Granted, Kerry wasn't the best candidate. By far. But being able to reason out various thoughts and change your decisions if the situation merits it is a sign of intelligence
The same John Kerry who got worse grades than Bush at Yale? C'mon. Bush ain't no nuculur scientist, but "Kerry" and "intelligence" in the same sentence? Please, Kerry is merely as amoral and narcissistic as Bill Clinton, but with about half the IQ.
So when Kerry - in the same 24-hour period - went to an environmental group and bragged that he didn't own any SUVs (Theresa did, nice obfuscation), then went to a UAW rally and bragged about owning SUVs, that was intelligence? Seems to me it was the opposite of intelligence.
Of course, the greatest flip-flop of them all was starting his political career as an anti-war guy, telling the Senate that US GIs were all baby-killers akin to Ghengis Khan, then having the audacity to actually run on his war record 30 years later ("John Kerry reporting for duty"). And then complaining when the Swift Boat Veterans - still burning from his slander of Vietnam vets - pointed out his shameless political opportunism.
as a percentage of GDP. And maybe that's why, after cutting 10 divisions during the Clinton years, we don't have enough troops to win a prolonged war.
In the early 1960s the Department of Defense constituted 45 percent of federal spending, whereas this year it will constitute an estimated 17 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget. At the same time that percentage shrank, the percentage devoted to entitlements rose. This is reflected in money allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services: It skyrocketed from just over 3 percent of federal expenditures four decades ago to an estimated 25 percent this year. Source: Triumph of the redistributionist left.
Funny how all of you lefties want to cut the things the Constitution actually requires the government to do, not the preposterous entitlements that are not mentioned in the Constitution, and are bankrupting America.
How can capitalism be blamed for a problem at public schools? Most public schools, like my local LAUSD, have unionized county employees doing all the construction and maintenance. The district employs lazy dimwits who can't be fired unless they kill someone, driving around in big, Soviet-looking trucks, instead of farming jobs out to contractors.
Chernobyl was the result of socialist incompetence, BTW.
It isn't just science. The media screw up everything: Law, medicine, politics, sports of course since sportwriters all all nerds, you name it. We don't notice it in other fields because nobody is an expert in every field. As a lawyer, I notice how bad they screw up the law. I'm sure doctors, scientists - anyone who is an expert - notices it in their field. A degree in journalism doesn't teach you much about the real world.
I have an extremely low opinion of journalism, and when I hear the term "journalistic ethic" I cringe. In addition to the reporter's biases we also have to account for their stupidity and laziness. Meanwhile, reporters run around and act like journalism is some sacred religion, exempt from the law, to be placed above God and country. Nonsense.
There is no "lemon law" in the US. Contract law in the US is predominantly state-based and there are 50 states. Some states have them, some don't. California, for example, does not.
There are some federal warranty laws and there is the UCC (adopted by all states but warranties can be expressly rejected by seller). But no lemon law on the fed level. YMMV depending on what state you are in...
Anyone visiting Cuba (who is not a famous dignatary to be exploited by Castro as a useful idiot) would see very quickly the truth about Cuba's "universal" health care. Universally bad. Anyone visiting relatives in Cuba know that they are asked to bring basic medical supplies, asprin, antisceptics, vitamins, bandages, anything (not to mention food and clothing!). There isn't shit for the average Cuban.
Visit a random Cuban family who aren't high-ranking party officials (i.e., 99% of Cubans) and you'll see poverty and suffering, and zero health care. They subsist on shitty little rations from these little bodegita shacks in their neighborhoods. A little rice and chicken (and shitty cigars) every two weeks.
Go to Cuba and see for yourself! Anyone who thinks he is getting the truth from Michael Moore is getting snowed.
I think the most important fact about Cuba is that police officers make more money than doctors (the latter are also known as "cab drivers").
