You are correct. This published decision is binding precedent within the Ninth Circuit unless and until: (a) the Ninth Circuit grants re-hearing en banc (at which time its precedential value is suspened pending the en banc decision); or (b) the U.S. Supreme Court grants review (at which time, again, its precedential value is suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court.
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides:
CIRCUIT RULE 36-3
CITATION OF UNPUBLISHED DISPOSITIONS OR ORDERS
(a) Not Precedent: Unpublished dispositions and orders of this Court are notbinding precedent, except when relevant under the doctrine of law of thecase, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
(b) Citation: Unpublished dispositions and order of this Court may not be citedto or by the courts of this circuit, except in the following circumstances.
(i) They may be cited to this Court or to or by any other court in thiscircuit when relevant under the doctrine of law of the case, res-judicata, or collateral estoppel.
(ii) They may be cited to this Court or by any other courts in this circuitfor factual purposes, such as to show double jeopardy, sanctionable conduct, notice, entitlement to attorneys' fees, or the existence of arelated case.
(iii) They may be cited to this Court in a request to publish a dispositionor order made pursuant to Circuit Rule 36-4, or in a petition for panelrehearing or rehearing en banc, in order to demonstrate the existenceof a conflict among opinions, dispositions, or orders.
(c) Attach Copy: A copy of any cited unpublished disposition or order must beattached to the document in which it is cited, as an appendix.
(New Rule 7/1/2000)
CIRCUIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTE TO RULE 36-3
Please note that Circuit Rule 36-3 has been adopted for another limited 30-month period, beginning January 1, 2003 and ending July 1, 2005. (Rev. 01-01-2003)
(emphasis added)
See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/Documents.nsf/8e0e 7f41ebb23094882567f50054bd5f/ac2beed98709009188256 ca60054aa77/$FILE/0103_chngs.PDF
You are also correct that the fact that it was decided by a three judge panel does not make any difference. The vast majority of precedential Ninth Circuit published opinions are decided by three judge panels.
Note: In all fairness, I have no evidence that any such "associate id" is embedded
Let's see, the url of the link "Text Processing with Python from bn.com" is:
http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2181& so urceid=39391960&isbn=0321112547
If you click through, the "sourceid=" becomes "39391960XXXXXXXXXXX," where X is an integer, and where the number "39391960XXXXXXXXXXX" becomes larger each time you click through.
And if you click enter the url http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2181&so urceid=&isbn=0321112547, thus omitting the 39391960, you still get the pertinent page.
How ironic is it that third world nations could end up leading the way in voip adoption?
I am not sure it is ironic. On the contrary, it may be expected. Since they do not have the same existing infrastructure, and investment in and desire to depreciate same, it is easier for them to start over from scratch. They may not have to worry to the same extent about obsoleting existing equipment and infrastructure overnight, bankrupting companies and people, and threatening the powers that be.
Beyond materials in sports, consider engineering. Im thinking of mountain climbing in particular. There are all sorts of climbing gadgets that didnt exist even 25 years ago. It is to the point where some complain that Mt. Everest has become a tourist destination for the rich.
Well, since almost everyone in the Tour has the best equipment the difference is the rider, isn't it? Therefore it is back down to the rider.
Good technology will only get you so far.
While generally true, it is not always true. A good example is sailing, where having the best boat can almost decide the competition before it is held. Another example may be certain forms of auto racing. Of course, there are those who would argue that the design, engineering and maufacture of the equipment is part of the competition, but I dont think that is what most people think of as sport.
Also effected is the comparison of athletes and records over time. How much better, if any, is Tiger Woods than Jack Nickalaus in driving, putting, etc., and how much of the difference is due to improvements in the clubs and golf balls, etc. Did the yearly baseball homerun record fall repeatedly in recent years because the players are so much better, or because of the supplements they take, and does it make a difference.
This is definately one of those situations where the headline writer can see the glass as half-empty (Slashdot), half-full, or (what a concept) both half-empty and half-full.
Federal and state authorities reported Thursday that Microsoft Corp.
was abiding by many of the conditions it had agreed to last year in its landmark settlement with antitrust enforcers, though they remained concerned about how much the software giant was charging to let competitors use its technology.
Microsoft Corp. is taking too long to alter how much it charges competitors for technology that is necessary for their products to work with the software giant's systems, the Justice Department told a federal judge yesterday.
In a written report card on how well Microsoft is complying with its 2001 antitrust deal with state and federal prosecutors, Justice Department lawyers said they might need the court to force Microsoft to act more quickly. In other areas of the settlement, department lawyers praised Microsoft's compliance.
Microsoft, in response to prodding from the Justice Department, has made a series of changes intended to make it easier and less expensive for industry competitors and partners to license technical information from the company.
But despite the easing of some licensing restrictions, the government and several states said in a court filing yesterday that they remain concerned by certain Microsoft practices and planned to address those concerns in a scheduled conference with a federal judge on July 24.
The complaint accuses Amazon of vicarious infringement for allegedly allowing its "trusted retailers" to offer Corbis images through its site.
"Amazon has failed to effectively supervise and control the infringing conduct of the supplier defendants," the suit says.
