So why is it that NSI is allowed to put into their registration agreement that "OK, it's your ass if you've done anything wrong, and we'll stick it to you, but if we screw up, well, that's just too bad." This doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, it's a binding contract, and you really should read the terms of a contract you're "signing," but this seems extremely one-sided to me. Even my credit card company is nicer than this...
--------------------
Re:Denton (TX) County...
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
In retrospect, this came out wrong. I meant "cutting up" a tree, as in chopping it into firewood. I didn't mean "cutting down" a tree. Sorry for the confusion.
We've got a few here in Denton County that the site failed to list:
In the City of Denton, it is illegal to park your horse on the town square after 4PM on Sunday.
Again, in the City of Denton, dancing on the square in Sunday is prohibited.
Town of Oak Point says that no plot of land for sale may be smaller than 10 feet by 10 feet.
City of Lewisville bans advertising signs on telephone poles and inserted into the ground, but laying them on the street is OK.
In Flower Mound, the cutting of a tree on your property is illegal without a permit.
In Marshall Creek, you may not have a home that is larger than 1800 square feet (this is interesting, considering the town is only about 200 acres anyway).
Here's how you do it (I still have a Win3.1 box at work:P.... ):
You must hold CTRL-ALT-LEFT SHIFT through out this
1. Click Help then About 2. Double click one of the panes in the Windows logo 3. Click OK
Once you've done steps 1-3 and then repeated them again, you will be greeted with a waving MS flag. Repeat 1-3 one more time, and you will see one of the Microsoft head hanchos (at the time), or the Microsoft Bear, introducing each of the programmer's e-mail address names (i.e. billg for Bill Gates, etc) broken down by development section.
I particularly like the part about how future legislation in this area will primarily further big business interests. As they mentioned, companies are using Congress to slug out their competitive differences, and the consumers get trampled for it.
So I obviously spent too much time in advance preparing for a pop quiz about CEO's of software companies from hot spots around the world.
Or his speechwriter does. Either way, that was my favourite part of the article.:) And, I'm even a George W. Bush supporter.
On the whole, it was a lot better than I expected. Perhaps Gore isn't the most technologically astute person, but he at least expresses opinions (his own or otherwise) well.
Wonder if he's studying the names of Justice Department heads around the world...:)
Colocation (aka co-lo) means exactly what it sounds like: You take your machine and set it up in their server room. They give you an ethernet plug that goes to their Internet backbone, thus putting your box on the net through their connection.
This may be adventageous for you, in that you don't have to maintain a constant temperature and its someone else's neck if the connection dies. Just make sure they allow you physical access to the box when necessary (think upgrades), and have some kind of ability to either reboot for you or allow you to do your own remote reboots (think system crashes).
The fundamental problem I find with the entire quiz is that the options listed at the top are not the sum total of everything that has been invented as a result of the Internet. Arbitrarily limiting your choices is almost as bad as having no choices at all, as you can't rely upon yourself to pick the appropriate tools.
Second, Q11 is unfair and ungrounded. What many people fail to realize is that technology is not our overall saviour, and it will not fix every problem. Sooner or later, we're going to have to use some good ol' human compassion to help those around us. I didn't think Q11 made me feel guilty, it made me realize that now, even more, I have to work harder to bridge the gap between myself and those less fortunate.
How the quiz at all relates to educating those who would make new laws is beyond me, unless your goal is to make them technically savvy.
1) you seem to have a double standard: on one side you want people to recognize your electronic signature but on the other side you are not prepared to receive electronic confirmations of stuff you signed. Odd.
Actually, I'd prefer to stick with the pen and paper route, if I so choose. My belief is this: If I sign something in pen and paper, you will communicate with me via paper. If I sign it electronically, you will communicate with me digitally. The problem I have with this bill is it doesn't allow the choice. It says that they have to notify you that you will receive electronic notices, but they don't have to give you the chance to say no unless they want to (and if electronically reduces their costs, they won't want to).
2) You use a very primitive email reader (one that only displays ASCII), while this isprobably good enough for most applications, the majority of users uses a more advanced mail client (one that allows HTML layout).
I suspect that users of pine, mutt, Eudora Lite, Pegasus (which may now support HTML) and people with low speed connections heartily disagree with you. I use Outlook Express 5, and can receive HTML messages. However, I also use a cellular modem to download the same messages, and do not want to suck a huge HTML message down a 9.6k straw. My original intent was to point out that not everyone who is "electronic" uses, or even likes, HTML messages, and may not even be capable of receiving them. (Outlook is set to convert everything to text for me)
Email is rather popular these days but many people still don't check their email on a daily or even weekly basis.
