I don't know, after you reach a certain level of wealth the law teams even out. Both IBM and RH can afford to hire the best, no reason why IBM would be any more intimidating than RH.
Moreover, in this article too, nowhere has he questioned the validity of SCO's claims. He seems content to criticize other companies for their indemnification programs.
He says:
If you take some time to study the case, however, I think you'll find that SCO's claims are not as easy to dismiss as some people would lead you to believe. Could those claims eventually be dismissed? Absolutely. I'm just not sure that it's the slam-dunk that SCO's opponents and water cooler discussions make it out to be.
He explicitly states that SCO's claims could be dismissed. The point of the article is simply to explain how linux users can be protected if this isn't the case.
In this country, you gotta get the IP addresses first first. Then when you get the IP addresses, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.
Actually, virus writers are still geeks so they don't get the women. Never mind.
The cases have been IN GENERAL moving towards more tolerance for police searches. Kyllo (the infrared case) was surprising, especially considering that Scalia wrote the majority, but it's an anomaly.
However one thing you must realize is that bad searches happen all the time, because local jurisdictions [captains, the public, DAs] want drug criminals prosecuted because it scores points with the soccer moms.
And the SC is a lot more tolerant these days then they used to be. It used to be you needed a warrant unless there were exigent circumstances. Then it became you just needed probable cause. THEN it became that the cop just needed to THINK they had probable cause.
This doesn't fly in federal courts--judges there will tell you to fuck off, and don't show your face in here again--but state judges buy it because they aren't so removed from the democratic process. The problem is that there are too many incentives in the system for everyone involved to get more prosecutions.
Federal courts are far more lax about enforcing 4th amendment protections these days. In fact, in a lot of cases you might have better luck in state courts, especially since some state constitutions have stronger 4th amendment-style protections than the federal one.
However, if you look at the records surrounding the Constitutional convention, you find that the phrase "bear Arms" was never used except in referring to militia activities. There is substantial scholarship showing that the phrase "bear Arms" means in an organized military sense rather than as an individual ownership right.
You don't have a militia without individual gun ownership.
Only you most definitely do. The National Guard are militias. The M-16s stay on the base when the individuals go home.
"X being necessary to Y, Z" is not a form that puts limitations on Z - it's a form that explains why Z is important. "A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Yet why did they explain why it was important? Your second phrase is somewhat puzzling, as it tends to support my position--they DIDN'T use that phrase with any other amendments.
The second amendment isn't about shooting cops, it's about preparedness. At least, that's how the writers of the US Constitution saw it. It was a different world then.
Actually there's been a debate for decades over what they meant. The most persuasive argument imho is that it was a provision that allowed the states to maintain their militias. It was probably not meant to guarantee individual gun ownership rights.
The Supreme Court has over the past two decades become far more accepting of searches, thanks primarily to the court's shift to the right, and the perceived threat of the "drug epidemic".
The moon rose over the dark warrens of the urban sprawl that emanated from the city's bright center what's the difference between a latte and a cappucino hey can you keep it down I'm trying to write a novel here a latte is basically a cappuccino with more milk oh then I'll have a latte hey I asked you to keep it down well excuse me this is a cafe you know hey phil how's it going could you please be quiet too I'm trying to write my novel geeze oh hey yeah I'm a writer, just working on my book are you here alone can I buy you a cup of coffee oh I see you don't go for the artistic types fine she'll be sorry when I'm a published writer damn stuck up girls
Slashdot Mirror
I seriously wouldn't have an idea as to how to get money from a teller. You like show your ATM card or something?
I'm confused. Why is it that requiring a network to carry emergency services equates in the average slashdotter's mind to unwanted regulation?
Because the average slashdotter is a few bytes short of a packet.
I can actually see him as Arthur Dent more...
The best trial lawyers work in firms. RH has about a billion in the bank. Do you really think they can't afford any lawyer in the country they want?
Argh, has the legality of SCO asking for that money even been established?
Yes. They are legally allowed to ask for the money.
I don't know, after you reach a certain level of wealth the law teams even out. Both IBM and RH can afford to hire the best, no reason why IBM would be any more intimidating than RH.