How ironic it is for these people who set up "I'm watching what you say" Web sites talking about free speech - especially those from Stalinist Berzerkely. "I'm watching your ass so be careful what you say" Guy is whing about free speech, LOL! Kaplan is fighting to bring some balance to the overwhelmingly leftist social science departments on college campuses like Cal (a public school, where the First Amendment is actually supposed to mean something, not between private citizens). Tell me, how many registered Republicans are there in the Berkeley Political Science department? Seems like the only one calling for some "dissent" at Berkeley is Kaplan. Try getting hired at Berkeley with "Faculty Advisor to College Republicans" on your resume. Yeah right.
You "progressives" are all for free speech on campus until a Republican comes to speak. Then you shout them down or assault them or otherwise harass and intimidate them.
BTW, I was reading on your blog how you support Hamas's supossed support for a cease fire. LOL! Whether it's lobbing rockets at Israel or starting a civil war, they've really been ceasing fire! Ha, a recent poll in Gaza showed that a large plurality of Palestinians preferred Israel running Gaza. That independence has worked out great for your precious Palestinians. It never ceases to amaze me how blind the left is on this issue.
unilateral "cancel at any time" clauses can be illusory (a promise that isn't real, therefore non-binding, therefore no contract). What is generally required is a minimum time before they can cancel (e.g., "after 30 days") or notice requirement (e.g., "on 5 days notice"). A contract which allowed you to cancel or alter it 5 minutes after it was signed (or clicked) would not be a contract; it would be illusory.
The interesting thing about this is that is being adjudicated under *Federal* law, rather than state law, because it involves interstate commerce.
No, federal district court jurisdiction is granted either via diversity jurisdiction (plaintiffs and defendants from different states in suits exceeding $75K) or federal question jurisdiction. In this case, since the court is obviously using state law, diversity is how they got into court (and of course the judge finding CA arbitration unenforceable). Pennsylvania plaintiff, California defendant, = federal court diversity jurisdiction using state substantive law (but federal civil procedure and evidence).
The next thing that they should go after is the concept that you don't actually *own* software that you purchase, you only "license" it. That could certainly be seen as a "contract of adhesion" ('procedurally unconscionable') imposed in a one-sided way and thus unlawful as well.
Also wrong! Read the case or the article, for a contract to be unenforceable, it must be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Contracts of adhesion are enforceable if they do not contain grossly unfair terms. And software licenses are generally considered enforceable (assuming no grossly unfair terms - read the article or case!).
The contract must be *both* procedurally (e.g., take-it-or-leave it, no alternatives, pre-printed) and substantively (e.g., unfair or hidden terms) unconscionable to be unenforceable.
One is *not* enough - unfair isn't enough. The process must be unconscionable as well. BTW, arbitration clauses are presumed enforceable otherwise.
Please do *not* rely on this as legal advice (but especially do *not* rely on Wikipedia for legal advice!). IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer).
As a guy with several overclocked PCs running various distributed computing projects 24/7, the rooms get hot. I'd want a way to vent PC heat with some conduit without having to run it out a window. I'd also want some pipe fittings in key rooms so I could operate watercooling outside and pipe it into the house seamlessly (to save noise from fans and truly remove the heat from the inside).
And of course there is solar power. Don't have to buy now, but at least make allowances for it now.
"We have stores; we call them online stores. Dell.com will generate close to US$20 billion in revenue for us this year. We think the best computer store in the world actually is at dell.com. Physical stores have been tried by a number of our competitors, and generally, actually I would say universally, that strategy hasn't panned out."
Yes, your issue preclusion argument is somewhat correct, but of course the trial judge is still wide open to appeal. My point ("this is not precedent") was made as a response to the lead in the article:
"Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV?"
The implication from the submission is that now everyone can go run DVD jukebox servers with impunity. So in a sense, you preclusion point argues in my favor; that is, if, as you argue, only DVD CAA contractors can rely on this (at least until appealed), then the average/.-er should hold off on that "legally sanctioned" DVD server.
