I don't think you're in the minority here. People on Slashdot have been complaining about stupid eye candy, cut scenes, intro movies, crappy franchise games, DRM and general lack of creativity in games for ages.
But people on slashdot also usually add an "I'm in the minority here" before endorsing the most popular viewpoint.
Kudos to the people who came up with this idea. Now if we only had a free way to search case law. You can access the current Federal and State statues from the relevant Government websites but you have no easy way to do the same for case law, which is at least as important under our legal system. Most of the services to do this are paid ones (Lexis Nexis), I've yet to come across a decent free one.
It's not generally scanned by the court, the parties file their documents with the court by uploading them to a related system, CM/ECF. I think the charges are more for the cost of hosting. Searches are free, and downloading documents costs about 8 cents a page, which I don't think is unreasonable.
Speaking as a lawyer who spends an inordinate amount of time going through multiple PACER systems to download filings, this is good news, however it would probably take a few years for this to be useful for most lawyers. And outside the more prominent cases the chances are slim that someone else has used this to get a document you want.
And the interface itself isn't THAT cumbersome, though it could be slightly better (for example, it doesn't allow searching by judge, which is annoying when you're trying to see how the judge you're before ruled before). Also each district has its own independent PACER, which always seemed somewhat inefficient to me.
Actually, laws get struck down all the time because they conflict with earlier, higher-ranking laws. Anyone who isn't a moron and actually watches the news knows this.
But not two federal laws, both passed by the U.S. Congress, which is the issue here.
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
No, the courts don't have any discretion in deciding which law has priority; it is well settled that when two laws conflict, the later one controls.
security service providers say they find more problems with password management than antivirus applications when they do security assessments.
The important words being "security assessments." In real-life impact viruses are far more serious an issue; I know many, many people who have had their computers infected with viruses than have had their passwords stolen. In fact, I can't really remember if anyone I know has ever had a password stolen.
In Ultima 6 I travelled around Britannia, stealing furniture, books, vases, anything that wasn't nailed down, and created a nice house in the basement level of the old Shadowlords' castle.
So...you're saying there should be strict liability? If you ship software with a single bug that it would have been almost impossible for you to find, you should be held liable?
Do you really want to force Microsoft or Apple to produce bug free operating systems? Who could afford them?
I believe they're arguing that vendors shouldn't KNOWINGLY ship buggy software. If you found it before shipping, fix it. I suspect this will just cause software developers to just cut down on QA...
As they have explained it to me, once you voluntarily hand information off to an uninvolved third party, the veil of privilege is breached and it can be discovered.
There's the key, in this case Google Apps wouldn't be an "uninvolved third party," it would probably be considered an agent of the user, and thus the privilege would be maintained.
As they have explained it to me, anything you give to Google can be subpoenaed. Google is currently one of the most-frequently-served companies in the world, and Google gives full and enthusiastic cooperation with lawfully issued subpoenas.
I believe Google gives notice that a subpoena is being sought, in which case it is not particularly difficult to get it squashed. "Your honor, this is outrageous; Plaintiff is actually issuing a subpoena in order to get attorney-client and work product-privileged documents. I move to quash the subpoena and for sanctions."
However, for my own sake, I refuse to deal with lawyers who use outsourced IT services.
If you're not dealing with a large firm, chances are you're dealing with a lawyer who uses outsourced IT services.
IAAL too and I see nothing wrong with Google apps. Don't know about doctors, but lawyers are perfectly aware that nothing is foolproof once you get online, and we realize that some Google employee has access to our stuff. We're expected to maintain confidentiality in a reasonable matter, not approach it with the paranoia of a computer security expert.
"Google Apps is easy to use from home" Yeah, and your point is? Never heard of a VPN? Never heard of remote desktop/terminal services/Citrix? It's not like they are particularly complicated these days.
And as easy as those things are, Google Apps is still far easier.