And, as I stated earlier, what happens if your computer is down when that all-important notice arrives? I've never had my outside mailbox self-destruct, but I have had my computer lose all traces of my e-mail (which may have arrived before my latest backup).
Under the terms of the bill, the consent to electronic notice has to be "conspicuous and visually separate from other terms"; it can't be something that's slipped into the middle of a paragraph somewhere.
Oops, you're right. However, where is the protection that says, unless I initial RIGHT HERE, they can't send my notices electronically? My point is, where is the "opt-in," the choice to receive electronic notices or not. Sure, they are required to tell me that I'll be receiving them this way, same as they are required to tell me that my late fee is now $400, if they so choose, but either way, there is no method for me to say "No, I don't want this."
I wouldn't have such a big problem with this if they (Congress) were able to structure the notification requirement in such a way that it couldn't be made a fundamental part of the contract. Instead, it would have to be a seperate choice made after you agreed to the "primary" contract and wouldn't adversely affect you either way. (i.e. CC can't tell you the next time you send in a payment, "sign here to receive electronic notices or your card gets cancelled.") That's probably not going to happen because it gets into the murky waters of affecting a company and/or individual's right to do business the way they choose.
/me thinks it'd probably be better to leave this out until we either a) work out a more equitable solution or b) corporations become more trustworthy.:)
I don't know where you come from, but I've been begging companies to send me my information by E-mail instead of paper form for a long time now.
I like getting information electronically as well. My CC provider (Aria) is good at this, and its a handy feature. However, I do worry greatly about the potential for abuse. Warranties generally do not change, neither do home loan documents generally change. But credit card notices, bank notices, etc, are things that I receive on almost a bi-monthly basis. I do not want them to have the out to (whether the law says its legal to or not) hide stuff or send it in a fashion that is as unreliable as electronic notification is.
Unreliable? Yep, it is. My mailbox out front, or my PO box, is not prone to flatly refusing to receive anything for long periods of time. My computer, after my wonderful kid pours coke down the insides, is. Say I receive perfectly valid notice that, unless I do A-B-C, my card will be cancelled. How am I supposed to respond to this if my electronic receiving device is unavailable? Yes, the postal service loses letters, but not nearly as often as I've lost e-mail due to freak occurances of Operating System Nature. (FWIW: Yes, I run Linux.)
The bill would also allow companies -- when consumers agree -- to deliver warranties, notices and other required disclosures in electronic form.
This is absolutely what I *do* *not* want. I have a hard enough time as it is getting my CC company to follow the disclosure laws, and now they can just say "well, we sent it. your computer must've eaten the e-mail." As I read the bill, this would strengthen the corporation's rights of notification even beyond the standard you're-considered-notified-3-days-after-we-mail-th is provision. I also note that me notifying them electronically is not addressed.
This will suck, I believe. Just think, you get an electronic notification in a lovely HTML message (that you can't read on text readers), with a note up top in 5pt type "please see below for account information." If you do take the time to read it, you find that in 15 days, your interest rate skyrockets from 13 to 23%, your payments are due in 10 days after the bill, oh and we're going to sell every bit of data we have about you. You may cancel your card under the original terms by sending written notice, in triplicate, to the following address that is written in off-white/grey text on a white background.
Oh, but wait, you say! The consumer has to agree to this! So, now when you sign up for something like this, Agreement 2, Section 9, Paragraph 12, Sentence 48 specifically says that you agree to electronic notifications. Come on...since when have you gotten to negotiate the fine print on a contract with a big corporation?
While this is probably off-topic, let me just say that workspot.net is one of the neater applications I've seen on the web in a long time.
For those who don't know and haven't visited, workspot gives you the standard "stash your filez here" interface, but...there's this intriguing little tab up top labeled "Linux Desktop." You click on it, and are asked for the screen geometrics you want to use. A quick click later, and you're looking at a KDE desktop! Through the magic of AT&T's VNC Java viewer, you get your very own KDE session, where you can do whatever you'd normally do on a "regular" Linux box and account.
This is very neat, and I think I'll kill another hour playing with it.
