In fact (and to my very great surprise) that particular Olympics was particularly frugal. For example
The Olympic Velodrome and the Olympic Swim Stadium, funded largely by the 7-Eleven and McDonald's corporations respectively, were the only two new venues constructed specifically for the L.A. Games.
And ultimately, the best point made in the whole pissing contest essentially said as follows
"I don't care who did it first. I only care who made it something we can actually use, and that it resemble it's present form. That's enough for me to call someone the "Father of" something."
When incrementalism is more common than outright innovation, it's kind of silly to even care about who the father of something is.
...and if the people who build extremely important parts of those "weapons capable of killing millions" can't even send those parts to the correct part of the world, it is a worrying display of incompetence.
No, not even a little. Rocket motors are an extremely important part of those weapons, and it wouldn't be a big deal if some got mishandled.
Servo motors are an extremely important part of those weapons, and it wouldn't be a big deal if they got mishandled.
This is not a big deal either.
Lastly, the people who build them are not the same as the people who ship them. You don't even have the blame in the right place for this nothing, insignificant story.
Apple sends you the software, that if you install on a Windows box, will violate it's own EULA.
They're giving you something that, when you use it for the purposes Apple would like you to, still violates it's own EULA.
If there was then surely Apple are in the 'clear', as you can run Windows on an Apple and so it's not their fault that you installed something that you shouldn't technically have done.
No. They sent it to ME, I did not request it. I did not ask for it, it was part of the iTunes update, which was a decision on Apple's part.
Now, I'm not "blaming" Apple for anything, because it's just a silly oversight, but they screwed up by sending it to people who neither requested it nor were able to use it legally.
"ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), is a United States contract case involving a "shrink wrap license". The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."
They've been held up in court. The issue isn't totally decided, with other cases dealing with more specific issues, but your "nah nah nah MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB nah nah nah" fingers in the ears stance may not be legally prudent.
"The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs."
I got Safari as part of the iTunes update. I have a non-Apple Windows machine, running Safari. They basically forced the software on me, and the EULA says I can't use it.
You're assuming they aren't affected by saying "at least, that is if the study was done correctly". That's like saying, "it's impossible to burn a pizza, at least, that is if the pizza was baked correctly".
No, and this stems from your lack of understanding of the research process.
"The people who fund a study can affect whether the study is done correctly. "
No, they cannot. Again, this stem from your ignorance regarding the research process, they can affect the interpretation of data, but not whether it is done correctly.
Vioxx and the status of Iraq's WMDs are two examples of this that spring to mind instantly.
And are two examples that fail.
Please educate yourself on this subject, you're not well versed enough to even ask the correct questions, much less engage in an intelligent discussion.
It's hypocritical for representatives of the US government to lambaste other countries for WTO "violations", when the US Government turns a blind eye to infringement happening in their own country.
Of course it is, and politicians are hypocritical. What are you, new or something?
Either the US government is for strict interpretation and enforcement or it's not. Pick one.
This response just in from the US, "No." Seriously though, the US is for what's best for the people in power, they already picked that one, and I think they like the choice they made a lot better than the false dichotomy you offer.
Can be verified, so who paid for the study doesn't matter. Also
All those "ifs" are affected by people involved
No, they are not. The procedures are verifiable and standardized, the data is verifiable, and the logic, is well, logic. They are not, as you claim, in any way "affected" by the people involved. At least, that is if the the study was done correctly, which can also be verified.
This nonsensical "who paid for it" ad hominem (yes it's an ad hominem attack) is a cheap way to avoid discussing the uncomfortable conclusions of a study, but is only employed by people who don't have the slightest idea how to do actual research.
It could be something to do with the utter incompetence displayed by people handling weapons capable of killing millions and what are meant to be amongst our country's most closely guarded technology. So I think it's pretty obvious why the mainstream news outlets reported it.
You and I must have read a different story, because the one we are all discussing is about electrical fuses, not "weapons capable of killing millions".
There is strong belief that the Dali Lama was an illegitimate monarch who enslaved his people. And it's fascinating how the West and China see him so completely differently. Cruel dictator? The Dali Lama? Surely not.
This made me do a double take. The first thing I thought was "NO f-ing way! The Dalai Lama?" but then I tried to see it from the perspective of a Chinese national. That led me to wonder, does she know that most of the world finds the Chinese government's explanations... untrustworthy?
But, likewise, it would also be stupid for me, personally, to throw away my future to be a single data point in the fight against big corporations.
I would call it "standing up for what is right". In that context, is it really so stupid?
I don't like saying this, but faced between surrendering, even if I was in the right, and losing everything I've worked for this last 15 years, I wouldn't even hesitate.
I understand that you're afraid, this is just a person difference between you and me. In this case, however, I have to ask, what good is money if you've sold your principles? It's possible that you could retire with a clear conscience, but I would have a very hard time living with myself knowing that I admitted guilt that didn't exist, and worse, not trying to prevent others from being similarly abused.