What are the requirements of the Amazon "trusted retailer" program? Are there any requirements that would either: (a) impose a duty on Amazon to supervise its third party sellers; or (b) put Amazon on notice of copyright wrongdoing by same? (Such notice may then create a duty to supervise.)
The suit also alleges that the defendants are violating Seattle-based Corbis' copyrights by including images on Amazon's Web site to entice buyers to purchase the posters and other products.
While Amazon may (or may not) be liable for the items third parties sell through its website, perhaps Amazon is responsible for the images that it allows to be posted on its website. In other words, perhaps Amazon is the "author" of its website, and thus strictly liable for any copyright infringements published therein.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article goes on to state:
Corbis attorney Dan Donlan said the company sued first because the "acts by Amazon were a little more blatant than what we would see in other circumstances."
I'm not sure what these "little more blantant" acts were. Again, perhaps the publishing of the copyrighted images on the website itself.
Sullivan even offered to conscript eBay's employees in virtual sting operations: "Tell us what you want to ask the bad guys. We'll send them a form, signed by us, and ask them your questions. We will send their answers directly to your e-mail."
Per the above, it appears that eBay is also offering to help law enforcement agencies avoid giving Miranda warnings. However, this could backfire.
It has nothing to do with shoplifting. A more relevant analogy would be the magazine stand in a store, where you can read the magazine (or the relevant parts of it) on the spot instead of buying it.
I don't think you are right. The original Anonymous Coward (you?) stated:
Now, why would anyone pay for the tune, when they can just
capture the hi-fi quality stream into an.mp3 file?
Thus, the most relevant analogy would be going to a magazine stand with a protable copy machine or scanner, copying a magazine without paying for it, and then leaving.
Forgive my ignorance, but how does the person being in England make it worse?
Obviously, I can't speak for AtariDatacenter, but I can take an educated guess. I suspect the person being in England made it worse because as a practical matter it made it much more difficult, if not impossible, to sue him for copyright infringement or to credibly threaten to do so.
How Appealing, the first and IMHO best blog devoted to appellate litigation, has numerous links to articles about this case, including one to this discussion.:)
No one has a right to clog your mail server with unwanted mail. The right to freedom of speech does not mean the right to a free platform for that speech. If I walk into a shopping mall and start babbling about whatever issue at the top of my voice, the owner has the right to legally kick me out.
It is probably true the the owner has the legal right to kick you out IF you start babbling at the top of your voice. However, at least in some states shopping mall owners do have to provide a free platform for reasonable, non-disruptive speech. See, e.g.,
I won't repeat here what they have to say, but would like to add my own observation. Student law review editors (like the lawyers and judges they will become) are very good at some things, and not so good at others. They are good at reading everything, a priori deductive logic, and linguistic analysis. At least in law school, the get no training in inductive logic, probability, statitics, the scientific method, or even non-legal "paper" research.
As a result, student law review editors (and again, the lawyers and judges they will become) are very good at catching some errors, and not so good at catching others. An error in deductive logic or the implication of language will be caught. An error in probability, statistics, or scientific method may not.
Try that in the social sciences - has anyone ever heard of a huge scandal where someone faked results in the social sciences?
Yes, there is a major scandal going on right now in the social scienes. Last year, Columbia University awarded Michael Bellesiles the Bancroft Prize for his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. The prize is awarded for works in American history "of enduring worth and impeccable scholarship that make a major contribution to our understanding of the American past."
Recently, Columbia rescinded the award "[b]ased on a review of an investigation of charges of scholarly misconduct against Professor Bellesiles by Emory University and other assessments by professional historians."
Professor Bellesiles resigned from Emory in October after an independent panel of scholars strongly criticized his work. Their 40-page report accused him of "unprofessional and misleading work" and said that at times it "does move into the realm of falsification."
Properly done, the allegedly non-hard "social" sciences rely on verifiable data and falsifiable hypothesis. Bellesiles learned this the hard way.
IIRC, treaties approved by legislature and the executive branch carry the same weight as the Constitution itself.
You are wrong. Treaties do not carry the same "weight" as the Constitution itself. The Constitution cannot be "amended" by a treaty. Constitutional protections cannot be abrogated by treaty.
In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Supreme Court held:
The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . ..
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p*17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:
The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p*18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.
This was also a very efficient hoax. "Harvey M. Dunkirk" has been a member of Slant-Six since "10/29/2001 3:09:40 PM." See: Slant-Six Information for Harvey M. Dunkirk. The Slashdot story was posted by Timothy on October 29, @06:58PM. Four hours from start to successful completion.
He writes on his web site 'I went to Apple to test cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell. They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to shut down my project. Isn't that ironic?
No, Eric Yang, it is not ironic. What it is going on is very simple. You are unilaterally, and retroactively, trying to impose some sort of bargain, agreement or understanding upon Apple. One that that they had no prior notice of, much less agreed to in advance.
When you, Eric Yang, tested cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell, you did so without any prior expressed or even reasonably understood conditions, understandings, agreement, or contract. You gave a gift of your own free will. Apple had absolutely NO reasonable notice that you were doing your testing pursuant to your secret, unilateral, unexpressed subjective belief that if you did such work, you could "of course" help yourself to the intellectual property embodied in Apple's themes.