...to me. Now, wait, before you go reading FAR too much into that sentence, let me explain:
I'm 19, male, and in college, and have yet to go out on a "date" at all. Why not? It's not due to any of the reasons you probably thought above (i.e. I'm not gay, etc), but because I simply have other things to do, and I suspect this is the case with a number of computer people. We're too busy trying to save the world from the evils of Microsoft, posting to slashdot at 11:35PM (CST) or doing other things that have nothing at all to do with computers, but don't seem to interest many females (laser tag and meeting at McDonald's after..well, nevermind the trouble I've gotten into).
This is news for nerds, and everyone else as well. Much as people may not want to admit it, Microsoft controls a large portion of the computing world, as well as a large portion of its destiny. The outcome of this and its associated trials will most likely make a large impact on this industry, if it hasn't already. True, most of the posts are anti-Microsoft, but you have to consider the audience.
(Hope this reply goes through...so much for fully bug-testing on the devel machine)
Ah, nice catch. I'd been wondering what the major difference was between CFR and say, USC (United States Code) was.
Question, however: Presidential Executive Orders take effect when published in the Federal Register. Is this the same as the FR in CFR? And, if, so, why do these executive orders carry the same "weight" as law? Is it because everyone's afraid to tick off the President?
(Feel free to reply via e-mail if this is too off-topic)
This was reported in the Dallas Morning News about 6 years ago (and the Times Herald earlier than that). 14 CFR 1211 100 through 108 was removed by Richard Truly on 26 Apr 1991 (which in itself struck many people as odd, since theoretically only Congress can repeal laws, but that's another matter).
The reason the section says "RESERVED" is because of the text of the repeal document, which specifically stated that 14 CFR 1211.100-108 would be "removed and reserved." It is common practice to do this, since if the section were not reserved, laws below it would need to be renumbered in keeping with the CFR's layout.
FWIW: This law was probably passed as a security measure in case we did find anything and ticked them off badly. I suppose the government thought the only way they could get the people who were "contacted" to come in for examination was by brute force.
OK, but what about rigging up a software button that, when pushed (as the power button) when the system was on would send a term signal to Linux, causing it to shutdown gracefully? Since we wouldn't be dealing with all the stuff that's on a "regular" Linux box, shutdown should take a few seconds at most, and would then just power down.
That's what my Gateway box does now, and if you push the button while its off, the box starts booting. Surely this couldn't be too difficult.
Being age 13 and working for an incorporated business is usually against Federal labor laws. Would that make you the sort of person you honestly won't be doing business with?
Ahhh, but I never said I was from the United States, now did I? But, now that we've gotten that bit out of the way, I am: Texas, in fact. However, as was stated earlier, you can be an officer of a corporation with few problems at all. I never lied about my age (clients knew I was 13; we even had an office party on my 16th birthday) and did everything I could to abide by the laws in place. Sure, that meant missing out on some things (we never went to Comdex), but its worked out rather well.
I do not see how one (1) ethical misstep leads to an increase in the likelihood of other ethical missteps.
It doesn't necessarily increase, but once you've begun lying about the "small" stuff, what happens when something comes along that is small to you, but very important otherwise? Or, if you're used to lying to cover your ass, who says you won't do it again, and more often? It's not always true, but does remind me of one of my favorite sayings: Generally, I hate generalities. This is a generality based on my experience (no, all of my friends are not liars).
But Microsoft did, and in front of the U.S. Congress too.
That's Microsoft, not me. I don't emulate Microsoft's practices, or do business with them.
The CTO, as a minor, cannot be held legally responsible for his own actions
Actually, he can be held responsible for his actions, as can his parents...but this is not about the kid. Comdex is responsible if he trips over a cord because Comdex let it happen.
A better example would be, what if he started insulting everyone there (or, say, started spreading lies about everyone's favorite sofware company). Comdex could get sued as an accessory to libel because they let the kid in, and he's not responsible for what he does (see above).
Probably a lot of people, considering you need to have a pass and a badge to get in and wander around.
would you lie about your age to the COMDEX organizers? I would.
Then I can honestly say I won't be doing business with you. Sure, it seems "petty," but your willingness to disregard ethics on small things only shows me that you're more likely to disregard them on larger and larger matters. If the organizers of the show say no, then, I'm sorry, but its their show and they can set the rules. That doesn't mean a I like the rules they set, however I'm not going to lie about something just to get into a computer show. There are other shows, and other ways of getting in (why not try calling everyone you can find related to Comdex? The article seems like they only called once, probably the main number. Try finding the principals of the show, e-mailing them)
(Full disclosure: I'm 19. My business was incorporated in 1993, at the age of 13. We've never had this problem for one simple reason: Our sales guy is over 21....he can take clients out for drinks if they like)
Not really, because the names of acts are generally set by the act themselves. Also, the name really has no legal force. Case in point from this same bill:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act.''.