Again, it's simply a difference in values, you value the wealth you have and the comfort you've acquired, I view my wealth (HAH!) as a tool I use to live my life by the principles I believe in and in the manner I choose.
A serious question, what good is all that wealth if you're not willing to use it to protect yourself? Don't you see the slippery slope there?
All i can say (not knowing the ins and out of the legal systems from around the world) is that "loser pays" seems to work well in most places, and the US legal system is a laughing stock and has been for years. In light of that, I have to believe that most of the objections you raised have solutions.
Ultimately, one thing certain. Loser pays exists, and the problems you expect from a loser pays system don't seem to hinder the system. Long term success is a much stronger argument than "hypothetical scenario x" in my opinion.
You're applying some of the "American" style civil law to a "losr pays" system. Any system that went to a "loser pays" format would inevitably shift the responsibility of the court to the review of attorney's fees, in order to prevent the abuses you are concerned about.
That, in fact, is exactly what happens in most of the rest of the world, and lawsuits seem to go on just fine.
A common fear about loser-pays is that the side who loses a routine dispute will get handed a bill for 10,000 hours from Cravath, Swaine & Moore. But European courts are well aware of the danger that successful litigants will overinvest in their cases and gold-plate their fee requests. They carefully control the process to prevent that danger, giving the losing side a full chance to dispute a fee award, requiring that work be reasonable and necessary, providing that elite lawyer rates not be paid if a Main Street lawyer could have done the job, and so forth.
The fact that loser pays works virtually everywhere else really calls into question the validity of most anti-loser pays arguments.
If any of what you claim in your post were true, then we wouldn't see lawsuits in "loser pays" countries (which is essentially, the whole civilized world apart from the US and a few other countries).
Since we do see lawsuits in "loser pays" countries, the only logical conclusion is that your post is incorrect about the consequences of a loser pays system.
I know that we sometimes like to argue points based on hypotheticals, as you have, but the counter to your hypotheticals is a ream of data from courts from around the world. Data > supposition, in my opinion at least.
And hiring a lawyer to fight a lawsuit which would be cheaper to settle is fiscally irresponsible.
How so? I consider the protection of my reputation to be worth something. I also consider my personal freedom to be worth something. If I have the money, there's nothing "fiscally irresponsible" about using it for something I consider important.
If you were told that with 20k you could protect a large portion of the population from future abuse, would you do it? I have ot think, based on your post, you would rather pay 2k to protect yourself instead. Am I wrong?
A common fear about loser-pays is that the side who loses a routine dispute will get handed a bill for 10,000 hours from Cravath, Swaine & Moore. But European courts are well aware of the danger that successful litigants will overinvest in their cases and gold-plate their fee requests. They carefully control the process to prevent that danger, giving the losing side a full chance to dispute a fee award, requiring that work be reasonable and necessary, providing that elite lawyer rates not be paid if a Main Street lawyer could have done the job, and so forth.
The court (and I'm not European, so some clarification would help) reviews the billing and allows the loser to challenge the costs. Since loser pays is prevalent in Europe, and people sue "IBM, MS, or whoever" in Europe, I'd have to say it works well enough.
There isn't any incentive for the defendant to fight back against frivolous copyright infringement lawsuits.
I would think not paying a single red cent for something you didn't do would be quite the incentive. I must be frank, if you are right and you know it, you have a duty to fight. Rolling over because it's easy is both personally and socially irresponsible, and the fear of personal bankruptcy isn't one that would deter me. YMMV.
The proposed merger faces scrutiny by the Federal Communications Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Justice and possibly other federal organizations. The FCC also poses a major hurdle: when the satellite radio service was first created by the FCC, one of the licensing conditions was that one company could never own both satellite radio licenses.
They are restricted from having both licenses. The agreement does not, as you claim, say that "no merger would be tolerated."
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics#Los_Angeles_as_host_city
In fact (and to my very great surprise) that particular Olympics was particularly frugal. For example
And ultimately, the best point made in the whole pissing contest essentially said as follows
"I don't care who did it first. I only care who made it something we can actually use, and that it resemble it's present form. That's enough for me to call someone the "Father of" something."
When incrementalism is more common than outright innovation, it's kind of silly to even care about who the father of something is.
It's difficult to claim this is a working system when one of the main requirements is missing.
No, not even a little. Rocket motors are an extremely important part of those weapons, and it wouldn't be a big deal if some got mishandled.
Servo motors are an extremely important part of those weapons, and it wouldn't be a big deal if they got mishandled.
This is not a big deal either.
Lastly, the people who build them are not the same as the people who ship them. You don't even have the blame in the right place for this nothing, insignificant story.
Why even offer it if it's illegal for me to use it? Jeez you fanboys...
Apple sends you the software, that if you install on a Windows box, will violate it's own EULA.
They're giving you something that, when you use it for the purposes Apple would like you to, still violates it's own EULA.
No. They sent it to ME, I did not request it. I did not ask for it, it was part of the iTunes update, which was a decision on Apple's part.