The solution next time is quite simple. Be honest and up-front. Contact Apple before you do the work and offer an explicit, clearly express contract: "I will do 'X' if you let me do 'Y.'" If Apple refuses your offer, then simply do not do the work.
What you should not do is give a gift -- or what every reasonable person would construe as a gift -- of service while holding a secret, undisclosed, subjective, unilateral understanding that the "gift" is in fact conditional, and then whine and complain when your previously undisclosed condition has not been satisfied.
I agree. Moreover, I am troubled by what appears to be the majority, if not near consensus (but certainly not unanimous) attitude of Slashdot users: "We want all digital content for free." "We want to read it for free, copy it for free, and distribute it to anyone and everyone we want for free." Call it a generalization, a first order approximation, a rebuttable presumption -- hell, call it a "profile" -- about the average user of, and consensus on, Slashdot.
And if you ask us to read an advertisement, any advertisement, in any form, to help pay for the content, we will of course bitch, whine, moan, and use our considerable expertise to disable, block and/or render useless you advertisement. Disable pop-ups, block banner ads, and then gloat about it.
The New York Times puts its content up on the web. It asks, if you are a not one of their business partners, only that you register, for free, to read their content. Heaven forbid. What a travesty. That would interfere with your natural law, "Constitutional" (snort) right to access all digital content for free. So somebody, in order to GAIN karma, inevitably posts the "partner" or "archive" link to access the newspaper without registration. What a hero for free speech.
If you ask us to pay for digital content, we will bitch, whine, moan, and explain to each clueless retard content provider that, besides wanting to be anthropomorphized, "information wants to be free." That we can easily and economically copy and distribute digital information, that you can't stop us, so fsck you. Then gloat about it.
And when content providers come up with technology, legislation, and/or a combination thereof to try to protect and/or receive compensation for their digital content we... you guessed it... bitch, whine and moan. We also despair over the fact that perhaps we will no longer be able to gloat, that we will no longer be able to be the bullies we claimed to despise (but instead envied and dreamed to digitally emulate) in high school.
In other words, we efficiently demonstrate via the web for all to see, world-wide, that we are selfish, juvenile, immature, pigs.
The loathsome, immature, disgusting selfishness, is demonstrated not only by our desire, and indeed feeling of entitlement, to all digital content for free, but also by many of our responses to the crises of 911. Yesterday, there was a story about a call for hackers to come to the aid of their country, and to help fight terrorism. The majority, and perhaps consensus response? Again, you guessed it, to bitch, whine and moan. "Oh, they demonize us." "They call us names." As others bury their dead (or wish there was enough left of their loved ones that they could be buried), Slashdot users engage in paranoid libertarian fantasies about a "trap." (Just a hint, we aren't worth the effort.) They bitch about the fact that maybe, just maybe, they cannot break into other people's systems with impunity. That maybe, if they do, others will think less of them or, heaven forbid, actually put them in jail for breaking the law. Pathetic.
Are all Slashdot readers like this? Of course not. Some willingly pay for content, register, or put up with ads. Some, in other words, accept the content pursuant to the terms under which it was offered. Other go farther, and actually give and contribute to society. Many, many helped during the crises, and continue to help.
Are the content providers saints who never overreach, never attempt, and indeed succeed, in limiting the right to fair use? Again, of course not. They, too, can be loathsome.
But to bitch about advertisements on Salon which provides good, quality content for free is simply pathetic.
And, on the broader issue, to think you are able to protect yourself and your family from a terror attack on the scale of 911 because you are a libertarian Ayn Rand worshiping owner of a nine millimeter is not only morally pathetic, but also pathetically stupid.
Equally as high profile as our I.T. impact are the compensation packages we offer. They are highly competitive, recognizing the unique expertise of today's brightest technical leaders. Consider:
Uncle Sam wants you to help fight the war on terrorism. They demonize you and criminalize you and then ask for your help. What's a hacker to do?
To which an Anonymous Coward responds:
Japanese Americans were poorly treated during WWII. They could have complained, and whined, but they volunteered for the military. A famous Army unit was most made up of Japanese Americans. They fought well and heroically on the European front. Their sacrifice and committment helped change American opinion of Japanese Americans.
I'm very glad you mentioned this, Mr. Anonymous. There are at least two possible responses to the U.S. government's request for help. One, the "scraemondaemon" response, is to whine about being "demonized" and "criminalized" at the same time bodies are still being dug from the ruble. Another is to act like you care about someone other than yourself, and perhaps even about your country, prove your critics wrong, and volunteer to help prevent a similar, or worse, terrorist attack in the near future.
Do you feel the same about grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons (like an m60), etc. Should these be readly available after all plastic explosives do not kill people, people do, right.
They absolutely should be readily available to the masses as well, assuming the government in question possesses these tools.
Please let me be sure I fully understand the principle you are advocating, and all of its ramifications.
The U.S. government possesses the "tool" known as the M1A1 main battle tank, plus the necessary ammunition. Thus I, as a member of the "masses," have an absolute right to possess such a tank and the necessary ammunition. So does each and every other member of society, possibly excluding those who have been previously convicted of a felony.
