By April 7th or 8th they had slightly over 600,000 units sold. Once again, care to name a single tablet that has even sold remotely as many units in such a short period as the iPad? I'm guessing neither you nor ClosedSource will be able to so I won't hold my breath.
You have to adapt all of your stuff to whatever limitations Apple has laid out.
Because no other handheld multimedia device does exactly the same thing, right? Oh wait... Every device such as this has limitations on codecs and their parameters, resolution of the content, frame rates, and audio codecs.
Except the GP never said laying fiber was free. He said, and rightfully so, that Google doesn't buy bandwidth the way people imagine that they do. The way they "buy" bandwidth is by laying their own fiber and hooking into other peers.
And when was contacting a judge to voice displeasure about their actions *outside the court room* via electronic mail illegal?
When it's done so with the intent to disrupt court activities by spamming a private email address?
Even if the defendant encouraged it, that's the defendants right as protected under the first amendment, something a *federal* judge should be protecting.
Bullshit. Free speech doesn't give you the right to incite people to harass others.
Regardless of that, would he have been put in contempt had all of those people mailed a letter? Simply doing so on the basis that it's email is a bit ridiculous.
If he had asked them to mail a letter to the court through an official channel, probably not. In this case he was having people spam the judge through a private email address.
Last time I checked the states who run lotteries publicly publish the odds of winning both on the tickets themselves and through their websites. Now if the state was hiding the odds or attempting to make people think that the odds were better than they actually are, then you'd have a point.
How many times have you heard something like, "Let your voice be heard. Contact your local Representative, Senator, etc.?"
But such campaigns such as that is using an official channel to voice your complaints. Kevin Trudeau gave out the private email of the judge and was telling people to spam it. Do you see the difference now?
True, but since when is it possible for something that happens outside of court to be considered contempt?
Quite some time now?
So if I am walking down the street and say something to a judge that's walking the other way, he can find me in contempt?
No.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this guy is innocent of everything, but I can't see how he's guilty of contempt...
Because he gave out the private email of the judge and told a bunch of people to flood it with emails in hopes of getting the judge to rule in his favor.
So basically your claim is despite this being a completely legitimate use of the rule that it should be completely thrown out because a judge could hypothetically use it to punish someone he doesn't like? I'm sorry, but that seems completely asinine.
When you do it through non-public channels with the intent of disrupting a court preceding? This wasn't him asking a bunch of people to file amicus curiae to the court or asking them to write letters to their senators or congressman through official channels. He gave out the private email address of the judge and told a bunch of people to flood it with spam. If you can't see the difference, then there's not much I can do.
Exactly. If all of the consumers of his product were fully-informed that they were buying snake oil and then still wanted to buy the product, then yes I would agree that they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. But as you state, the consumers of his products are being LIED TO about the efficacy of the products he sells.
Slashdot Mirror
By April 7th or 8th they had slightly over 600,000 units sold. Once again, care to name a single tablet that has even sold remotely as many units in such a short period as the iPad? I'm guessing neither you nor ClosedSource will be able to so I won't hold my breath.
You have to adapt all of your stuff to whatever limitations Apple has laid out.
Because no other handheld multimedia device does exactly the same thing, right? Oh wait... Every device such as this has limitations on codecs and their parameters, resolution of the content, frame rates, and audio codecs.
Yes, because it wasn't like the GP was making a joke or anything.
The ipad will fade into obscurity and during that time your efforts could be better invested else where.
Just like the iPod and iPhone were supposed to do, right? Good thing no one of any import listens to the predictions of slashtards.
Yeah their product was so "horrible" that it sold 300,000 units in 1 day. Care to name a single tablet that's equaled that in sales for the first day?
Isn't it actually illegal to charge twice for the same product or service?
Based on what law would it be illegal? On the other hand, yes it would be highly unethical to do so.
Except the GP never said laying fiber was free. He said, and rightfully so, that Google doesn't buy bandwidth the way people imagine that they do. The way they "buy" bandwidth is by laying their own fiber and hooking into other peers.
And in the US it has never applied to ISPs no matter how many times it is falsely claimed on Slashdot that ISPs are common carriers.
*facepalm* ISPs have never been common carriers.
The russkies are doing it pretty cheap.
That's because they are getting hefty subsidies.
That's great and all but Minix is not Unix.
Want to bet? If we quit buying everything but food, energy, and our clothing, watch how fast every other economy on the planet would suffer.
And then we'd watch our own economy doing the same. Or did you forget how much of our GDP is dependent on exporting?
And when was contacting a judge to voice displeasure about their actions *outside the court room* via electronic mail illegal?
When it's done so with the intent to disrupt court activities by spamming a private email address?
Even if the defendant encouraged it, that's the defendants right as protected under the first amendment, something a *federal* judge should be protecting.
Bullshit. Free speech doesn't give you the right to incite people to harass others.
Well I think the main difference is that judges are supposed to follow the law as its written and not sway to public sentiment.
If that were true then there would be no place for amicus curiae.
When are people going to be held accountable for their own bad decisions. People are adults
People are held accountable for their own bad decisions as long as they made those decisions without being defrauded by the other party.
What's next, will it be called spam if some activist/interest group convinces it's members to flood their Congress-critters in-boxes with messages?
Unlikely as that is using an official means of contacting those people.
Regardless of that, would he have been put in contempt had all of those people mailed a letter? Simply doing so on the basis that it's email is a bit ridiculous.
If he had asked them to mail a letter to the court through an official channel, probably not. In this case he was having people spam the judge through a private email address.
Last time I checked the states who run lotteries publicly publish the odds of winning both on the tickets themselves and through their websites. Now if the state was hiding the odds or attempting to make people think that the odds were better than they actually are, then you'd have a point.
One is using an official public channel while Kevin Trudeau was having people spam the judge through a private email account.
How many times have you heard something like, "Let your voice be heard. Contact your local Representative, Senator, etc.?"
But such campaigns such as that is using an official channel to voice your complaints. Kevin Trudeau gave out the private email of the judge and was telling people to spam it. Do you see the difference now?
True, but since when is it possible for something that happens outside of court to be considered contempt?
Quite some time now?
So if I am walking down the street and say something to a judge that's walking the other way, he can find me in contempt?
No.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this guy is innocent of everything, but I can't see how he's guilty of contempt...
Because he gave out the private email of the judge and told a bunch of people to flood it with emails in hopes of getting the judge to rule in his favor.
For using fraudulent claims to peddle products.
So basically your claim is despite this being a completely legitimate use of the rule that it should be completely thrown out because a judge could hypothetically use it to punish someone he doesn't like? I'm sorry, but that seems completely asinine.
When you do it through non-public channels with the intent of disrupting a court preceding? This wasn't him asking a bunch of people to file amicus curiae to the court or asking them to write letters to their senators or congressman through official channels. He gave out the private email address of the judge and told a bunch of people to flood it with spam. If you can't see the difference, then there's not much I can do.
Exactly. If all of the consumers of his product were fully-informed that they were buying snake oil and then still wanted to buy the product, then yes I would agree that they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. But as you state, the consumers of his products are being LIED TO about the efficacy of the products he sells.