I've just seen the "a trial judge just ruled against a patent/copyright holder and this is great news for all of mankind" stories posted on/.
Good issue spotting though. Now get the hell off of/. and go study! (good luck).
Uh, even if this was a supreme court decision, the precedent wouldn't be useful for slashdotters because slashdotters aren't CSS licensees.
Assuming for argument that you know this for certain, this is exactly why I included the disclaimer (YMMV and IIALBNYL) - telling/.-ers that I am not, in fact, their lawyer. I purposely limited my input to a single issue, precedent. Of course I would analyze the entire case were I retained by a client. But I was not, so I chimed in on the precedent issue only, since/.-ers make this mistake regularly.
But your premise is wrong as well; You don't have to be a DVD-CCA contractor to be interested in whether this case is binding. I would say that anyone who owned a $27K Kaleidescape jukebox would want to know the legal worth of a case affecting the licensing rights of the company they bought it from! Additionally, other products may (or may not) be affected, depending on the precedential value of this case. The article lead was "Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV?" The implication was that DVD servers are now legal. Finally, since when does one have to be legally affected by a case to want to know its exact legal effects? Most of the cases posed on/. are not posted for the parties of interest, but for the edification of/.-ers who can't get enough involving IP law.
For your client's sake, I hope you don't normally rush in and make comments without knowing what you're talking about.
I don't know how many disclaimers would make you happy, but I thought I made the distinction between "general legal discussion" and "full blown legal advice" pretty clear. Not clear enough for you though, I guess.
This case has exactly *zero* precedential value, unless you live in Santa Clara, CA, and then only if your case comes in front of the same judge. And you can bet this case will be appealed to a court that actually can create binding authority.
For a group of people so obsessed with IP law, most of you/.-ers have no idea how the American legal system works: Trial court cases are not precedent for future cases. Only published appellate cases constitute precedent, and then only in their own jurisdiction.
IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer). This is not legal advice. Do not rely on it as such. This is merely a layman's discussion of general issues. YMMV.
The price is unconscionable, even with California's partial subsidy. My friend paid like $25K for his system (before subsidy). Why haven't solar cell prices dropped like other technology has? If a DVD player can go from $1K to $100 in a few years, why isn't solar getting cheaper?
I'd adopt solar in a second and put a panel everywhere if I didn't have to pay my left nut for a kilowatt. Hopefully this new tech will be cheap some day.
But only signatory nations to the treaty living up to its terms get the benefits of Geneva, or should, according to its terms. This how Geneva was designed, a carrot and a stick. Go read it. After reading it, tell me where Al Qaeda fits in. Not fighting for a nation, not wearing uniforms for a country, targeting civilians. Sorry, no Geneva for you Al Qaeda.
Apparently the Left would have us treat Al Qaeda better, as opposed to worse, than combatants living up to Geneva. Talk about assbackwards thinking!
Again, you are holding the US to a standard in war that is unworkable. The reason we hold enemy troops is so that they can't shoot at us again! Many Gitmo (and other) prisoners have been released, only to appear on the battlefield again, shooting or IED-ing our troops. This is a basic reason for keeping the enemy as a POW, so they can't rejoin the fight. This is such a basic rule of warfare I almost feel silly articulating it.
You seem to be suggesting that since this enemy is so unconventional in its strategy, tactics, and form, that (despite flouting all rules of war) it should get special treatment. This makes no sense. We reward, rather than punish, those who betray all rules of war?
And what possible crime can someone be charged with in US Courts when they are caught in a foreign country where US Courts have no jurisdiction?