The U.S. government possesses fighter planes armed with bombs, napalm, missles, etc., Thus, if I, or a group of like minded people, have the resources to acquire such weapons (possibly from Russia or one of the other former Soviet Republics), I (or we) have an absolute right to possess same.
The U.S. government possess the "tool" commonly referred to as atomic weapons -- fision and fusion bombs. If I, or a group of like minded people (perhaps organized as a partnership or corporation) have the expertise to build such weapons, or the resources to otherwise acquire same, then I (or we) have an absolute right to possess them.
If the U.S. government possesses anthrax or any other deadly biological or chemical agent, then everyone has a right to keep a bottle in their refrigerator.
Because a government, any government, even a democracy or republic, might abuse its (effective) monopoly on force, the best, if not only, solution for society is to make sure the government does not have a monopoly on, or even predomenence of, force.
Do you really think that having key escrow will really work!? Do you even realize that the majority of cryptographic software is manufatured outside of the USA, where the USA has no jurisdiction. Do you really think that Afganistian will stop using the cryptographic software already available?
Key escrow will work as a law enforcement tool in the following limited, but nonetheless useful, way.
It cannot actually prevent anyone from using cryptography that does not have a backdoor.
However, what it will do is allow law enforcement to stop, interrogate, hold and arrest a suspected terrorist on the grounds that the person has a cryptography program on their computer that does not have the approved backdoor. It will give law enforcement something to hold them on. This can be important. Let me make an analogy to the kife situation.
Prior to the events of 9/11, it was perfectly LEGAL to board an airplane with a knife with a blade up to 4 inches in length. If somebody was found trying to board an airplane, or on an airplane, with such a knife, there was no legal basis to question, much less arrest, them. Indeed, if someone was found with TEN such knives, there was no legal basis to hold them. They just walked away. Hell, you might not be able to keep them off the airplane.
Now, there is a new regulation banning ALL knives, no matter what the blade length. Will this new regulation prevent any determined person from carrying a knife on board? Given the current state of security, probably not. Unless you ban, or thoroughly search, all hand luggage, and frisk all passenengers, no. I'm sure right now I could probably carry an 8 inch (or ten 4 inch) glass, ceramic, or plexi-glass knife (knives) on board and get away with it. So, does that make the law useless?
No, because, compared to before, if they DO detect my 10 glass, ceramic, or plexi-glass knives with 4 inch blades, they can actually prevent me from boarding the plane, hold me, question me, interrogate me, and arrest me. They can pursue the matter.
Obviously, the anlogy to cryptographic software is far from perfect, but the principle is the same. No, you can't really PREVENT anyone from using such software w/o a backdoor if they really want to. But what it does do is give you a legal basis to stop, interrogate, and, if need be, arrest them.
Is it worth it? I'll leave it up to others to discuss that issue for now. But one cannot say it would serve absolutely NO purpose.
Internet used to rally relief work, offer housing and help
Sept 11 -- In the midst of terror and tragedy, charity fought back across America -- and across the Internet. Tales of thousands of small heroes are emerging, from a New York City bus driver who sped people to safety amid falling debris to a McDonald's manager near ground zero who kept his store open to give rescue workers water. But the kindness has spread far and wide outside New York and Washington D.C. Long lines outside blood donor agencies started forming spontaneously Tuesday morning. And around the country, homeowners near airports are offering free housing to stranded travelers through Internet message boards.
HUNDREDS OF STORIES of spontaneous acts of kindness are emerging. As always, horrendous acts of hate have a way of bringing out strong acts of love.
When Maria Trotta, who was stuck in a subway under the trade center for 45 minutes, finally emerged from the smoke-filled subway, the smoke was even worse above ground. But instead of running home, she took care of a woman who had asthma.
"I went looking for a mask for her, but couldn't find any, but the only thing I could find was a pair of (fortunately clean) athletic socks," Trotta said.
She guided her several blocks, finally leaving her in the care of EMTs at a rescue station. Only then did she walk across Manhattan Bridge back home to Brooklyn to meet her husband. "I never got her name."
Jay Lacny was on a bus that sped away from the World Trade Center just moments after the second plane hit. He was one of thousands who are currently sharing stories describing how lucky they are to be alive. He was with a crowd that was standing in the street watching the fire in the first tower when the second plane hit the other building.
"We then literally ran for our lives with debris crashing all around us," he said. "A bus pulled up a couple of blocks away and everyone rushed on and then sped us to safety a mile away. The driver and all of us were scared for our lives, but did nothing out of the ordinary. I'm sure that many others have contributed greatly and risked their lives."
Much of the real heroism came from fire and police workers at the rescue scene. A New York City police officer who declined to share his name was carrying victims out of Five World Trade Center when it collapsed.
"The fire department were getting people out from the rubble and we [the police officers] were carrying them out," he said. "I carried some out and was going back in to get more, but they wouldn't let me back in. They said the structure was unstable. That's when the second tower collapsed." He said many victims were still inside, and several were still alive after the collapse -- and too stunned to yell for help.
"(People) were dazed and shocked. It was surreal. I've never seen anything remotely like it. There just are no words to describe it," he said.
