I linked (I did not cite a 'reference') to wikipedia because that's what the slashbots seem to like, not because I have any degree of respect for it in general. If I were going to cite a 'reference' on the definition of a legal term of art, I'd probably cite something like Black's Law Dictionary. I don't give a shit what the page on wikipedia says 10 hours later, I won't be thinking about the subject by then. Perhaps you're new to the Internet, but linking to a page is not the same as citing a 'reference', and ever since the dawn of the tubes, there's been the danger of content changing on you.
Did I say you didn't go to law school, or did you infer it? I'd like to believe that if you did go to law school, they would have taught you some basic reading comprehension. Contracts are in fact a part of that body of law refered to as "Private Law". Since there's a larger body of private law than public law, it's just ignorant to say that contracts are not law. Just because you can't (necesarily) be jailed for violating a contract, doesn't mean you aren't legally bound to abide by it.
As a matter of fact, ignorance of a contract is NOT an excuse. Just because you didn't read a contract you agreed to, don't expect to be let out of it.
Nothing replaces them, because 99.9% of the world doesn't care what some administrative court in Australia says. Over here, employers will still notify their employees of workplace policies in whatever manner they choose, and fire them when the policies are violated. But, we aren't nearly as socialist in our policies as the Aussies.
Really, so courts don't enforce contracts, and impose penalties for breach where you live? They sure do around here. When you are done attacking the guy who actually went to law school, maybe you could take the opportunity to learn something.
So, when you check your vote, it tells you right or left, but it doesn't tell you which candidate that was. It would seem the computers could still be programmed to count the votes however you like, and still spit out the correct answers to right or left. By design, there is no way to correlate right and left to particular candidates. So, even if you had ALL of the data and could count all the votes yourself, but without knowing what each R or L represents, you have no way of verifying the results.
It also wouldn't apply if they were soliciting copyright works. Do you think that people uploading TV shows (even if they wind up being taken down) helps or hurts YouTube?
However, a large percentage (high 90s) of the content on YouTube is CREATIVE work, that happens to include some instances of licensed content somewhere within it.
Everything on YouTube is copyrighted material. Some of it is up with the permission of the copyright owner, but there's probably a negligible amount that is really in the public domain. Unless it's been uploaded by the person who made it, or with his permission then all the stuff on YouTube is infringing someone's copyright.
You're probably right. There are already groups like BMI, ASCAP, RIAA, MPLC, etc., that probably represent the bulk of the copyright owners that YouTube would have to pay off. I'm sure YouTube could work out a licensing arrangement, similar to what radio stations and restaurants have, that wouldn't require them to know exactly what was being published. For the remaining unrepresented copyright holders, YouTube could offer to publish their material for free, or allow them to request takedowns.
But, YouTube has been making money off of others' works for so long now, it may be a hard habit to break.
1. Limit each person to a certain number of queries 2. Randomize the voter IDs 3. Make you wait n seconds for the result of each query (even if n=1, it would take you over four years to get all the results from the 2004 election, notwithstanding 1 or 2)
There's valid reasons to do all of the above, even if I'm not cheating.
How exactly is Card blaming the NYT? He actually seems to be blaming the administration, admitting that they were warned about putting up the documents without knowing what was in them. He's "concerned" that the NYT would advertise their existence while they were still there, but that seems perfectly reasonable. If the NYT really thought these documents were the key to terrorist making a bomb, why would they publicize their existence? The only thing Card really accuses the NYT of, is attempting to create an "October surprise", and that's in response to Lauer's question.
LAUER: What do you make of this? Whos gonna get the blame for this?
CARD: Well, you know, this is one of those things that John Negroponte warned us that we dont know whats in these documents, so these are being put out at some risk. And that was a warning he put out right when they first released the documents. We pulled them down, and I think the government has acted very quickly, and weve pulled them down. Im a little bit concerned that the New York Times has advertised them to the world, so that more people might see them
LAUER: What about the timing? Four days before, five days before a mid-term election this report comes out. Do you question the timing of this report?
