Significantly less. Due to the electoral system and screwups in Florida (along with actual crime--I swear to god the people who shut down the recount in Miami should be in prison).
The software is inexpensive because Apple has subsidized the development cost with the hardware they sell. It is a complete solution, not two separate ones.
A contract of adhesion isn't automatically invalid; it just means the courts have to look carefully at it to make sure it's not unconscionable. Very few things in an EULA will typically meet this test.
The first visitation from my wife I was allowed to have, I had her get a lawyer and get me the hell out of there.
By the way, I'm sure you know this but for everyone else reading this you do have a right to counsel at civil commitment proceedings. If you can't afford one the state is obligated to secure one. If you're ever in that situation demand one immediately, and if they ignore you keep demanding it, and if they still ignore you get a wife, relative, or friend to call the local public defender or legal aid office. And beyond a short evaluation period (72 hours or less), they need a court order to commit you.
I don't know, I've had to deal with people like that but never anyone that violent or aggressive...I mean criticizing a calculator? Why hasn't someone locked him up already?
Wikipedia definitely suffers from the problem of having a lot of know nothing jackasses writing articles, random defacements, and a lot of useless crap.
I don't mind, I'm used to that. I've been reading slashdot for 10 years.
No, this means that the executive cannot detain a legislator without extremely good evidence.
No, it means they can't be punished for things they say in session.
The point of the law is precisely to protect democracy; remember, the attendees at the constitutional conventions were in essence committing treason, and they wanted to protect future legislators from being accused of disloyalty merely by expressing an idea.
Plus, make it a Felony to pass an unconstitutional amendment, CONGRATS! It passes constitutional muster now.
Only that statute would be unconstitutional, because it conflicts with the protections given by the Constitution.
Reading a lot of comments about him being a nut job. My question is - what if he isn't? Is it possible that as a administrator of a SAN/Network, he saw some significant security issues, and when he presented them to his supervisors was slammed for reporting the problem -- including being fired?
If you're fired, it's not your problem anymore. The problem with our modern society (well one of the problems) is people spend so much time at their jobs that they start overinflating it in their heads. Even if all his accusations were true, he should have just let it go. Given them the passwords, warn them in written correspondence about the problem (cc it to a couple of officials), then maybe sue them later under a whistleblower law if it applies.
That big project you have a deadline coming up on? That latest revision that needs to put into the codebase? In the grand scheme of things they're really not that important. When you go home you have to be able to let go of stuff or life is going to be miserable.
In Beuharnais v. Illinois, Judge Jackson said "The 'liberty' which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against denial by the States is the liberal and identical 'freedom of speech or of the press' which the First Amendment forbids only Congress to abridge . . . the powers of Congress and of the States over this subject are not of the same dimensions, and that because Congress probably could not enact this law it does not follow that the States may not."
This means that the Supreme Court is NOT Incorporating the full First Amendment to the States' Constitutions, but more of a "watered-down" version. Again, this is not full Incorporation, it's partial Incorporation, even of the First Amendment.
This is why amateur lawyers do such a lousy job on Slashdot. You're citing the dissent in Beauhernais. The majority don't even address the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States. In fact, they accept it implicitly, and proceed from their analysis there, simply finding that it is a narrowly constructed libel law that doesn't fall under constitutional proscription.
Do this, my socialist friend: go and read on the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Supreme Court, in 1873, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT cover "rights" but exactly what it was written to cover: privileges and immunities, such as citizenship. It was not to guard against State dismantling of the Bill of Rights, but to protect some second level "rights" which are considered ones of privilege and not inherent.
So you cite the Supreme Court when they say what you want to say, but you don't when they say the exact opposite.
Your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is flawed, because you have not read it, nor studied it. Yes, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-Incorporation view on this Amendment, but it has not been fully implemented, so we just don't know how SCOTUS can interpret some State laws as violations but not others. Without a full implementation of Incorporation, there is no Incorporation.
You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. First Amendment jurisprudence is very well-travelled, and there are many cases setting forth what the states can and cannot do vis a vis regulating speech. Citing one legitimate scholar whose views are in the minority (Berger) and a bunch of nutcases doesn't strengthen your case.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious. It may be redundant but I don't see how it's censoring anything. Unless of course it's been decided that controlling what your kids have access to is limiting free speech...