So, if that included "of 1999," then it wouldn't matter when they actually changed the law through amendments, unless they amended the law to change the name, the old name would stick, leading to mass hysteria and convusion. (Case in point: I believe that the SEC is covered under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1916 [not for certain, tho])
Sure, legally they can't touch you, but you become ostracized by your peers. Is that the mark of a free and educated society?
If you have said something I do not like, is that a violation of our freedoms if I choose to no longer associate with you? Note that this does not apply to those who have resorted to death threats and slander...
To say that, even after you've (however unintentionally) fouled what I believe to be right, I should still associate with you even if I do not want to is in itself against our freedoms.
"This is a work of fiction. Any relation to any persons, places, or things, living or dead, is purely coincidental and unintentional." - Paraphrased standard movie disclaimer.
Slashdot Mirror
So why is it that NSI is allowed to put into their registration agreement that "OK, it's your ass if you've done anything wrong, and we'll stick it to you, but if we screw up, well, that's just too bad." This doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, it's a binding contract, and you really should read the terms of a contract you're "signing," but this seems extremely one-sided to me. Even my credit card company is nicer than this...
--------------------
In retrospect, this came out wrong. I meant "cutting up" a tree, as in chopping it into firewood. I didn't mean "cutting down" a tree. Sorry for the confusion.
--------------------
- In the City of Denton, it is illegal to park your horse on the town square after 4PM on Sunday.
- Again, in the City of Denton, dancing on the square in Sunday is prohibited.
- Town of Oak Point says that no plot of land for sale may be smaller than 10 feet by 10 feet.
- City of Lewisville bans advertising signs on telephone poles and inserted into the ground, but laying them on the street is OK.
- In Flower Mound, the cutting of a tree on your property is illegal without a permit.
- In Marshall Creek, you may not have a home that is larger than 1800 square feet (this is interesting, considering the town is only about 200 acres anyway).
Have fun.--------------------
You must hold CTRL-ALT-LEFT SHIFT through out this
1. Click Help then About
2. Double click one of the panes in the Windows logo
3. Click OK
Once you've done steps 1-3 and then repeated them again, you will be greeted with a waving MS flag. Repeat 1-3 one more time, and you will see one of the Microsoft head hanchos (at the time), or the Microsoft Bear, introducing each of the programmer's e-mail address names (i.e. billg for Bill Gates, etc) broken down by development section.
--------------------
Ah well...is Canada any better?
--------------------
Or his speechwriter does. Either way, that was my favourite part of the article. :) And, I'm even a George W. Bush supporter.
On the whole, it was a lot better than I expected. Perhaps Gore isn't the most technologically astute person, but he at least expresses opinions (his own or otherwise) well.
Wonder if he's studying the names of Justice Department heads around the world... :)
--------------------
This may be adventageous for you, in that you don't have to maintain a constant temperature and its someone else's neck if the connection dies. Just make sure they allow you physical access to the box when necessary (think upgrades), and have some kind of ability to either reboot for you or allow you to do your own remote reboots (think system crashes).
--------------------
Second, Q11 is unfair and ungrounded. What many people fail to realize is that technology is not our overall saviour, and it will not fix every problem. Sooner or later, we're going to have to use some good ol' human compassion to help those around us. I didn't think Q11 made me feel guilty, it made me realize that now, even more, I have to work harder to bridge the gap between myself and those less fortunate.
How the quiz at all relates to educating those who would make new laws is beyond me, unless your goal is to make them technically savvy.
--------------------
Actually, I'd prefer to stick with the pen and paper route, if I so choose. My belief is this: If I sign something in pen and paper, you will communicate with me via paper. If I sign it electronically, you will communicate with me digitally. The problem I have with this bill is it doesn't allow the choice. It says that they have to notify you that you will receive electronic notices, but they don't have to give you the chance to say no unless they want to (and if electronically reduces their costs, they won't want to).
2) You use a very primitive email reader (one that only displays ASCII), while this isprobably good enough for most applications, the majority of users uses a more advanced mail client (one that allows HTML layout).