So you're saying that the majority of people in federal prison are crime "kingpins"? Really?
There is nothing in my statement that even IMPLIES this. Let me ask you a question; do you think the FBI put more resources in bringing John Gotti down or one of these petty drug smugglers?
The reality is that most people charged are charged with relatively petty offenses because the big fish have money and lawyers and political connections.
The FBI are shameless self-promoters; they LOVE going after big fish because that gets them on TV. Billions of dollars didn't keep Martha Stewart out of jail, and political connections didn't keep Jack Abramoff out of jail.
Bernie Madoff operated openly for decades, as has Amway and countless banking and trading scams. The "organized crime" folks at the FBI spend most of their time going after petty drug smugglers and gun dealers because the big fish (like the finance people and the gun MANUFACTURERS) are too well protected.
The feds have admittedly been too lax on policing the finance world, though this has been mainly the result of an unfortunate libertarian economic ideology that has taken hold in government over the past few decades. As for the gun manufacturers, I think a lot of what they do is reprehensible, but I'm curious as to what laws you think they've broken.
Don't be silly. Right wing ranting? I'm as left wing as they come, barring communists, and I think that makes perfect sense. Get a degree in something useful if you want a job. It's really as simple as that.
Yep. My anthropology degree was for fun. My JD was for work. In retrospect the JD isn't as useful job-wise as it was when I entered law school, but at the time I thought the decision was sound...
Slashdot Mirror
Nonexistent in terms of reality. It just doesn't exist. And my opinion is never really that humble.
Since the word Qi is already used to describe something rather different
Well, something nonexistent. It's not like people are going to confuse something that is real with something that is fictional.
Sorry, treating a initially good idea solely as a cash-cow and milk it for all it's worth is not a feasible business model in the long term.
Id still seems to be doing fine.
I don't think you're in the minority here. People on Slashdot have been complaining about stupid eye candy, cut scenes, intro movies, crappy franchise games, DRM and general lack of creativity in games for ages.
But people on slashdot also usually add an "I'm in the minority here" before endorsing the most popular viewpoint.
Pretty much because on an individual basis people, even congresspeople, tend to be decent.
Huh? Are you sure? I went to that website and it seems to just be a portal to individual PACER systems.
Get it all in writing, then seek an injunction in federal court against the company and attach those documents to your complaint.
Kudos to the people who came up with this idea. Now if we only had a free way to search case law. You can access the current Federal and State statues from the relevant Government websites but you have no easy way to do the same for case law, which is at least as important under our legal system. Most of the services to do this are paid ones (Lexis Nexis), I've yet to come across a decent free one.
Try Google.
It's not generally scanned by the court, the parties file their documents with the court by uploading them to a related system, CM/ECF. I think the charges are more for the cost of hosting. Searches are free, and downloading documents costs about 8 cents a page, which I don't think is unreasonable.
Speaking as a lawyer who spends an inordinate amount of time going through multiple PACER systems to download filings, this is good news, however it would probably take a few years for this to be useful for most lawyers. And outside the more prominent cases the chances are slim that someone else has used this to get a document you want.
And the interface itself isn't THAT cumbersome, though it could be slightly better (for example, it doesn't allow searching by judge, which is annoying when you're trying to see how the judge you're before ruled before). Also each district has its own independent PACER, which always seemed somewhat inefficient to me.
Because plenty of people like their own congressperson, but don't like everyone else's congressperson.
Actually, laws get struck down all the time because they conflict with earlier, higher-ranking laws. Anyone who isn't a moron and actually watches the news knows this.
But not two federal laws, both passed by the U.S. Congress, which is the issue here.
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
No, the courts don't have any discretion in deciding which law has priority; it is well settled that when two laws conflict, the later one controls.
security service providers say they find more problems with password management than antivirus applications when they do security assessments.