Requiring someone to say something can be just as problematic from a free speech standpoint as not allowing them to say something. This law will essentially require a government seal of approval before sale, which was one of the driving forces behind the first amendment (the founders didn't want an English-style system of printers licensed by the crown).
The Wii has been become the most popoular console in the US (here [slashdot.org]) Based on these facts, of course an US court will rule in favour of a US company as the result will make the country profit from an overseas competitor like Nintendo.
the article was light on details. Who's the asshole in this case? I usually tend to take the little guy's side (assuming a valid patent) but on the other hand, little guys are often casting about for a deep pockets lawsuit. Hard to say who to root for, if anyone.
Well around here anyone who tries to enforce a patent is a patent troll. Unless they're Apple, of course. Because no large company ever stole an idea from a small inventor, ever.
says nothing about them not being fined, and I don't read that as not being able to be arrested during their term, just not while they are in session or on their way to or from, which makes sense, personal shit doesn't need to be drawn into the congressional halls.
Right, but it also means they can't be prosecuted or fined for introducing a bill during a session, no matter how much everyone thinks its unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
Wolverine...the character who ruined comics in the early 90s...
He's a smart man, but he does not do this all by himself.
Though he'd like you to believe he does.
Kind of looks like George Pataki.
wannabes play video games and wait for someone else to do it and crybaby around because it isn't perfect yet.
Hmm, it sounds like less work and more fun to be a wannabe.
how many more votes did Bush get than Gore again
Significantly less. Due to the electoral system and screwups in Florida (along with actual crime--I swear to god the people who shut down the recount in Miami should be in prison).
The software is inexpensive because Apple has subsidized the development cost with the hardware they sell. It is a complete solution, not two separate ones.
The software is inexpensive because Apple simply let Carnegie Mellon do the hard work.
A contract of adhesion isn't automatically invalid; it just means the courts have to look carefully at it to make sure it's not unconscionable. Very few things in an EULA will typically meet this test.
Softman v. Adobe didn't invalidate EULAs, it just said in that case SoftMan hadn't assented to the terms of the EULA, so no contract was formed.
Trust me, cops and lawyers are not your friends.
So all those people I met in law school and still socialize aren't my friends? That's kind of depressing, maybe I should notify them about that.
The first visitation from my wife I was allowed to have, I had her get a lawyer and get me the hell out of there.
By the way, I'm sure you know this but for everyone else reading this you do have a right to counsel at civil commitment proceedings. If you can't afford one the state is obligated to secure one. If you're ever in that situation demand one immediately, and if they ignore you keep demanding it, and if they still ignore you get a wife, relative, or friend to call the local public defender or legal aid office. And beyond a short evaluation period (72 hours or less), they need a court order to commit you.
Um, did you try the internet?
The interwhat?
The problem is that Foxconn says its ACPI compliant but its not.
Just like Linux! I guess they have some things in common.
I don't know, I've had to deal with people like that but never anyone that violent or aggressive...I mean criticizing a calculator? Why hasn't someone locked him up already?
Wikipedia definitely suffers from the problem of having a lot of know nothing jackasses writing articles, random defacements, and a lot of useless crap.
I don't mind, I'm used to that. I've been reading slashdot for 10 years.
Oh, please, like we're supposed to believe them because of all their fancy degrees and significant experience in the field?
No, this means that the executive cannot detain a legislator without extremely good evidence.
No, it means they can't be punished for things they say in session.
The point of the law is precisely to protect democracy; remember, the attendees at the constitutional conventions were in essence committing treason, and they wanted to protect future legislators from being accused of disloyalty merely by expressing an idea.
Plus, make it a Felony to pass an unconstitutional amendment, CONGRATS! It passes constitutional muster now.
Only that statute would be unconstitutional, because it conflicts with the protections given by the Constitution.
Reading a lot of comments about him being a nut job. My question is - what if he isn't? Is it possible that as a administrator of a SAN/Network, he saw some significant security issues, and when he presented them to his supervisors was slammed for reporting the problem -- including being fired?