What the hell do all these prisoners of war have to do with anyone in gitmo, since the administration insists that none of the detainees are prisoners of war, instead using circular reasoning to "prove" that the detainees are illegal combatants:
I agree that the Bush Administration has been inconsistent and has tried to have it both ways. But if, as you say, the administration is wrong, why should its arguments have any validity in the historical paradigm I laid out (i.e., that POWS are held until hostilities cease)? Just because Bush is inconsistent (something I have lamented from Day One of this war), doesn't make the Free Gitmo! crowd right. The guys in there are hard core and many have been found on the battlefield more than once after being released from custody. This is why the US (and all countries) has always held enemies in POW camps, so they can't go back to shooting at us!
move to discredit terrorist organizations
Good idea in the abstract, but terrorism has continued for half a century, and it doesn't seem to be becoming discredited any time soon. And rather than call out terrorists, we see a UN that won't even pass resolutions against it (unless it is Israel defending itself) let alone take action, an international press (e.g., BBC) that won't even use the word "terrorist," and a US Democratic Congress that has just banned the term "War on Terror" in all war appropriations bills. Sounds like 1938 appeasement all over again.
The problem is, most of the world is in a "it was on TV, so it can't happen to me" mass media slumber, and doesn't take this worldwide, fascist, revolutionary movement seriously, or they want to appease it. Problem is, there is no ignoring or appeasing Islamicists. In the New Caliphate, there is no other choice but to conform or die, and many of the conformists are asked to die too.
We are Americans. As Americans, there are certain principles that define our country
And two of those principles have been 1) We hold POWs until the war is over and 2) the Constitution has never, ever applied to foreign nationals captured on the battlefield (until, apparently, George W. Bush is president).
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, Kerry wasn't the best candidate. By far. But being able to reason out various thoughts and change your decisions if the situation merits it is a sign of intelligence
The same John Kerry who got worse grades than Bush at Yale? C'mon. Bush ain't no nuculur scientist, but "Kerry" and "intelligence" in the same sentence? Please, Kerry is merely as amoral and narcissistic as Bill Clinton, but with about half the IQ.
So when Kerry - in the same 24-hour period - went to an environmental group and bragged that he didn't own any SUVs (Theresa did, nice obfuscation), then went to a UAW rally and bragged about owning SUVs, that was intelligence? Seems to me it was the opposite of intelligence.
Of course, the greatest flip-flop of them all was starting his political career as an anti-war guy, telling the Senate that US GIs were all baby-killers akin to Ghengis Khan, then having the audacity to actually run on his war record 30 years later ("John Kerry reporting for duty"). And then complaining when the Swift Boat Veterans - still burning from his slander of Vietnam vets - pointed out his shameless political opportunism.
as a percentage of GDP. And maybe that's why, after cutting 10 divisions during the Clinton years, we don't have enough troops to win a prolonged war.
In the early 1960s the Department of Defense constituted 45 percent of federal spending, whereas this year it will constitute an estimated 17 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget. At the same time that percentage shrank, the percentage devoted to entitlements rose. This is reflected in money allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services: It skyrocketed from just over 3 percent of federal expenditures four decades ago to an estimated 25 percent this year. Source: Triumph of the redistributionist left.
Funny how all of you lefties want to cut the things the Constitution actually requires the government to do, not the preposterous entitlements that are not mentioned in the Constitution, and are bankrupting America.
How can capitalism be blamed for a problem at public schools? Most public schools, like my local LAUSD, have unionized county employees doing all the construction and maintenance. The district employs lazy dimwits who can't be fired unless they kill someone, driving around in big, Soviet-looking trucks, instead of farming jobs out to contractors.
Chernobyl was the result of socialist incompetence, BTW.
The hysterical global warming chicken littles need their own flying linguine monster.
I have an extremely low opinion of journalism, and when I hear the term "journalistic ethic" I cringe. In addition to the reporter's biases we also have to account for their stupidity and laziness. Meanwhile, reporters run around and act like journalism is some sacred religion, exempt from the law, to be placed above God and country. Nonsense.
to tell the difference between an AIFF and an MP3 at 256kbs or beyond. Maybe dogs or bats could, but not the average human...
There are some federal warranty laws and there is the UCC (adopted by all states but warranties can be expressly rejected by seller). But no lemon law on the fed level. YMMV depending on what state you are in...