CARD: Well, I think most things that happen just before an election are designed by someone to have an impact on the election. But I actually think its important that we recognize the government is doing the right thing. They shut the website down. Theyre not providing information.
But since you are such a defender of the NYT, do you think publishing the location of these documents was the right thing to do? It seems to me that the NYT staff either thought that the documents weren't really that dangerous, or they commited treason. Which do you think it is?
These documents came from Iraq. It would be silly to assume that the North Koreans, et al, haven't already seen them. These aren't our blueprints for a sophisticated device, they're what Saddam (who I've been told had no WMDs and no active nuclear program) was working with.
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
While it may seem like a high standard, "Rational Basis" is generally one of lowest standards of judicial review. It basically means that they had a reason. It doesn't have to be a good reason, you don't have to agree with the logic of it, and it doesn't have to pan out. Essentially, it rules out "wimsy".
Even if you hold the Directors to a higher standard, like say, "A really, really, good reason," there are good reasons to do things, other than profit. Companies buy art to decorate their walls, they buy nice carpets when cheap ones would be just as functional, they pay executives exorbitant salaries without considering direct cost benefit. They're allowed to do all of these things.
If your theory were correct, then there would be no non-profit corporations, there would be no corporate giving, and every company would simply change their market with the prevaling winds.
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
You're still wrong, even before we get to a discussion of the business-judgement rule. The duty that you are claiming, simply doesn't exist. There is no duty on the part of the Directors to maximize short term profits or value. Yes, Directors have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, but that only speaks to the standard by which their behavior and decision making process will be judged, it doesn't impose any obligation to make particular decisions.
If you were correct, then shareholders would be suing directors for all the potentially profitable things that companies aren't doing. You would also have a lawsuit everytime a corporation gave money to charity.
There certainly are folks who think that there should be such a duty, or that this idea should guide all corporate decision making, but there is no such legal duty.
You still don't get it. Over 120,000,000 votes were cast in the last US Presidential election. You can't look at that many votes at one time. You certainly aren't entitled to the entire database, and I'm not going to give it to you for perfectly valid security reasons. You also aren't going to convince 120,000,000 people to logon to some website and check their votes. So you are left with spot checks. And you need an interface to make queries. And it's going to be my interface, since I have the data. As long as the database knows what you really voted for, it can return the "correct" values for any reasonable sized queries, and still have the totals be whatever I want. You can't just write a script to iterate through every vote, since you won't know what all the voter IDs are (making them sequential or otherwise easily guessable would be dumb).
This really is one of those, "If you think there is a simple solution, you probably don't understand the problem," situations.
It doesn't matter if the code is open or not. The people crying the loudest aren't worried about coding errors (which open source might make finding easier), they are convinced that those writing the code are actively tampering with votes. So, opening the code does no good unless you are going to compile the code yourself on election day (bring your own compiler) on your own hardware. Your system of checking your own vote via a serial number is similarly flawed. If I wanted to cheat, I would simply write the query engine to return the "real" vote whenever it was queried for a single or small number of votes, but to always report the results I've programmed in aggregate.
And hopefully it wasn't the guy sitting next to you running fakeap on his laptop and stealing all of your passwords!
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
You can argue whatever you like. But you can't make up legal duties:
"They have a legal duty to their shareholders," is not a true statement.
And it also isn't true that all companies that have shareholders are obliged to make money for them. You may wish it were, you may argue that it is, but it isn't.
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
That's just not true. A company is in no way obligated to do whatever makes the most money for its shareholders.
Fine, work to change it. But what that tells me is the the US is still closer to your ideal that any other country, otherwise you would move somewhere else and try to change them.
General speaking, you are full of it. There are certainly folks who emigrate from the US. But generaly they're moving the other way. Millons of westerners emigrate from their home coutries. They just do it towards the US. Please name a country that has an immigration surplus with the US. I used the example of Canada because there should be very little pain for an American to move to Canada. The cultures are very similar, they speak the same language (mostly) and they look like us. Canada has also implemented many of the policies that anti-American Americans claim the are in favor of. For some reason, year after year, Canada runs an immigration deficit with the US. Things that make you go hmmm.
