Generally speaking, the Ex Post Facto prohibition has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to only apply to criminal proceedings. Calder v. Bull (1798)
Since this is an administrative proceeding, the Ex Post Facto prohibition doesn't apply.
Yes, but the point of this is making to make it trivial to send 50 or so e-mails a day, while making it prohibitively expensive in computation costs to send 50 million emails a day.
If it takes 3 seconds per e-mail, the average user won't notice the addition, but the average spammer will have to spend 1700 hours computing stamps to send his 50 million emails.
Uh-huh. You've got it in writing. You know what else I bet you have? A nice little clause in the user agreement that says "all terms of this agreement subject to change upon notice by Comcast." That means that your 'in writing' agreement lasts exactly as long as they want it to, and no longer.
Insightful? My ass the post's insightful. Posts that repeat urban legends without any references are never insightful.
I suppose, your comment is technically correct: a burglar can certainly sue his victim. Anyone can sue for damn near anything, but if you don't have a case under the law you're going to get your ass laughed out of court. Your implication, however, that a burglar would win such a case seems exceptionally questionable.
Then again, I could be wrong -- it's been known to happen. If someone would like to cite an actual case where this has happened and not been overturned on appeal I'd love to hear it. Don't change the scenario either -- I don't want to hear about burglars injured by booby traps.
I wish. However, I believe Thomas Kuhn and "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" far precedes, and will far outlast the.com bubble (first published 1962).
If you ever want to claw your own eyes out and need some motivation, just read that book. He comes up with the concept of "Paradigm Shifts" and explains them in exceptionally excruciating detail.
To be fair, it was a fairly revolutionary concept of it's day -- perhaps the best proof of this point is that it took managers 30 years to latch onto the concept and suck all the usefulness out of it. Managers then, of course, proceeded to use it incessantly and inappropriately to describe any change they needed to implement, revolutionary or not.
I know I'll probably regret this when my spam level goes up 400%, but my e-mail's now publicly viewable. If you'd still like to unload it, make an offer.
Hell, I'd settle for them releasing a 'best of lokisoft' collection. I can't find a damn copy of alpha centauri / alien crossfire other than the used copy selling for $145 on amazon.com.
I read they were strapping a dummy to the outside of the space station. I thought they were getting back at old G.W. Bush for cutting the hubble funding. Wrong dummy, I guess.
I've been playing with this idea myself. My commute is about 1 hour 15 minutes each way, and morning dj radio drives me nuts.
One idea I'm still working on implementing is getting non-audio news sources to my audio player. It's actually not that difficult to get software to read text for you -- I'm personally a fan of the Festival program.
I think you've got a logical problem with your argument. The determination of whether an arrest is legal or illegal is not your determination to make. It is a matter for the courts. Even assuming an implicit right to resist unlawful arrest, without the ability to determine for yourself whether an arrest is lawful, that right is moot.
As for how I can respect the states with such law, it's simple. You are left with a perfectly valid remedy for false arrest or unnecessary force -- you sue them. You rely on the court to make the determination of whether an arrest is unlawful and compensate you appropriately.
The other choice is for the biased individual under arrest to make a split-second decision on laws and precident he cannot possibly consider the full ramifications of in the time allowed. Upon making that determination his resistance is very likely to escalate any incident since the officer making the arrest has likely come to his own biased conculsion as to the legality of the arrest -- and may well consider the resistance as a threat to his wellbeing. I think I like the 'shut up and let a judge decide' idea better.
By the way, you are also legally allowed to resist arrest if you beleive the officer intends to harm you in an unlawful manner -- but just try arguing THAT one in court!
DISCLAIMER: Not a lawyer, just a law student
No.
Follow that rule, and you may well end your ass up in jail. The rule in most jurisdictions is that you do not have a right to resist arrest unless one "reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect against an arresting officer's use of unlawful and deadly force"
Essentially, you cannot resist arrest unless you're in fear of your life or grevious bodily injury -- EVEN if the arrest or use of force is unlawful. The way to deal with unlawful use of force is a civil action later. It is not up to the man on the street to decide whether an arrest is legal or illegal -- that is a matter for a judge and jury.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Biagini (655 A.2d 492) is a good example (and coincidentally where I stole the above quote from). Man is arrested without sufficient cause. During the arrest he assaults an officer. Man is found not guilty of original crime, but does time on the resisting arrest charge.
I don't think I can state it clearly enough -- you do not have a right to resist arrest except when in immediate fear of death / near death.