Across New York, thousands of volunteers pitched in. Store owners opened their doors and gave away flashlights, water, food or anything else that would help rescue workers or victims forced to walk home to Brooklyn, Queens, New Jersey or elsewhere once public transportation was shut down. A Duane Reade pharmacy gave out free water, snacks and first aid supplies. A Mrs. Fields Cookies gave away all its food.
Others helped by offering free rides to victims trying to get home.
"A lot of my neighbors here in Cobble Hill were driving around and organizing car pools to bring the refugees to the Atlantic Avenue train station and other places where they could catch a train," said Gian Trotta. "And I saw some kids from the projects at Red Hook walking up to give blood at Long Island College Hospital."
Blood donors who showed up at hospitals were eager to help out the same way.
"At 11a.m. today, I could not stand watching the TV any longer and I told the people in my office that I was walking over to NYU Medical Center to give blood," said Joshua Glantz. "Six people followed me and we gathered more people on the 20-minute walk. It was depressing but also heartening to see people turn in their tracks to join our group. When we got to the hospital, we found an eight-hour wait to give blood."
Across the Hudson River in New Jersey, blood donor lines wound around Hackensack Medical Center, too -- in fact, the hospital was so flooded with donors that a remote donor station was in the works at a nearby church in Wood-Ridge, N.J.
Outside the city, thousands of Netizens began to hunt for ways to help during the crisis. Soon after word came that all flights at U.S. airports had been grounded, offers flooded in for free housing for the night.
"We are 30 minutes from Salt Lake Airport," Greg Smith wrote to a Princeton University alumni newsletter. "Plenty of room for stranded travelers and we can do an airport run to pick anyone up."
Graham Doran made the same offer for folks in San Francisco: "Plenty of couch space. Already picked up one guest, can handle a couple of more," Doran said.
If you can't get CNN on TV, or you're stuck at work, you can read the CNN closed caption stream by pointing an IRC client to chat.cnn.com, and joining channel #CNN_Newsfeed
Please mod the parent post up. It has very useful information for those of us without access to a TV or radio right now.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. This published decision is binding precedent within the Ninth Circuit unless and until: (a) the Ninth Circuit grants re-hearing en banc (at which time its precedential value is suspened pending the en banc decision); or (b) the U.S. Supreme Court grants review (at which time, again, its precedential value is suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court.
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides:
(emphasis added)
See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/Documents.nsf/8e0
You are also correct that the fact that it was decided by a three judge panel does not make any difference. The vast majority of precedential Ninth Circuit published opinions are decided by three judge panels.
Let's see, the url of the link "Text Processing with Python from bn.com" is:
http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2181
If you click through, the "sourceid=" becomes "39391960XXXXXXXXXXX," where X is an integer, and where the number "39391960XXXXXXXXXXX" becomes larger each time you click through.
And if you click enter the url http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2181&s
What do you think?
I am not sure it is ironic. On the contrary, it may be expected. Since they do not have the same existing infrastructure, and investment in and desire to depreciate same, it is easier for them to start over from scratch. They may not have to worry to the same extent about obsoleting existing equipment and infrastructure overnight, bankrupting companies and people, and threatening the powers that be.
Beyond materials in sports, consider engineering. Im thinking of mountain climbing in particular. There are all sorts of climbing gadgets that didnt exist even 25 years ago. It is to the point where some complain that Mt. Everest has become a tourist destination for the rich.
While generally true, it is not always true. A good example is sailing, where having the best boat can almost decide the competition before it is held. Another example may be certain forms of auto racing. Of course, there are those who would argue that the design, engineering and maufacture of the equipment is part of the competition, but I dont think that is what most people think of as sport.
Also effected is the comparison of athletes and records over time. How much better, if any, is Tiger Woods than Jack Nickalaus in driving, putting, etc., and how much of the difference is due to improvements in the clubs and golf balls, etc. Did the yearly baseball homerun record fall repeatedly in recent years because the players are so much better, or because of the supplements they take, and does it make a difference.
This is definately one of those situations where the headline writer can see the glass as half-empty (Slashdot), half-full, or (what a concept) both half-empty and half-full.
The Los Angeles Times has reported:
(emphasis added)
Similarly, the Washington Post has reported:
(emphasis added)
Finally, the New York Times has reported:
The CNet article explains:
What are the requirements of the Amazon "trusted retailer" program? Are there any requirements that would either: (a) impose a duty on Amazon to supervise its third party sellers; or (b) put Amazon on notice of copyright wrongdoing by same? (Such notice may then create a duty to supervise.)
Further, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reportsreports:
While Amazon may (or may not) be liable for the items third parties sell through its website, perhaps Amazon is responsible for the images that it allows to be posted on its website. In other words, perhaps Amazon is the "author" of its website, and thus strictly liable for any copyright infringements published therein.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article goes on to state:
I'm not sure what these "little more blantant" acts were. Again, perhaps the publishing of the copyrighted images on the website itself.
Per the above, it appears that eBay is also offering to help law enforcement agencies avoid giving Miranda warnings. However, this could backfire.