Seems obvious to me. Free marketeers are opposed to monopolies just like everyone else. When governments enter the private sector they behave very similarly to monopolies, because they aren't playing with their own money. This leads to market failure. The article has no logic whatsoever, and the author makes no attempt to examine the logic of the reports that it criticizes.
Slashdot Mirror
I linked (I did not cite a 'reference') to wikipedia because that's what the slashbots seem to like, not because I have any degree of respect for it in general. If I were going to cite a 'reference' on the definition of a legal term of art, I'd probably cite something like Black's Law Dictionary. I don't give a shit what the page on wikipedia says 10 hours later, I won't be thinking about the subject by then. Perhaps you're new to the Internet, but linking to a page is not the same as citing a 'reference', and ever since the dawn of the tubes, there's been the danger of content changing on you.
Did I say you didn't go to law school, or did you infer it? I'd like to believe that if you did go to law school, they would have taught you some basic reading comprehension. Contracts are in fact a part of that body of law refered to as "Private Law". Since there's a larger body of private law than public law, it's just ignorant to say that contracts are not law. Just because you can't (necesarily) be jailed for violating a contract, doesn't mean you aren't legally bound to abide by it.
There. Did *you* learn something?
No. Care to try again?
As a matter of fact, ignorance of a contract is NOT an excuse. Just because you didn't read a contract you agreed to, don't expect to be let out of it.
Nothing replaces them, because 99.9% of the world doesn't care what some administrative court in Australia says. Over here, employers will still notify their employees of workplace policies in whatever manner they choose, and fire them when the policies are violated. But, we aren't nearly as socialist in our policies as the Aussies.
Really, so courts don't enforce contracts, and impose penalties for breach where you live? They sure do around here. When you are done attacking the guy who actually went to law school, maybe you could take the opportunity to learn something.
So, when you check your vote, it tells you right or left, but it doesn't tell you which candidate that was. It would seem the computers could still be programmed to count the votes however you like, and still spit out the correct answers to right or left. By design, there is no way to correlate right and left to particular candidates. So, even if you had ALL of the data and could count all the votes yourself, but without knowing what each R or L represents, you have no way of verifying the results.
It also wouldn't apply if they were soliciting copyright works. Do you think that people uploading TV shows (even if they wind up being taken down) helps or hurts YouTube?
However, a large percentage (high 90s) of the content on YouTube is CREATIVE work, that happens to include some instances of licensed content somewhere within it.
Everything on YouTube is copyrighted material. Some of it is up with the permission of the copyright owner, but there's probably a negligible amount that is really in the public domain. Unless it's been uploaded by the person who made it, or with his permission then all the stuff on YouTube is infringing someone's copyright.
You're probably right. There are already groups like BMI, ASCAP, RIAA, MPLC, etc., that probably represent the bulk of the copyright owners that YouTube would have to pay off. I'm sure YouTube could work out a licensing arrangement, similar to what radio stations and restaurants have, that wouldn't require them to know exactly what was being published. For the remaining unrepresented copyright holders, YouTube could offer to publish their material for free, or allow them to request takedowns.
But, YouTube has been making money off of others' works for so long now, it may be a hard habit to break.
I can't stop you? I can:
1. Limit each person to a certain number of queries
2. Randomize the voter IDs
3. Make you wait n seconds for the result of each query (even if n=1, it would take you over four years to get all the results from the 2004 election, notwithstanding 1 or 2)
There's valid reasons to do all of the above, even if I'm not cheating.
But since you are such a defender of the NYT, do you think publishing the location of these documents was the right thing to do? It seems to me that the NYT staff either thought that the documents weren't really that dangerous, or they commited treason. Which do you think it is?
How can you tell the difference?
These documents came from Iraq. It would be silly to assume that the North Koreans, et al, haven't already seen them. These aren't our blueprints for a sophisticated device, they're what Saddam (who I've been told had no WMDs and no active nuclear program) was working with.
While it may seem like a high standard, "Rational Basis" is generally one of lowest standards of judicial review. It basically means that they had a reason. It doesn't have to be a good reason, you don't have to agree with the logic of it, and it doesn't have to pan out. Essentially, it rules out "wimsy".
