This demonstrates a remarkable failure to understand the article.
The SCOTUS ruled that Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures doesn't extend to where you voluntarily disclosed the information to a third party. In response to these rulings, Congress passed a statute to prevent the government from overreaching. It appears to have a loophole, and I'm sure in time Congress will fix it.
It's going to be concerned about stuff like this, but making unsubstantiated complaints about veiled illegitimacy is completely counterproductive.
Promissory estoppel is a theory of obligation where if one makes a promise and should reasonably expect detrimental reliance on the part of the promisee, then the promise is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.
In this case, Microsoft would not be able to recover for patent infringement. It is less clear what happens when they revoke the promise, but certainly nothing done prior to revocation would create liability.
Note that this promise was only made for Moonlight users. Thus, if Apple, for instance, decided to make a Moonlight clone then they still reserve the right to sue for that.
I do this for my law school textbooks (unless you're a book publisher, in which case I am joking and would never break the law).
I was excited when I read this because it is a pain in the ass to turn the pages in a 1000 page Constitutional Law textbook. Thus, you can imagine my disappointment when I read that his machine doesn't automate this.
Most universities have at least one library which has a Ricoh scanner that does exactly what his does, i.e. it writes out a PDF onto your USB stick. I don't know where he's a graduate student, but I bet if he looked in his library he could have saved himself $300.
How can you assbutts be all about personal privacy when it comes to your privacy online, but expect judges to make their personal acquaintances public?
Are you guys serious right now or is there a giant "whoosh" coming my way?
You are correct in your statement that Article III Section 2 prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions, i.e. judgements on controversies not before the court. However, courts are free to offer opinions in dicta which can guide, but are not binding, to future cases. This is all that this was.
C'mon, this is unfair. By your logic we shouldn't have Perl or Python or any other scripting language because they "[don't] give nearly as much control because it tries to spoonfeed you."
There are lots of situations when you don't need to twiddle the bits or delete your own allocated memory. What's wrong with simplifying the language for simplified tasks?
It's not like Microsoft doesn't support low-level languages.
You have lived up to your username! Air travel is a bad analogy!
Everyone has the right to conceal private information. It's a question of whether they can do it if the information is necessary to resolve a lawsuit.
People won't tell their doctors confidential things needed to diagnose if they have to worry about potential disclosure. The same argument works with journalists. The Pentagon Papers, for instance, would never have been released if New York Times reports didn't guard their sources' anonymity.
The law recognizes that these special cases because of their critical importance to society. You will have a tougher time arguing that Disney should be able to protect the anonymity of their Hannah Montana customers upon subpoena.
Okay, but I have a serious point too: The "Big Content" and other companies are the ones that have a stake in anti-counterfeiting legislation, of course they are going to have primary input. If they were drafting an agreement seeking to protect whiny sensationalist articles on the Internet I'm sure Slashdot would be given advanced versions of the draft.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the cost of backward compatibility at the expense of everything else. That is what made Microsoft and that is what may break it.
Yeah, people hate it when their applications continue to work after buying a new computer.
This demonstrates a remarkable failure to understand the article.
The SCOTUS ruled that Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures doesn't extend to where you voluntarily disclosed the information to a third party. In response to these rulings, Congress passed a statute to prevent the government from overreaching. It appears to have a loophole, and I'm sure in time Congress will fix it.
It's going to be concerned about stuff like this, but making unsubstantiated complaints about veiled illegitimacy is completely counterproductive.
throttleBandwidth( 50_PERCENT );
If you need to define a constant for fifty percent, then you need to work on your programming skills.
Promissory estoppel is a theory of obligation where if one makes a promise and should reasonably expect detrimental reliance on the part of the promisee, then the promise is binding to the extent necessary to prevent injustice.
In this case, Microsoft would not be able to recover for patent infringement. It is less clear what happens when they revoke the promise, but certainly nothing done prior to revocation would create liability.