Visit a random Cuban family who aren't high-ranking party officials (i.e., 99% of Cubans) and you'll see poverty and suffering, and zero health care. They subsist on shitty little rations from these little bodegita shacks in their neighborhoods. A little rice and chicken (and shitty cigars) every two weeks.
Go to Cuba and see for yourself! Anyone who thinks he is getting the truth from Michael Moore is getting snowed.
I think the most important fact about Cuba is that police officers make more money than doctors (the latter are also known as "cab drivers").
You "progressives" are all for free speech on campus until a Republican comes to speak. Then you shout them down or assault them or otherwise harass and intimidate them.
BTW, I was reading on your blog how you support Hamas's supossed support for a cease fire. LOL! Whether it's lobbing rockets at Israel or starting a civil war, they've really been ceasing fire! Ha, a recent poll in Gaza showed that a large plurality of Palestinians preferred Israel running Gaza. That independence has worked out great for your precious Palestinians. It never ceases to amaze me how blind the left is on this issue.
unilateral "cancel at any time" clauses can be illusory (a promise that isn't real, therefore non-binding, therefore no contract). What is generally required is a minimum time before they can cancel (e.g., "after 30 days") or notice requirement (e.g., "on 5 days notice"). A contract which allowed you to cancel or alter it 5 minutes after it was signed (or clicked) would not be a contract; it would be illusory.
No, federal district court jurisdiction is granted either via diversity jurisdiction (plaintiffs and defendants from different states in suits exceeding $75K) or federal question jurisdiction. In this case, since the court is obviously using state law, diversity is how they got into court (and of course the judge finding CA arbitration unenforceable). Pennsylvania plaintiff, California defendant, = federal court diversity jurisdiction using state substantive law (but federal civil procedure and evidence).
The next thing that they should go after is the concept that you don't actually *own* software that you purchase, you only "license" it. That could certainly be seen as a "contract of adhesion" ('procedurally unconscionable') imposed in a one-sided way and thus unlawful as well.
Also wrong! Read the case or the article, for a contract to be unenforceable, it must be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Contracts of adhesion are enforceable if they do not contain grossly unfair terms. And software licenses are generally considered enforceable (assuming no grossly unfair terms - read the article or case!).
The contract must be *both* procedurally (e.g., take-it-or-leave it, no alternatives, pre-printed) and substantively (e.g., unfair or hidden terms) unconscionable to be unenforceable. One is *not* enough - unfair isn't enough. The process must be unconscionable as well. BTW, arbitration clauses are presumed enforceable otherwise. Please do *not* rely on this as legal advice (but especially do *not* rely on Wikipedia for legal advice!). IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer).
As a guy with several overclocked PCs running various distributed computing projects 24/7, the rooms get hot. I'd want a way to vent PC heat with some conduit without having to run it out a window. I'd also want some pipe fittings in key rooms so I could operate watercooling outside and pipe it into the house seamlessly (to save noise from fans and truly remove the heat from the inside). And of course there is solar power. Don't have to buy now, but at least make allowances for it now.
Easy way to defeat the phishers, OpenDNS. Or you could actually look at the status bar to see what site you are clicking on...
Dell poo-poos retail stores.
"We have stores; we call them online stores. Dell.com will generate close to US$20 billion in revenue for us this year. We think the best computer store in the world actually is at dell.com. Physical stores have been tried by a number of our competitors, and generally, actually I would say universally, that strategy hasn't panned out."
Nice shot at Apple, but who's laughng now?
"Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV?"
The implication from the submission is that now everyone can go run DVD jukebox servers with impunity. So in a sense, you preclusion point argues in my favor; that is, if, as you argue, only DVD CAA contractors can rely on this (at least until appealed), then the average /.-er should hold off on that "legally sanctioned" DVD server.
I've just seen the "a trial judge just ruled against a patent/copyright holder and this is great news for all of mankind" stories posted on /.
Good issue spotting though. Now get the hell off of /. and go study! (good luck).