I don't think you are right. The original Anonymous Coward (you?) stated:
Thus, the most relevant analogy would be going to a magazine stand with a protable copy machine or scanner, copying a magazine without paying for it, and then leaving.
Obviously, I can't speak for AtariDatacenter, but I can take an educated guess. I suspect the person being in England made it worse because as a practical matter it made it much more difficult, if not impossible, to sue him for copyright infringement or to credibly threaten to do so.
How Appealing, the first and IMHO best blog devoted to appellate litigation, has numerous links to articles about this case, including one to this discussion. :)
It is probably true the the owner has the legal right to kick you out IF you start babbling at the top of your voice. However, at least in some states shopping mall owners do have to provide a free platform for reasonable, non-disruptive speech. See, e.g.,
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS
Pruneyard Scorecard (2001)
Pruneyard Scorecard (1996)
The Volokh Conspiracy has a a number of good posts on this subject by Juan Non-Volokh, Sasha Volokh, and Orin Kerr.
I won't repeat here what they have to say, but would like to add my own observation. Student law review editors (like the lawyers and judges they will become) are very good at some things, and not so good at others. They are good at reading everything, a priori deductive logic, and linguistic analysis. At least in law school, the get no training in inductive logic, probability, statitics, the scientific method, or even non-legal "paper" research.
As a result, student law review editors (and again, the lawyers and judges they will become) are very good at catching some errors, and not so good at catching others. An error in deductive logic or the implication of language will be caught. An error in probability, statistics, or scientific method may not.
Yes, there is a major scandal going on right now in the social scienes. Last year, Columbia University awarded Michael Bellesiles the Bancroft Prize for his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. The prize is awarded for works in American history "of enduring worth and impeccable scholarship that make a major contribution to our understanding of the American past."
Recently, Columbia rescinded the award "[b]ased on a review of an investigation of charges of scholarly misconduct against Professor Bellesiles by Emory University and other assessments by professional historians."
Prior to that, Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History at Emory Univeristy. The New York Times reported:
Properly done, the allegedly non-hard "social" sciences rely on verifiable data and falsifiable hypothesis. Bellesiles learned this the hard way.
You are wrong. Treaties do not carry the same "weight" as the Constitution itself. The Constitution cannot be "amended" by a treaty. Constitutional protections cannot be abrogated by treaty.
In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Supreme Court held:
Reid, 354 U.S. at 16-18 (footnotes omitted).
This story has been mentioned on one of my favorite websites, Glenn Reynolds' InstaPundit.com.
Glenn is a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law. The majority of his writing is on the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty. One example is Environmental Regulation of Nanotechnology: Some Preliminary Observations, from the April, 2001 Environmental Law Reporter.
This was also a very efficient hoax. "Harvey M. Dunkirk" has been a member of Slant-Six since "10/29/2001 3:09:40 PM." See: Slant-Six Information for Harvey M. Dunkirk. The Slashdot story was posted by Timothy on October 29, @06:58PM. Four hours from start to successful completion.
No, Eric Yang, it is not ironic. What it is going on is very simple. You are unilaterally, and retroactively, trying to impose some sort of bargain, agreement or understanding upon Apple. One that that they had no prior notice of, much less agreed to in advance.
When you, Eric Yang, tested cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell, you did so without any prior expressed or even reasonably understood conditions, understandings, agreement, or contract. You gave a gift of your own free will. Apple had absolutely NO reasonable notice that you were doing your testing pursuant to your secret, unilateral, unexpressed subjective belief that if you did such work, you could "of course" help yourself to the intellectual property embodied in Apple's themes.
The solution next time is quite simple. Be honest and up-front. Contact Apple before you do the work and offer an explicit, clearly express contract: "I will do 'X' if you let me do 'Y.'" If Apple refuses your offer, then simply do not do the work.
What you should not do is give a gift -- or what every reasonable person would construe as a gift -- of service while holding a secret, undisclosed, subjective, unilateral understanding that the "gift" is in fact conditional, and then whine and complain when your previously undisclosed condition has not been satisfied.
I agree. Moreover, I am troubled by what appears to be the majority, if not near consensus (but certainly not unanimous) attitude of Slashdot users: "We want all digital content for free." "We want to read it for free, copy it for free, and distribute it to anyone and everyone we want for free." Call it a generalization, a first order approximation, a rebuttable presumption -- hell, call it a "profile" -- about the average user of, and consensus on, Slashdot.
And if you ask us to read an advertisement, any advertisement, in any form, to help pay for the content, we will of course bitch, whine, moan, and use our considerable expertise to disable, block and/or render useless you advertisement. Disable pop-ups, block banner ads, and then gloat about it.
The New York Times puts its content up on the web. It asks, if you are a not one of their business partners, only that you register, for free, to read their content. Heaven forbid. What a travesty. That would interfere with your natural law, "Constitutional" (snort) right to access all digital content for free. So somebody, in order to GAIN karma, inevitably posts the "partner" or "archive" link to access the newspaper without registration. What a hero for free speech.
If you ask us to pay for digital content, we will bitch, whine, moan, and explain to each clueless retard content provider that, besides wanting to be anthropomorphized, "information wants to be free." That we can easily and economically copy and distribute digital information, that you can't stop us, so fsck you. Then gloat about it.