Even if you hold the Directors to a higher standard, like say, "A really, really, good reason," there are good reasons to do things, other than profit. Companies buy art to decorate their walls, they buy nice carpets when cheap ones would be just as functional, they pay executives exorbitant salaries without considering direct cost benefit. They're allowed to do all of these things.
If your theory were correct, then there would be no non-profit corporations, there would be no corporate giving, and every company would simply change their market with the prevaling winds.
You're still wrong, even before we get to a discussion of the business-judgement rule. The duty that you are claiming, simply doesn't exist. There is no duty on the part of the Directors to maximize short term profits or value. Yes, Directors have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, but that only speaks to the standard by which their behavior and decision making process will be judged, it doesn't impose any obligation to make particular decisions.
If you were correct, then shareholders would be suing directors for all the potentially profitable things that companies aren't doing. You would also have a lawsuit everytime a corporation gave money to charity.
There certainly are folks who think that there should be such a duty, or that this idea should guide all corporate decision making, but there is no such legal duty.
You still don't get it. Over 120,000,000 votes were cast in the last US Presidential election. You can't look at that many votes at one time. You certainly aren't entitled to the entire database, and I'm not going to give it to you for perfectly valid security reasons. You also aren't going to convince 120,000,000 people to logon to some website and check their votes. So you are left with spot checks. And you need an interface to make queries. And it's going to be my interface, since I have the data. As long as the database knows what you really voted for, it can return the "correct" values for any reasonable sized queries, and still have the totals be whatever I want. You can't just write a script to iterate through every vote, since you won't know what all the voter IDs are (making them sequential or otherwise easily guessable would be dumb).
This really is one of those, "If you think there is a simple solution, you probably don't understand the problem," situations.
It doesn't matter if the code is open or not. The people crying the loudest aren't worried about coding errors (which open source might make finding easier), they are convinced that those writing the code are actively tampering with votes. So, opening the code does no good unless you are going to compile the code yourself on election day (bring your own compiler) on your own hardware. Your system of checking your own vote via a serial number is similarly flawed. If I wanted to cheat, I would simply write the query engine to return the "real" vote whenever it was queried for a single or small number of votes, but to always report the results I've programmed in aggregate.
And hopefully it wasn't the guy sitting next to you running fakeap on his laptop and stealing all of your passwords!
You can argue whatever you like. But you can't make up legal duties:
"They have a legal duty to their shareholders," is not a true statement.
And it also isn't true that all companies that have shareholders are obliged to make money for them. You may wish it were, you may argue that it is, but it isn't.
That's just not true. A company is in no way obligated to do whatever makes the most money for its shareholders.
An amniocentesis samples the fluid around the baby, and the needle does not (is not supposed to) touch the baby, let alone go into his spine.
If the risk went from 1 in 300 to 1 in 150, the risk went up, not down.
Him == Most Powerful Man in the World
You == Help Desk Support
Dumbo indeed.
Bush -- Bachelor degree from Yale and MBA from Harvard
You -- Associates degree from community college
Has George Bush ever called you dumb?
Fine, work to change it. But what that tells me is the the US is still closer to your ideal that any other country, otherwise you would move somewhere else and try to change them.
General speaking, you are full of it. There are certainly folks who emigrate from the US. But generaly they're moving the other way. Millons of westerners emigrate from their home coutries. They just do it towards the US. Please name a country that has an immigration surplus with the US. I used the example of Canada because there should be very little pain for an American to move to Canada. The cultures are very similar, they speak the same language (mostly) and they look like us. Canada has also implemented many of the policies that anti-American Americans claim the are in favor of. For some reason, year after year, Canada runs an immigration deficit with the US. Things that make you go hmmm.
Seems obvious to me. Free marketeers are opposed to monopolies just like everyone else. When governments enter the private sector they behave very similarly to monopolies, because they aren't playing with their own money. This leads to market failure. The article has no logic whatsoever, and the author makes no attempt to examine the logic of the reports that it criticizes.