You can't copyright something you didn't write. Not counting works for hire and such -- but if they're claiming that they have aliens in far away galaxies working for them, they've got worse problems than copyright infringement.
Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. This is evidenced by taking away certain levels of privacy from criminals...
By that logic --
Freedom is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away freedom from convicted criminals.
Voting is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away voting rights from convicted criminals.
Living is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away life from convicted murderers.
Just because it can be taken away doesn't mean it's a privledge. The constitution guarantees not to take life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The argument here is that privacy is property, and illegally releasing it amounts to a taking of said property.
Section 8(b)(1) of this bill says that any and all state laws passed regulating e-mail are now superceded by this law. That means if your state lets you directly sue spammers, you can't anymore.
Trust me here. I worked the technical side of the real estate business for a while (Not spam, I programmed realtor websites). The one thing a broker cares about is a lead. But as good as a lead is, a bad lead is a the polar opposite. They'll put up with a few bad leads, but if you approach the point where somewhere around 50% of leads are bogus they get pissed. Change the percent of bogus replies to 99.9%, and they wouldn't touch it with a sterilized 10 foot pole while in a hazmat suit.
The only major problem I see here is that many of these e-mails ask you to call an 800 number. This makes the auto-reply more difficult. Anybody can run an auto-replier -- dialing 800 numbers and keeping them on the line with a realistic sounding voice would be more difficult. On the other hand, since *THEY* pay for the calls to the 800 number, the increase in fake replies wouldn't need to be giant to make the profit margin go bye-bye.
It says you can't use it without a court order or permission of the owner. If you own the car your kid's using it seems trivial to prove you consent to your own snooping.
Slashdot Mirror
"Always blame it on the guy who doesn't speak English"
Homer Simpson
Generally speaking, the Ex Post Facto prohibition has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to only apply to criminal proceedings. Calder v. Bull (1798)
Since this is an administrative proceeding, the Ex Post Facto prohibition doesn't apply.
strike that -- that should be 1700 days not hours.
Yes, but the point of this is making to make it trivial to send 50 or so e-mails a day, while making it prohibitively expensive in computation costs to send 50 million emails a day.
If it takes 3 seconds per e-mail, the average user won't notice the addition, but the average spammer will have to spend 1700 hours computing stamps to send his 50 million emails.
Uh-huh. You've got it in writing. You know what else I bet you have? A nice little clause in the user agreement that says "all terms of this agreement subject to change upon notice by Comcast." That means that your 'in writing' agreement lasts exactly as long as they want it to, and no longer.
Insightful? My ass the post's insightful. Posts that repeat urban legends without any references are never insightful.
I suppose, your comment is technically correct: a burglar can certainly sue his victim. Anyone can sue for damn near anything, but if you don't have a case under the law you're going to get your ass laughed out of court. Your implication, however, that a burglar would win such a case seems exceptionally questionable.
Then again, I could be wrong -- it's been known to happen. If someone would like to cite an actual case where this has happened and not been overturned on appeal I'd love to hear it. Don't change the scenario either -- I don't want to hear about burglars injured by booby traps.
I wish. However, I believe Thomas Kuhn and "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" far precedes, and will far outlast the .com bubble (first published 1962).
If you ever want to claw your own eyes out and need some motivation, just read that book. He comes up with the concept of "Paradigm Shifts" and explains them in exceptionally excruciating detail.
To be fair, it was a fairly revolutionary concept of it's day -- perhaps the best proof of this point is that it took managers 30 years to latch onto the concept and suck all the usefulness out of it. Managers then, of course, proceeded to use it incessantly and inappropriately to describe any change they needed to implement, revolutionary or not.
Pluto is the 9th planet.
1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. Earth
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn
7. Uranus
8. Neptune
9. Pluto
I believe he's talking about newly-discovered Sedna.
People unable to learn are NOT the people who use computers.
You've never worked tech support, have you?
I think the best answer the 'If nobody would by this stuff...' argument was:
Spam works on the level of 1 in 10,000. The general population contains a far higher rate of mental illness, senility, and retardation.
You'll never cure spam by 'education' of any sort. There are some people who are just too crazy or too stupid to learn.
I know I'll probably regret this when my spam level goes up 400%, but my e-mail's now publicly viewable. If you'd still like to unload it, make an offer.
Hell, I'd settle for them releasing a 'best of lokisoft' collection. I can't find a damn copy of alpha centauri / alien crossfire other than the used copy selling for $145 on amazon.com.
Anybody got a copy they're not using? Please?
