not familiar with the facts of the case. I suggest reading up on them before casting blame on the plaintiff. Consider, at least, that the jury that DID hear all of the facts unanimously found for the plaintiff. People don't like frivolous lawsuits, and McDonalds could probably afford better lawyers than she, so please don't blame the award on the gullibility of juries in the face of slick lawyerin'.
The chain doesn't necessarily end there. If the plant or animal matter goes back into the ground uneaten, you wind up with fossil fuels again.
Anyone remembers DirectX? Oh wait...
Except that it is the job of the judiciary to intervene if legislation oversteps the power granted to the legislature. The MA court did not specifically legalize gay marriage. What it did was reject, on Constitutional grounds, a law banning gay marriage. It's a fine point, but an important one. It's part of the system of checks and balances. There are more checks and balances--the US Supreme Court can still override them on appeal.
For example, because water often comes from rivers, and rivers cross state boundaries. California's water consumption is of significant importance to those of us in Arizona.
It's a meaningless question if one obeys the standard and the other does not.
The article has nothing to do with whether you get a lawyer as a defendant in a criminal trial (and you most assuredly are not _entitled_ to a lawyer otherwise). The only question is whether a private agency has an obligation to make it easy for you to be your own lawyer.
So you're saying then that only rich people should have access to an effective lawyer?
Put it this way. Most of the freeway system is freely available for anybody to use. Does that mean that everybody is entitled to a free car?
That's one reason attorneys get to demand the big bucks. There's a tremendous volume of case law and statutes which must be researched for any case. All that work has to be compensated somehow unless you want to do it yourself.
What Lexis-Nexus and WestLaw have done is collate and cross-reference this incredible volume of data. Why shouldn't they be compensated for performing an immensely useful service by the people who use the service?
If you want to see prohibitive expense, imagine what it would take to accumulate a law library with all of this information in print.
It is your right to represent yourself, but there's no law that says that effective lawyerin' has to be easy or cheap.
No. However, he presumably signed some contract with the law firm which would prohibit him from revealing client secrets. That would be grounds for a civil suit against him brought by the law firm. If the lawyer(s) in question didn't take reasonable steps to keep the documents out of the public eye, then they would be violating attorney-client privilege and could be censured and sued by the DirecTV folks.
Could the prosecutors claim the judge was biased and interfered, and demand a retrial?
Nope. You can't be retried for a crime if you've already been acquitted. Thank you, Bill of Rights.
Blocking IR is the easy part. The problem is that your blocking substance would eventually heat up, and then would itself start emitting IR. Waste heat is a problem with no known easy solution because of the laws of thermodynamics. A human body generates heat, and that heat energy has to go somewhere. Generally it gets emitted as IR.
What you'd need is not so much an IR blocker (though it would have to do that as well), but something that can absorb a lot of heat without changing temperature much. You can't actually get around the fact that a garment made of such a substance would eventually heat up to something close to human body temperature, but you can at least delay the effect. To the best of my knowledge, we're nowhere near being able to do this with current technology.
I'm behind a (Microsoft-made) firewall here at work. The only thing that's supposed to go through is web traffic. In practice, though, what makes it through is pretty much any internet traffic originating on my system from a Microsoft program (e.g., Mozilla doesn't work, even when set up with the same proxy settings as IE, Media Player has no problem downloading content, etc.). Microsoft has the technical means to send whatever it likes to my system through periodic checks made by the client. I could probably figure out what to disable, but what about the average user?