Note that this promise was only made for Moonlight users. Thus, if Apple, for instance, decided to make a Moonlight clone then they still reserve the right to sue for that.
texts
I'm dumb. But I feel like the same principle applies to Twitter.
It should be an option, not a requirement.
An option that turns on during Friday and Saturday nights so drunken texts to professors are less likely to get you kicked out of school.
this game is the biggest and possibly most important experiment in the past 15 years of gaming
If the future of gaming is quick-time events, we are all F'ed in the A.
For instance, look at how fighting works (starting at 9:30 in video).
I am all about compelling stories in video games, but there needs to actually be a video game in it.
I can do it in 20 minutes. Each scan takes 5 or 6 seconds, but you do two pages at a time. Thus:
(200 scans) * (6 seconds / scan) = 1200 seconds
Otherwise known as 20 minutes.
I do this for my law school textbooks (unless you're a book publisher, in which case I am joking and would never break the law).
I was excited when I read this because it is a pain in the ass to turn the pages in a 1000 page Constitutional Law textbook. Thus, you can imagine my disappointment when I read that his machine doesn't automate this.
Most universities have at least one library which has a Ricoh scanner that does exactly what his does, i.e. it writes out a PDF onto your USB stick. I don't know where he's a graduate student, but I bet if he looked in his library he could have saved himself $300.
How can you assbutts be all about personal privacy when it comes to your privacy online, but expect judges to make their personal acquaintances public?
Are you guys serious right now or is there a giant "whoosh" coming my way?
Here is the Wikipedia entry describing this in more detail.
You are correct in your statement that Article III Section 2 prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions, i.e. judgements on controversies not before the court. However, courts are free to offer opinions in dicta which can guide, but are not binding, to future cases. This is all that this was.
If you read the linked ChromeShell page, it says it goes from standby to the Chrome browser in 3 seconds.
It actually takes 30 seconds to boot, which isn't much better than Windows. Actually, is that even better?
I just realized that I am now committed to the proposition that Perl "tries to spoonfeed you." I am not sure this is a good position to be in ;-)
C'mon, this is unfair. By your logic we shouldn't have Perl or Python or any other scripting language because they "[don't] give nearly as much control because it tries to spoonfeed you."
There are lots of situations when you don't need to twiddle the bits or delete your own allocated memory. What's wrong with simplifying the language for simplified tasks?
It's not like Microsoft doesn't support low-level languages.
Your Osmotic Power Plant requires more vespene gas.
I think the debate is more over the syntax of the language than the implementation of it.
Note that:
myString.pop()
and
remove the last character from myString
produce the same thing in the end. I guess I don't follow your concerns about overhead..
Hmmm...
Woo! Now I don't have to feel guilty when I bitch about Mono not f***ing working correctly.
"Intel patents lawsuits"
What I'm trying to say here is simply what you all are already thinking
Next time, could you put that at the top of your post so I can skip it without having to first read a bad analogy?
You have lived up to your username! Air travel is a bad analogy! Everyone has the right to conceal private information. It's a question of whether they can do it if the information is necessary to resolve a lawsuit. People won't tell their doctors confidential things needed to diagnose if they have to worry about potential disclosure. The same argument works with journalists. The Pentagon Papers, for instance, would never have been released if New York Times reports didn't guard their sources' anonymity. The law recognizes that these special cases because of their critical importance to society. You will have a tougher time arguing that Disney should be able to protect the anonymity of their Hannah Montana customers upon subpoena.
Was that a typo? Should it be 28,000 years?
Non-Americans use a different system for decimal separation.
Also note that Dependency Walker doesn't execute arbitrary code.
Okay, but I have a serious point too: The "Big Content" and other companies are the ones that have a stake in anti-counterfeiting legislation, of course they are going to have primary input. If they were drafting an agreement seeking to protect whiny sensationalist articles on the Internet I'm sure Slashdot would be given advanced versions of the draft.