I read they were strapping a dummy to the outside of the space station. I thought they were getting back at old G.W. Bush for cutting the hubble funding. Wrong dummy, I guess.
I've been playing with this idea myself. My commute is about 1 hour 15 minutes each way, and morning dj radio drives me nuts.
One idea I'm still working on implementing is getting non-audio news sources to my audio player. It's actually not that difficult to get software to read text for you -- I'm personally a fan of the Festival program.
I think you've got a logical problem with your argument. The determination of whether an arrest is legal or illegal is not your determination to make. It is a matter for the courts. Even assuming an implicit right to resist unlawful arrest, without the ability to determine for yourself whether an arrest is lawful, that right is moot.
As for how I can respect the states with such law, it's simple. You are left with a perfectly valid remedy for false arrest or unnecessary force -- you sue them. You rely on the court to make the determination of whether an arrest is unlawful and compensate you appropriately.
The other choice is for the biased individual under arrest to make a split-second decision on laws and precident he cannot possibly consider the full ramifications of in the time allowed. Upon making that determination his resistance is very likely to escalate any incident since the officer making the arrest has likely come to his own biased conculsion as to the legality of the arrest -- and may well consider the resistance as a threat to his wellbeing. I think I like the 'shut up and let a judge decide' idea better.
By the way, you are also legally allowed to resist arrest if you beleive the officer intends to harm you in an unlawful manner -- but just try arguing THAT one in court!
DISCLAIMER: Not a lawyer, just a law student
No.
Follow that rule, and you may well end your ass up in jail. The rule in most jurisdictions is that you do not have a right to resist arrest unless one "reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect against an arresting officer's use of unlawful and deadly force"
Essentially, you cannot resist arrest unless you're in fear of your life or grevious bodily injury -- EVEN if the arrest or use of force is unlawful. The way to deal with unlawful use of force is a civil action later. It is not up to the man on the street to decide whether an arrest is legal or illegal -- that is a matter for a judge and jury.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Biagini (655 A.2d 492) is a good example (and coincidentally where I stole the above quote from). Man is arrested without sufficient cause. During the arrest he assaults an officer. Man is found not guilty of original crime, but does time on the resisting arrest charge.
I don't think I can state it clearly enough -- you do not have a right to resist arrest except when in immediate fear of death / near death.
.... too bad, they made such a cute couple.
Okay, they can't use 'Lindows' in Finland and Sweden?
May I suggest a quick name change to 'Sven-dows' in those two countries?
No.
You can't copyright something you didn't write. Not counting works for hire and such -- but if they're claiming that they have aliens in far away galaxies working for them, they've got worse problems than copyright infringement.
Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. This is evidenced by taking away certain levels of privacy from criminals...
By that logic --
Freedom is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away freedom from convicted criminals.
Voting is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away voting rights from convicted criminals.
Living is a privledge. This is evidenced by taking away life from convicted murderers.
Just because it can be taken away doesn't mean it's a privledge. The constitution guarantees not to take life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The argument here is that privacy is property, and illegally releasing it amounts to a taking of said property.
Section 8(b)(1) of this bill says that any and all state laws passed regulating e-mail are now superceded by this law. That means if your state lets you directly sue spammers, you can't anymore.
Trust me here. I worked the technical side of the real estate business for a while (Not spam, I programmed realtor websites). The one thing a broker cares about is a lead. But as good as a lead is, a bad lead is a the polar opposite. They'll put up with a few bad leads, but if you approach the point where somewhere around 50% of leads are bogus they get pissed. Change the percent of bogus replies to 99.9%, and they wouldn't touch it with a sterilized 10 foot pole while in a hazmat suit.
The only major problem I see here is that many of these e-mails ask you to call an 800 number. This makes the auto-reply more difficult. Anybody can run an auto-replier -- dialing 800 numbers and keeping them on the line with a realistic sounding voice would be more difficult. On the other hand, since *THEY* pay for the calls to the 800 number, the increase in fake replies wouldn't need to be giant to make the profit margin go bye-bye.
My recolection is that the big advantage of TNT touted by Nobel (Yes, THAT Nobel) was not its explosive power, but its stability.
to bad it is the size of my hand.
It would be nice to plop one of those n m computer when it is smaller.....
Yes, because there's no possible way anyone could fit a 6" x 6" x 1" piece of hardware in a desktop machine.
It says you can't use it without a court order or permission of the owner. If you own the car your kid's using it seems trivial to prove you consent to your own snooping.