I suspect that users of pine, mutt, Eudora Lite, Pegasus (which may now support HTML) and people with low speed connections heartily disagree with you. I use Outlook Express 5, and can receive HTML messages. However, I also use a cellular modem to download the same messages, and do not want to suck a huge HTML message down a 9.6k straw. My original intent was to point out that not everyone who is "electronic" uses, or even likes, HTML messages, and may not even be capable of receiving them. (Outlook is set to convert everything to text for me)
Email is rather popular these days but many people still don't check their email on a daily or even weekly basis.
And, as I stated earlier, what happens if your computer is down when that all-important notice arrives? I've never had my outside mailbox self-destruct, but I have had my computer lose all traces of my e-mail (which may have arrived before my latest backup).
--------------------
Oops, you're right. However, where is the protection that says, unless I initial RIGHT HERE, they can't send my notices electronically? My point is, where is the "opt-in," the choice to receive electronic notices or not. Sure, they are required to tell me that I'll be receiving them this way, same as they are required to tell me that my late fee is now $400, if they so choose, but either way, there is no method for me to say "No, I don't want this."
I wouldn't have such a big problem with this if they (Congress) were able to structure the notification requirement in such a way that it couldn't be made a fundamental part of the contract. Instead, it would have to be a seperate choice made after you agreed to the "primary" contract and wouldn't adversely affect you either way. (i.e. CC can't tell you the next time you send in a payment, "sign here to receive electronic notices or your card gets cancelled.") That's probably not going to happen because it gets into the murky waters of affecting a company and/or individual's right to do business the way they choose.
--------------------
I like getting information electronically as well. My CC provider (Aria) is good at this, and its a handy feature. However, I do worry greatly about the potential for abuse. Warranties generally do not change, neither do home loan documents generally change. But credit card notices, bank notices, etc, are things that I receive on almost a bi-monthly basis. I do not want them to have the out to (whether the law says its legal to or not) hide stuff or send it in a fashion that is as unreliable as electronic notification is.
Unreliable? Yep, it is. My mailbox out front, or my PO box, is not prone to flatly refusing to receive anything for long periods of time. My computer, after my wonderful kid pours coke down the insides, is. Say I receive perfectly valid notice that, unless I do A-B-C, my card will be cancelled. How am I supposed to respond to this if my electronic receiving device is unavailable? Yes, the postal service loses letters, but not nearly as often as I've lost e-mail due to freak occurances of Operating System Nature. (FWIW: Yes, I run Linux.)
--------------------
This is absolutely what I *do* *not* want. I have a hard enough time as it is getting my CC company to follow the disclosure laws, and now they can just say "well, we sent it. your computer must've eaten the e-mail." As I read the bill, this would strengthen the corporation's rights of notification even beyond the standard you're-considered-notified-3-days-after-we-mail-th is provision. I also note that me notifying them electronically is not addressed.
This will suck, I believe. Just think, you get an electronic notification in a lovely HTML message (that you can't read on text readers), with a note up top in 5pt type "please see below for account information." If you do take the time to read it, you find that in 15 days, your interest rate skyrockets from 13 to 23%, your payments are due in 10 days after the bill, oh and we're going to sell every bit of data we have about you. You may cancel your card under the original terms by sending written notice, in triplicate, to the following address that is written in off-white/grey text on a white background.
Oh, but wait, you say! The consumer has to agree to this! So, now when you sign up for something like this, Agreement 2, Section 9, Paragraph 12, Sentence 48 specifically says that you agree to electronic notifications. Come on...since when have you gotten to negotiate the fine print on a contract with a big corporation?
--------------------
For those who don't know and haven't visited, workspot gives you the standard "stash your filez here" interface, but...there's this intriguing little tab up top labeled "Linux Desktop." You click on it, and are asked for the screen geometrics you want to use. A quick click later, and you're looking at a KDE desktop! Through the magic of AT&T's VNC Java viewer, you get your very own KDE session, where you can do whatever you'd normally do on a "regular" Linux box and account.
This is very neat, and I think I'll kill another hour playing with it.
--------------------
I'm 19, male, and in college, and have yet to go out on a "date" at all. Why not? It's not due to any of the reasons you probably thought above (i.e. I'm not gay, etc), but because I simply have other things to do, and I suspect this is the case with a number of computer people. We're too busy trying to save the world from the evils of Microsoft, posting to slashdot at 11:35PM (CST) or doing other things that have nothing at all to do with computers, but don't seem to interest many females (laser tag and meeting at McDonald's after..well, nevermind the trouble I've gotten into).