I thought SCO avoided that pitfall by not having products anymore.
Yeah, I automatically assume anyone who writes an opinion piece I don't agree with is being paid under the table to propagate his or her views.
He says:
He explicitly states that SCO's claims could be dismissed. The point of the article is simply to explain how linux users can be protected if this isn't the case.
I can understand having no regrets to pay for NYT
I can't. I mean, the online version is free. Dunno who he's paying, but they're scamming him nicely...
Lexis-Nexis has been doing this for a long time, and making a nice profit. It's not new.
Unplug the cable.
There's something beautiful in the purity of an unconnected linux box. Try it.
Oooooh...
cabal of liars that masquerade as "researchers" does not alter the facts.
I love that word. Cabal. You see it so rarely in everyday life. I'm going to start using it more.
In this country, you gotta get the IP addresses first first. Then when you get the IP addresses, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.
Actually, virus writers are still geeks so they don't get the women. Never mind.
Time for a career change then. Ooh, Hollywood Upstairs Medical School, looks promising...
Forget the job hunting websites, they're just crap. Pound the pavement yourself.
Do both. I got one job through the websites, after months of nothing. But it was actually kind of a decent job.
Bah, only women shave with a straight razor.
I shave with a bowie knife.
I'd suggest avoiding "reviews" then.
But Heinlein does suck. Alright, fine, fine, LATE Heinlein sucks. But late Heinlein encompasses like several decades of his writing.
So its really a case by case basis thing.
The cases have been IN GENERAL moving towards more tolerance for police searches. Kyllo (the infrared case) was surprising, especially considering that Scalia wrote the majority, but it's an anomaly.
However one thing you must realize is that bad searches happen all the time, because local jurisdictions [captains, the public, DAs] want drug criminals prosecuted because it scores points with the soccer moms.
And the SC is a lot more tolerant these days then they used to be. It used to be you needed a warrant unless there were exigent circumstances. Then it became you just needed probable cause. THEN it became that the cop just needed to THINK they had probable cause.
This doesn't fly in federal courts--judges there will tell you to fuck off, and don't show your face in here again--but state judges buy it because they aren't so removed from the democratic process. The problem is that there are too many incentives in the system for everyone involved to get more prosecutions.
Federal courts are far more lax about enforcing 4th amendment protections these days. In fact, in a lot of cases you might have better luck in state courts, especially since some state constitutions have stronger 4th amendment-style protections than the federal one.
However, if you look at the records surrounding the Constitutional convention, you find that the phrase "bear Arms" was never used except in referring to militia activities. There is substantial scholarship showing that the phrase "bear Arms" means in an organized military sense rather than as an individual ownership right.
You don't have a militia without individual gun ownership.
Only you most definitely do. The National Guard are militias. The M-16s stay on the base when the individuals go home.
"X being necessary to Y, Z" is not a form that puts limitations on Z - it's a form that explains why Z is important. "A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Yet why did they explain why it was important? Your second phrase is somewhat puzzling, as it tends to support my position--they DIDN'T use that phrase with any other amendments.
The second amendment isn't about shooting cops, it's about preparedness. At least, that's how the writers of the US Constitution saw it. It was a different world then.
Actually there's been a debate for decades over what they meant. The most persuasive argument imho is that it was a provision that allowed the states to maintain their militias. It was probably not meant to guarantee individual gun ownership rights.
I dunno, coast guard?
The Supreme Court has over the past two decades become far more accepting of searches, thanks primarily to the court's shift to the right, and the perceived threat of the "drug epidemic".
Also, you can't use voice recognition in a cafe.
Sure you can:
The moon rose over the dark warrens of the urban sprawl that emanated from the city's bright center what's the difference between a latte and a cappucino hey can you keep it down I'm trying to write a novel here a latte is basically a cappuccino with more milk oh then I'll have a latte hey I asked you to keep it down well excuse me this is a cafe you know hey phil how's it going could you please be quiet too I'm trying to write my novel geeze oh hey yeah I'm a writer, just working on my book are you here alone can I buy you a cup of coffee oh I see you don't go for the artistic types fine she'll be sorry when I'm a published writer damn stuck up girls