The important words being "security assessments." In real-life impact viruses are far more serious an issue; I know many, many people who have had their computers infected with viruses than have had their passwords stolen. In fact, I can't really remember if anyone I know has ever had a password stolen.
In Ultima 6 I travelled around Britannia, stealing furniture, books, vases, anything that wasn't nailed down, and created a nice house in the basement level of the old Shadowlords' castle.
So...you're saying there should be strict liability? If you ship software with a single bug that it would have been almost impossible for you to find, you should be held liable?
Of course, suing someone doesn't restore...revenue.
Uhhh, yes it does. That's the whole point of suing.
Do you really want to force Microsoft or Apple to produce bug free operating systems? Who could afford them?
I believe they're arguing that vendors shouldn't KNOWINGLY ship buggy software. If you found it before shipping, fix it. I suspect this will just cause software developers to just cut down on QA...
As they have explained it to me, once you voluntarily hand information off to an uninvolved third party, the veil of privilege is breached and it can be discovered.
There's the key, in this case Google Apps wouldn't be an "uninvolved third party," it would probably be considered an agent of the user, and thus the privilege would be maintained.
As they have explained it to me, anything you give to Google can be subpoenaed. Google is currently one of the most-frequently-served companies in the world, and Google gives full and enthusiastic cooperation with lawfully issued subpoenas.
I believe Google gives notice that a subpoena is being sought, in which case it is not particularly difficult to get it squashed. "Your honor, this is outrageous; Plaintiff is actually issuing a subpoena in order to get attorney-client and work product-privileged documents. I move to quash the subpoena and for sanctions."
However, for my own sake, I refuse to deal with lawyers who use outsourced IT services.
If you're not dealing with a large firm, chances are you're dealing with a lawyer who uses outsourced IT services.
No lawyer can legitimately use Google-hosted services, unless they're doing work for Google. It would be a huge violation of confidentiality.
No it wouldn't.
IAAL too and I see nothing wrong with Google apps. Don't know about doctors, but lawyers are perfectly aware that nothing is foolproof once you get online, and we realize that some Google employee has access to our stuff. We're expected to maintain confidentiality in a reasonable matter, not approach it with the paranoia of a computer security expert.
"Google Apps is easy to use from home" Yeah, and your point is? Never heard of a VPN? Never heard of remote desktop/terminal services/Citrix? It's not like they are particularly complicated these days.
And as easy as those things are, Google Apps is still far easier.
So you're saying that the majority of people in federal prison are crime "kingpins"? Really?
There is nothing in my statement that even IMPLIES this. Let me ask you a question; do you think the FBI put more resources in bringing John Gotti down or one of these petty drug smugglers?
The reality is that most people charged are charged with relatively petty offenses because the big fish have money and lawyers and political connections.
The FBI are shameless self-promoters; they LOVE going after big fish because that gets them on TV. Billions of dollars didn't keep Martha Stewart out of jail, and political connections didn't keep Jack Abramoff out of jail.
Bernie Madoff operated openly for decades, as has Amway and countless banking and trading scams. The "organized crime" folks at the FBI spend most of their time going after petty drug smugglers and gun dealers because the big fish (like the finance people and the gun MANUFACTURERS) are too well protected.
The feds have admittedly been too lax on policing the finance world, though this has been mainly the result of an unfortunate libertarian economic ideology that has taken hold in government over the past few decades. As for the gun manufacturers, I think a lot of what they do is reprehensible, but I'm curious as to what laws you think they've broken.
Bull. There has never been trouble getting a job. There has always been trouble getting a job you want.
That's ridiculous; minimum wage jobs are difficult to find right now. Have you been out there lately?
Don't be silly. Right wing ranting? I'm as left wing as they come, barring communists, and I think that makes perfect sense. Get a degree in something useful if you want a job. It's really as simple as that.
Yep. My anthropology degree was for fun. My JD was for work. In retrospect the JD isn't as useful job-wise as it was when I entered law school, but at the time I thought the decision was sound...