And when content providers come up with technology, legislation, and/or a combination thereof to try to protect and/or receive compensation for their digital content we... you guessed it... bitch, whine and moan. We also despair over the fact that perhaps we will no longer be able to gloat, that we will no longer be able to be the bullies we claimed to despise (but instead envied and dreamed to digitally emulate) in high school.
In other words, we efficiently demonstrate via the web for all to see, world-wide, that we are selfish, juvenile, immature, pigs.
The loathsome, immature, disgusting selfishness, is demonstrated not only by our desire, and indeed feeling of entitlement, to all digital content for free, but also by many of our responses to the crises of 911. Yesterday, there was a story about a call for hackers to come to the aid of their country, and to help fight terrorism. The majority, and perhaps consensus response? Again, you guessed it, to bitch, whine and moan. "Oh, they demonize us." "They call us names." As others bury their dead (or wish there was enough left of their loved ones that they could be buried), Slashdot users engage in paranoid libertarian fantasies about a "trap." (Just a hint, we aren't worth the effort.) They bitch about the fact that maybe, just maybe, they cannot break into other people's systems with impunity. That maybe, if they do, others will think less of them or, heaven forbid, actually put them in jail for breaking the law. Pathetic.
Are all Slashdot readers like this? Of course not. Some willingly pay for content, register, or put up with ads. Some, in other words, accept the content pursuant to the terms under which it was offered. Other go farther, and actually give and contribute to society. Many, many helped during the crises, and continue to help.
Are the content providers saints who never overreach, never attempt, and indeed succeed, in limiting the right to fair use? Again, of course not. They, too, can be loathsome.
But to bitch about advertisements on Salon which provides good, quality content for free is simply pathetic.
And, on the broader issue, to think you are able to protect yourself and your family from a terror attack on the scale of 911 because you are a libertarian Ayn Rand worshiping owner of a nine millimeter is not only morally pathetic, but also pathetically stupid.
The FBI is looking or IT professionals:
scraemondaemon writes:
To which an Anonymous Coward responds:
I'm very glad you mentioned this, Mr. Anonymous. There are at least two possible responses to the U.S. government's request for help. One, the "scraemondaemon" response, is to whine about being "demonized" and "criminalized" at the same time bodies are still being dug from the ruble. Another is to act like you care about someone other than yourself, and perhaps even about your country, prove your critics wrong, and volunteer to help prevent a similar, or worse, terrorist attack in the near future.
One inspirational site describes the heroism of then Lieutenant, and future Senator, Daniel K. Inouye.
Other sites concerning the 442d Regimental Combat Team and the 100th Infantry Battalion include:
Asian - Pacific Americans & the U.S. Army
National Japanese American Historical Society - 442nd Research Page.
Service Battery.
Silent Warriors - Silent Heroes
Katonk.com
Similarly, one could emulate the hundreds of Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, etc. who have responded to the request by the FBI for people who speak Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages ("The phones have just been ringing off the hook"). See also FBI targets Arab-Americans for recruitment; hundreds respond to appeal.
.
Or, as I said, one can whine about perceived slights while others bury their dead.
Please let me be sure I fully understand the principle you are advocating, and all of its ramifications.
The U.S. government possesses the "tool" known as the M1A1 main battle tank, plus the necessary ammunition. Thus I, as a member of the "masses," have an absolute right to possess such a tank and the necessary ammunition. So does each and every other member of society, possibly excluding those who have been previously convicted of a felony.
The U.S. government possesses fighter planes armed with bombs, napalm, missles, etc., Thus, if I, or a group of like minded people, have the resources to acquire such weapons (possibly from Russia or one of the other former Soviet Republics), I (or we) have an absolute right to possess same.
The U.S. government possess the "tool" commonly referred to as atomic weapons -- fision and fusion bombs. If I, or a group of like minded people (perhaps organized as a partnership or corporation) have the expertise to build such weapons, or the resources to otherwise acquire same, then I (or we) have an absolute right to possess them.
If the U.S. government possesses anthrax or any other deadly biological or chemical agent, then everyone has a right to keep a bottle in their refrigerator.
Because a government, any government, even a democracy or republic, might abuse its (effective) monopoly on force, the best, if not only, solution for society is to make sure the government does not have a monopoly on, or even predomenence of, force.
Key escrow will work as a law enforcement tool in the following limited, but nonetheless useful, way.
It cannot actually prevent anyone from using cryptography that does not have a backdoor.
However, what it will do is allow law enforcement to stop, interrogate, hold and arrest a suspected terrorist on the grounds that the person has a cryptography program on their computer that does not have the approved backdoor. It will give law enforcement something to hold them on. This can be important. Let me make an analogy to the kife situation.
Prior to the events of 9/11, it was perfectly LEGAL to board an airplane with a knife with a blade up to 4 inches in length. If somebody was found trying to board an airplane, or on an airplane, with such a knife, there was no legal basis to question, much less arrest, them. Indeed, if someone was found with TEN such knives, there was no legal basis to hold them. They just walked away. Hell, you might not be able to keep them off the airplane.