So, how accurate am I?
--------------------
This is news for nerds, and everyone else as well. Much as people may not want to admit it, Microsoft controls a large portion of the computing world, as well as a large portion of its destiny. The outcome of this and its associated trials will most likely make a large impact on this industry, if it hasn't already. True, most of the posts are anti-Microsoft, but you have to consider the audience.
--------------------
Ah, nice catch. I'd been wondering what the major difference was between CFR and say, USC (United States Code) was.
Question, however: Presidential Executive Orders take effect when published in the Federal Register. Is this the same as the FR in CFR? And, if, so, why do these executive orders carry the same "weight" as law? Is it because everyone's afraid to tick off the President?
(Feel free to reply via e-mail if this is too off-topic)
--------------------
The reason the section says "RESERVED" is because of the text of the repeal document, which specifically stated that 14 CFR 1211.100-108 would be "removed and reserved." It is common practice to do this, since if the section were not reserved, laws below it would need to be renumbered in keeping with the CFR's layout.
FWIW: This law was probably passed as a security measure in case we did find anything and ticked them off badly. I suppose the government thought the only way they could get the people who were "contacted" to come in for examination was by brute force.
--------------------
That's what my Gateway box does now, and if you push the button while its off, the box starts booting. Surely this couldn't be too difficult.
--------------------
Ahhh, but I never said I was from the United States, now did I? But, now that we've gotten that bit out of the way, I am: Texas, in fact. However, as was stated earlier, you can be an officer of a corporation with few problems at all. I never lied about my age (clients knew I was 13; we even had an office party on my 16th birthday) and did everything I could to abide by the laws in place. Sure, that meant missing out on some things (we never went to Comdex), but its worked out rather well.
I do not see how one (1) ethical misstep leads to an increase in the likelihood of other ethical missteps.
It doesn't necessarily increase, but once you've begun lying about the "small" stuff, what happens when something comes along that is small to you, but very important otherwise? Or, if you're used to lying to cover your ass, who says you won't do it again, and more often? It's not always true, but does remind me of one of my favorite sayings: Generally, I hate generalities. This is a generality based on my experience (no, all of my friends are not liars).
But Microsoft did, and in front of the U.S. Congress too.
That's Microsoft, not me. I don't emulate Microsoft's practices, or do business with them.
Actually, he can be held responsible for his actions, as can his parents...but this is not about the kid. Comdex is responsible if he trips over a cord because Comdex let it happen.
A better example would be, what if he started insulting everyone there (or, say, started spreading lies about everyone's favorite sofware company). Comdex could get sued as an accessory to libel because they let the kid in, and he's not responsible for what he does (see above).
Probably a lot of people, considering you need to have a pass and a badge to get in and wander around.
would you lie about your age to the COMDEX organizers? I would.
Then I can honestly say I won't be doing business with you. Sure, it seems "petty," but your willingness to disregard ethics on small things only shows me that you're more likely to disregard them on larger and larger matters. If the organizers of the show say no, then, I'm sorry, but its their show and they can set the rules. That doesn't mean a I like the rules they set, however I'm not going to lie about something just to get into a computer show. There are other shows, and other ways of getting in (why not try calling everyone you can find related to Comdex? The article seems like they only called once, probably the main number. Try finding the principals of the show, e-mailing them)
(Full disclosure: I'm 19. My business was incorporated in 1993, at the age of 13. We've never had this problem for one simple reason: Our sales guy is over 21....he can take clients out for drinks if they like)
A: At least we believe one exists.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act.''.
So, if that included "of 1999," then it wouldn't matter when they actually changed the law through amendments, unless they amended the law to change the name, the old name would stick, leading to mass hysteria and convusion. (Case in point: I believe that the SEC is covered under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1916 [not for certain, tho])
If you have said something I do not like, is that a violation of our freedoms if I choose to no longer associate with you? Note that this does not apply to those who have resorted to death threats and slander...
To say that, even after you've (however unintentionally) fouled what I believe to be right, I should still associate with you even if I do not want to is in itself against our freedoms.
"This is a work of fiction. Any relation to any persons, places, or things, living or dead, is purely coincidental and unintentional." - Paraphrased standard movie disclaimer.