If you're fired, it's not your problem anymore. The problem with our modern society (well one of the problems) is people spend so much time at their jobs that they start overinflating it in their heads. Even if all his accusations were true, he should have just let it go. Given them the passwords, warn them in written correspondence about the problem (cc it to a couple of officials), then maybe sue them later under a whistleblower law if it applies.
That big project you have a deadline coming up on? That latest revision that needs to put into the codebase? In the grand scheme of things they're really not that important. When you go home you have to be able to let go of stuff or life is going to be miserable.
In Beuharnais v. Illinois, Judge Jackson said "The 'liberty' which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against denial by the States is the liberal and identical 'freedom of speech or of the press' which the First Amendment forbids only Congress to abridge . . . the powers of Congress and of the States over this subject are not of the same dimensions, and that because Congress probably could not enact this law it does not follow that the States may not."
This means that the Supreme Court is NOT Incorporating the full First Amendment to the States' Constitutions, but more of a "watered-down" version. Again, this is not full Incorporation, it's partial Incorporation, even of the First Amendment.
This is why amateur lawyers do such a lousy job on Slashdot. You're citing the dissent in Beauhernais. The majority don't even address the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States. In fact, they accept it implicitly, and proceed from their analysis there, simply finding that it is a narrowly constructed libel law that doesn't fall under constitutional proscription.
Do this, my socialist friend: go and read on the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Supreme Court, in 1873, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT cover "rights" but exactly what it was written to cover: privileges and immunities, such as citizenship. It was not to guard against State dismantling of the Bill of Rights, but to protect some second level "rights" which are considered ones of privilege and not inherent.
So you cite the Supreme Court when they say what you want to say, but you don't when they say the exact opposite.
Your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is flawed, because you have not read it, nor studied it. Yes, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-Incorporation view on this Amendment, but it has not been fully implemented, so we just don't know how SCOTUS can interpret some State laws as violations but not others. Without a full implementation of Incorporation, there is no Incorporation.
You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. First Amendment jurisprudence is very well-travelled, and there are many cases setting forth what the states can and cannot do vis a vis regulating speech. Citing one legitimate scholar whose views are in the minority (Berger) and a bunch of nutcases doesn't strengthen your case.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious. It may be redundant but I don't see how it's censoring anything. Unless of course it's been decided that controlling what your kids have access to is limiting free speech...
Requiring someone to say something can be just as problematic from a free speech standpoint as not allowing them to say something. This law will essentially require a government seal of approval before sale, which was one of the driving forces behind the first amendment (the founders didn't want an English-style system of printers licensed by the crown).
The Wii has been become the most popoular console in the US (here [slashdot.org]) Based on these facts, of course an US court will rule in favour of a US company as the result will make the country profit from an overseas competitor like Nintendo.
"Of course"? I think that's an unfair accusation of bias, especially considering that US courts routinely rule against domestic corporations in favor of foreign ones. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest that foreign parties win more often in US courts than domestic parties. Another researcher found that in patent jury trials specifically domestic parties had an advantage, but even there she never implied that it was inevitable, and the first paper suggests several flaws in her analysis.
the article was light on details. Who's the asshole in this case? I usually tend to take the little guy's side (assuming a valid patent) but on the other hand, little guys are often casting about for a deep pockets lawsuit. Hard to say who to root for, if anyone.
Well around here anyone who tries to enforce a patent is a patent troll. Unless they're Apple, of course. Because no large company ever stole an idea from a small inventor, ever.
It's become a farce, and unless the DoJ does something soon, people will lose all faith that there is any "just" in "justice".
The DoJ? The DoJ has no authority, and should have no authority, over the courts.
You can't judge a patent by its title, you know.
says nothing about them not being fined, and I don't read that as not being able to be arrested during their term, just not while they are in session or on their way to or from, which makes sense, personal shit doesn't need to be drawn into the congressional halls.
Right, but it also means they can't be prosecuted or fined for introducing a bill during a session, no matter how much everyone thinks its unconstitutional.