Now, I'm not "blaming" Apple for anything, because it's just a silly oversight, but they screwed up by sending it to people who neither requested it nor were able to use it legally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg
"ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), is a United States contract case involving a "shrink wrap license". The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."
They've been held up in court. The issue isn't totally decided, with other cases dealing with more specific issues, but your "nah nah nah MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB nah nah nah" fingers in the ears stance may not be legally prudent.
I got Safari as part of the iTunes update. I have a non-Apple Windows machine, running Safari. They basically forced the software on me, and the EULA says I can't use it.
Does that answer your question?
No I am not. You have misused that phrase
No, and this stems from your lack of understanding of the research process.
"The people who fund a study can affect whether the study is done correctly. "
No, they cannot. Again, this stem from your ignorance regarding the research process, they can affect the interpretation of data, but not whether it is done correctly.
And are two examples that fail.
Please educate yourself on this subject, you're not well versed enough to even ask the correct questions, much less engage in an intelligent discussion.
Of course it is, and politicians are hypocritical. What are you, new or something?
This response just in from the US, "No." Seriously though, the US is for what's best for the people in power, they already picked that one, and I think they like the choice they made a lot better than the false dichotomy you offer.
Can be verified, so who paid for the study doesn't matter. Also
No, they are not. The procedures are verifiable and standardized, the data is verifiable, and the logic, is well, logic. They are not, as you claim, in any way "affected" by the people involved. At least, that is if the the study was done correctly, which can also be verified.
This nonsensical "who paid for it" ad hominem (yes it's an ad hominem attack) is a cheap way to avoid discussing the uncomfortable conclusions of a study, but is only employed by people who don't have the slightest idea how to do actual research.
You and I must have read a different story, because the one we are all discussing is about electrical fuses, not "weapons capable of killing millions".
This made me do a double take. The first thing I thought was "NO f-ing way! The Dalai Lama?" but then I tried to see it from the perspective of a Chinese national. That led me to wonder, does she know that most of the world finds the Chinese government's explanations... untrustworthy?
And what is her reaction to that?
And many don't, yet still have a working loser pays system. This is an insignificant objection.
Quick, someone tell these people they don't exist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1#Software
I would call it "standing up for what is right". In that context, is it really so stupid?
I understand that you're afraid, this is just a person difference between you and me. In this case, however, I have to ask, what good is money if you've sold your principles? It's possible that you could retire with a clear conscience, but I would have a very hard time living with myself knowing that I admitted guilt that didn't exist, and worse, not trying to prevent others from being similarly abused.
Again, it's simply a difference in values, you value the wealth you have and the comfort you've acquired, I view my wealth (HAH!) as a tool I use to live my life by the principles I believe in and in the manner I choose.
A serious question, what good is all that wealth if you're not willing to use it to protect yourself? Don't you see the slippery slope there?
All i can say (not knowing the ins and out of the legal systems from around the world) is that "loser pays" seems to work well in most places, and the US legal system is a laughing stock and has been for years. In light of that, I have to believe that most of the objections you raised have solutions.
Ultimately, one thing certain. Loser pays exists, and the problems you expect from a loser pays system don't seem to hinder the system. Long term success is a much stronger argument than "hypothetical scenario x" in my opinion.
That, in fact, is exactly what happens in most of the rest of the world, and lawsuits seem to go on just fine.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29696.html [reason.com]
The fact that loser pays works virtually everywhere else really calls into question the validity of most anti-loser pays arguments.
http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/overview.php
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29696.html
If any of what you claim in your post were true, then we wouldn't see lawsuits in "loser pays" countries (which is essentially, the whole civilized world apart from the US and a few other countries).
Since we do see lawsuits in "loser pays" countries, the only logical conclusion is that your post is incorrect about the consequences of a loser pays system.
I know that we sometimes like to argue points based on hypotheticals, as you have, but the counter to your hypotheticals is a ream of data from courts from around the world. Data > supposition, in my opinion at least.
How so? I consider the protection of my reputation to be worth something. I also consider my personal freedom to be worth something. If I have the money, there's nothing "fiscally irresponsible" about using it for something I consider important.
If you were told that with 20k you could protect a large portion of the population from future abuse, would you do it? I have ot think, based on your post, you would rather pay 2k to protect yourself instead. Am I wrong?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29696.html
The court (and I'm not European, so some clarification would help) reviews the billing and allows the loser to challenge the costs. Since loser pays is prevalent in Europe, and people sue "IBM, MS, or whoever" in Europe, I'd have to say it works well enough.
As long as it's enacted for criminal law too.
I would think not paying a single red cent for something you didn't do would be quite the incentive. I must be frank, if you are right and you know it, you have a duty to fight. Rolling over because it's easy is both personally and socially irresponsible, and the fear of personal bankruptcy isn't one that would deter me. YMMV.
And the new AIs will be powered by fusion, and will drive my flying car for me.
That is not accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM/Sirius_merger
They are restricted from having both licenses. The agreement does not, as you claim, say that "no merger would be tolerated."