Assuming for argument that you know this for certain, this is exactly why I included the disclaimer (YMMV and IIALBNYL) - telling /.-ers that I am not, in fact, their lawyer. I purposely limited my input to a single issue, precedent. Of course I would analyze the entire case were I retained by a client. But I was not, so I chimed in on the precedent issue only, since /.-ers make this mistake regularly.
But your premise is wrong as well; You don't have to be a DVD-CCA contractor to be interested in whether this case is binding. I would say that anyone who owned a $27K Kaleidescape jukebox would want to know the legal worth of a case affecting the licensing rights of the company they bought it from! Additionally, other products may (or may not) be affected, depending on the precedential value of this case. The article lead was "Ever wanted to rip all your DVDs to a big network server so that you could select and play them back to your TV?" The implication was that DVD servers are now legal. Finally, since when does one have to be legally affected by a case to want to know its exact legal effects? Most of the cases posed on /. are not posted for the parties of interest, but for the edification of /.-ers who can't get enough involving IP law.
For your client's sake, I hope you don't normally rush in and make comments without knowing what you're talking about.
I don't know how many disclaimers would make you happy, but I thought I made the distinction between "general legal discussion" and "full blown legal advice" pretty clear. Not clear enough for you though, I guess.
Keep up with spy tech, man. The CIA & NSA have been putting RFID in tinfoil foe years now. Better to go with lead.
For a group of people so obsessed with IP law, most of you /.-ers have no idea how the American legal system works: Trial court cases are not precedent for future cases. Only published appellate cases constitute precedent, and then only in their own jurisdiction.
IAALBNYL (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer). This is not legal advice. Do not rely on it as such. This is merely a layman's discussion of general issues. YMMV.
But yes, I do think that some tax break should exist. California has a large subsidy but it isn't unlimited (first come, first serve).
I'd adopt solar in a second and put a panel everywhere if I didn't have to pay my left nut for a kilowatt. Hopefully this new tech will be cheap some day.
Apparently the Left would have us treat Al Qaeda better, as opposed to worse, than combatants living up to Geneva. Talk about assbackwards thinking!
You seem to be suggesting that since this enemy is so unconventional in its strategy, tactics, and form, that (despite flouting all rules of war) it should get special treatment. This makes no sense. We reward, rather than punish, those who betray all rules of war?
And what possible crime can someone be charged with in US Courts when they are caught in a foreign country where US Courts have no jurisdiction?
I agree that the Bush Administration has been inconsistent and has tried to have it both ways. But if, as you say, the administration is wrong, why should its arguments have any validity in the historical paradigm I laid out (i.e., that POWS are held until hostilities cease)? Just because Bush is inconsistent (something I have lamented from Day One of this war), doesn't make the Free Gitmo! crowd right. The guys in there are hard core and many have been found on the battlefield more than once after being released from custody. This is why the US (and all countries) has always held enemies in POW camps, so they can't go back to shooting at us!
move to discredit terrorist organizations
Good idea in the abstract, but terrorism has continued for half a century, and it doesn't seem to be becoming discredited any time soon. And rather than call out terrorists, we see a UN that won't even pass resolutions against it (unless it is Israel defending itself) let alone take action, an international press (e.g., BBC) that won't even use the word "terrorist," and a US Democratic Congress that has just banned the term "War on Terror" in all war appropriations bills. Sounds like 1938 appeasement all over again.
The problem is, most of the world is in a "it was on TV, so it can't happen to me" mass media slumber, and doesn't take this worldwide, fascist, revolutionary movement seriously, or they want to appease it. Problem is, there is no ignoring or appeasing Islamicists. In the New Caliphate, there is no other choice but to conform or die, and many of the conformists are asked to die too.
And two of those principles have been 1) We hold POWs until the war is over and 2) the Constitution has never, ever applied to foreign nationals captured on the battlefield (until, apparently, George W. Bush is president).
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.