Now, there is a new regulation banning ALL knives, no matter what the blade length. Will this new regulation prevent any determined person from carrying a knife on board? Given the current state of security, probably not. Unless you ban, or thoroughly search, all hand luggage, and frisk all passenengers, no. I'm sure right now I could probably carry an 8 inch (or ten 4 inch) glass, ceramic, or plexi-glass knife (knives) on board and get away with it. So, does that make the law useless?
No, because, compared to before, if they DO detect my 10 glass, ceramic, or plexi-glass knives with 4 inch blades, they can actually prevent me from boarding the plane, hold me, question me, interrogate me, and arrest me. They can pursue the matter.
Obviously, the anlogy to cryptographic software is far from perfect, but the principle is the same. No, you can't really PREVENT anyone from using such software w/o a backdoor if they really want to. But what it does do is give you a legal basis to stop, interrogate, and, if need be, arrest them.
Is it worth it? I'll leave it up to others to discuss that issue for now. But one cannot say it would serve absolutely NO purpose.
From MSNBC:
Kindness, bravery amid the horror
Internet used to rally relief work, offer housing and help
Sept 11 -- In the midst of terror and tragedy, charity fought back across America -- and across the Internet. Tales of thousands of small heroes are emerging, from a New York City bus driver who sped people to safety amid falling debris to a McDonald's manager near ground zero who kept his store open to give rescue workers water. But the kindness has spread far and wide outside New York and Washington D.C. Long lines outside blood donor agencies started forming spontaneously Tuesday morning. And around the country, homeowners near airports are offering free housing to stranded travelers through Internet message boards.
HUNDREDS OF STORIES of spontaneous acts of kindness are emerging. As always, horrendous acts of hate have a way of bringing out strong acts of love.
When Maria Trotta, who was stuck in a subway under the trade center for 45 minutes, finally emerged from the smoke-filled subway, the smoke was even worse above ground. But instead of running home, she took care of a woman who had asthma.
"I went looking for a mask for her, but couldn't find any, but the only thing I could find was a pair of (fortunately clean) athletic socks," Trotta said.
She guided her several blocks, finally leaving her in the care of EMTs at a rescue station. Only then did she walk across Manhattan Bridge back home to Brooklyn to meet her husband. "I never got her name."
Jay Lacny was on a bus that sped away from the World Trade Center just moments after the second plane hit. He was one of thousands who are currently sharing stories describing how lucky they are to be alive. He was with a crowd that was standing in the street watching the fire in the first tower when the second plane hit the other building.
"We then literally ran for our lives with debris crashing all around us," he said. "A bus pulled up a couple of blocks away and everyone rushed on and then sped us to safety a mile away. The driver and all of us were scared for our lives, but did nothing out of the ordinary. I'm sure that many others have contributed greatly and risked their lives."
Much of the real heroism came from fire and police workers at the rescue scene. A New York City police officer who declined to share his name was carrying victims out of Five World Trade Center when it collapsed.
"The fire department were getting people out from the rubble and we [the police officers] were carrying them out," he said. "I carried some out and was going back in to get more, but they wouldn't let me back in. They said the structure was unstable. That's when the second tower collapsed." He said many victims were still inside, and several were still alive after the collapse -- and too stunned to yell for help.
"(People) were dazed and shocked. It was surreal. I've never seen anything remotely like it. There just are no words to describe it," he said.
Across New York, thousands of volunteers pitched in. Store owners opened their doors and gave away flashlights, water, food or anything else that would help rescue workers or victims forced to walk home to Brooklyn, Queens, New Jersey or elsewhere once public transportation was shut down. A Duane Reade pharmacy gave out free water, snacks and first aid supplies. A Mrs. Fields Cookies gave away all its food.
Others helped by offering free rides to victims trying to get home.
"A lot of my neighbors here in Cobble Hill were driving around and organizing car pools to bring the refugees to the Atlantic Avenue train station and other places where they could catch a train," said Gian Trotta. "And I saw some kids from the projects at Red Hook walking up to give blood at Long Island College Hospital."
Blood donors who showed up at hospitals were eager to help out the same way.
"At 11a.m. today, I could not stand watching the TV any longer and I told the people in my office that I was walking over to NYU Medical Center to give blood," said Joshua Glantz. "Six people followed me and we gathered more people on the 20-minute walk. It was depressing but also heartening to see people turn in their tracks to join our group. When we got to the hospital, we found an eight-hour wait to give blood."
Across the Hudson River in New Jersey, blood donor lines wound around Hackensack Medical Center, too -- in fact, the hospital was so flooded with donors that a remote donor station was in the works at a nearby church in Wood-Ridge, N.J.
Outside the city, thousands of Netizens began to hunt for ways to help during the crisis. Soon after word came that all flights at U.S. airports had been grounded, offers flooded in for free housing for the night.
"We are 30 minutes from Salt Lake Airport," Greg Smith wrote to a Princeton University alumni newsletter. "Plenty of room for stranded travelers and we can do an airport run to pick anyone up."
Graham Doran made the same offer for folks in San Francisco: "Plenty of couch space. Already picked up one guest, can handle a couple of more," Doran said.
Please mod the parent post up. It has very useful information for those of us without access to a TV or radio right now.