Would your precious libertarian government do half as well? I highly doubt a government without a paramilitary police force could enforce drug laws so well! Without an international anti-drug campaign (and a war to spur on the drug industry, how ironic) we won't be able to spend billions making a tiny dent in the supply of drugs! Without a moralistic government preaching to us, we might not even understand how all this is for our own good!
Another bonus, we've got as many CIA agents as you'd like to have government officials. They found proof of weapons of mass destruction that the whole rest of the world couldn't find. Try that with your precious reduced government.
And finally, good luck raising a citizens army to go enforce arbitrary justice on the rest of the world. Your crappy libertarians would be too busy trying to avoid war for themselves that they might not even fight!:)
And of course it's painfully obvious that application X which has been working just fine will stop working as soon as you start the install for application Y, until it's fully installed and MS is happy with its license.
That X and Y are part of the same suite doesn't matter. X worked. He installed Y, X broke.
Sure, if he'd finished the tedious licensing process he'd have again been able to use X. But why is it acceptable that X failed even for a second?
I've left installers running for days because I haven't gotten back to that task, still asking for the install-dir, the cd-key, etc. What if I wanted to use Office in that time?
"What's that boss? Drop what I'm doing and change that document? No can do..."
You've laid your fallacies out so handily, I shall defeat them in the same order.
1) The president has no authority to act outside the constitution, regardless of war. 2) I didn't say the Geneva convention applied. I said the constitution did. 3) Nowhere in there does it say it only applies to Americans, or only within the USA. Just that it's for the benefit of we-the-people of the USA.
It's obviously in our best interest to setup a system where our government is limited in its actions. Not just to us, but to foreigners who might equate our governments actions with ours. Our country is weakened if nobody will deal with us because we're all liars and back-stabbers who use any little excuse to hold people in brutal shitholes and torture them.
You may have read the constitution, but not with a critical eye. Moreover, you're responding to me with points that are totally irrelevant. Notice how I didn't bring up the Geneva convention, but you expected that I would and didn't stop to check once you saw POW. This "proves" that you're just a republitard beating the same talking points into the ground.
Like any subsidies. But that's a problem of greed and politics - I'll reply with a solution to that in a bit. This post is just too small to contain my proof.
While government planning is synonymous with horrible failure (USSR), some planning is essential. It takes time for farmers to move and get productive. If everyone took off for the cities we'd have less food production until some moved back for the now-higher paying work. With a little bit of foresight we can lessen the impact of the huge spike in food prices and the unemployment you'd get if large crowds moved into the city at once.
Similar to farm subsidies... They aren't meant to go on forever, just to keep people farming through the rough times so that they'll be there when we need them. Theoretically they will stop when we no-longer need the reserve capacity.
This means seeing your needs not just as eating today, but as eating through a disaster. If we had enough food for 103% of the population we'd starve (or go broke importing more) if there was a shortfall. If we produce %200 then half gets wasted and people go broke, etc... Unless we pitch in and pay this preparedness cost.
I think the length of these plans should be about five years. Enough time for a farmer to find a new job without hurting the local job-market by creating a glut of labor and time for the first signs of trouble (ie, needing more food production) to occur along with the market-driven response. Also, they should only be when the cost to everyone of the hardship is high enough. (Starvation, etc...)
The president has no power here either. There's no war. These aren't POWs.
The constitution clearly lists many things our government is not allowed to do, and they are doing these things.
No arrest without due-process, no being compelled to testify against yourself, no unreasonable search and seizure. These don't say "... to USA citizens". These things are clearly illegal (as we the people gave our government limits) and yet our government is doing them.
Six years of voting machines and you still think Bush is an elected president... Either way though, his actions are unconstitutional and he needs to be arrested.
Unfortunately, you live under the shadow of the most oppressive dictatorship the world has seen and the USA is pissing away whatever ability it might have had to help. Oh, sorry, I mean that China really loves you and has your best interests at heart. Come home to your brothers!
Perhaps we should just get together and buy a chunk of Canada the size of Taiwan?
You do know that few of the Guantanamo prisoners were captured in combat (or even near it). Most of them were turned in by their countrymen for bribes.
Now, think about who you'd turn in for money. The actual freedom fighter who could strike back at the imperialist pigs, or the annoying guy down the block who plays his stereo too loud and threatened you for calling the cops?
If these really were combatants, it would be cut and dried. They'd go home when the fighting ends. But they aren't, and often there never was fighting near them. Some detainees are Pakistan and were picked up there. Either the USA followed them a long way home with a drone from Afghanistan, or they weren't actively fighting.
I came back up the thread. You reacted badly to my post so I wanted to see what everyone else though.
Four responses, the softest was "if you're require to act that way, the system is broken"
Here you are saying that if you asked for help, you'd hold the person to some standard of work. You try to make it sound like the "friend" would have promised good work, where in the original post the phrase was "asked me for help".
This is a lawyerly attempt by you to lie. The post was about helping a friend when asked, not about someone claiming great skill and abandoning failed jobs.
As for the rule of polite society that calls for burning your house down... It's *exactly* the same rule that ethically obliges you to take away someone else's house on shaky ground. Neither CC, the photographer, nor the hypothetical helpful handyman provide any guarantee of service or product. Free things generally don't come with a guarantee and even children understand this.
Besides, if you were representing someone sleazy and your house does did get burned down for your lies, just sue your client. You'd have made them a lot of money by then, and your actions were their fault. You yourself said you felt OBLIGATED to do what they wanted. So no big deal.
You indicated that you were willing to lie for your clients. How do you think we should feel?
Do you think we should see you as a defender of truth and justice? Hmm, Mr. Liar? Mr. Ethically Compelled To Sue Innocent People?
No, I insist on calling this a copyright issue because that's all the photographer disclaimed.
It wasn't a model release. Using that photo for advertising purposes required the model's permission. No other forms are good enough. It's not like with six photographer's releases you cancel one model-release or anything. No model release - no advertising usage.
You're saying that the stupidity on Virgin's part could be in part the responsibility of the photographer, and therefor the organization that wrote his license for misleading him and everyone.
That is just plain wrong. When I buy things I'm given full right to use them in any way I see fit. No store makes me sign a murder-waiver. Nobody explains how I'm 100% free to use my fork, except that other people's food and eyeballs are not to be poked, etc, etc..
Nothing the photographer writes can equal a model release from the subject, so nothing the photographer writes can do this. There's no CC license I can put on a picture that lets people kill the subject. In a similar fashion, nothing I do in a license can give anyone else any permission to violate their rights.
You think I'm attacking you to win the argument. No. I'm attacking you because you said "I think I am ethically obligated to pursue that claim." No matter how stupid some claim is there's always some lawyer insisting that it's not their client's fault, and not their fault... it's society's fault. "That may be a long-shot, and may not be legal, but my client wants to try..."
You're willing to lie for money. To take some semi-plausible story "that license deluded me into thinking I didn't have to follow legal procedures!" and turn it into a lawsuit against the person who gave away the photo, and the company that wrote the free COPYRIGHT license is just sick. You justify this to yourself no-doubt with the idea that everyone deserve legal representation and someone needs to impartially give it to them. That's where this lawyerly supporting of lies falls down. If someone was accused of something by the state they should be represented, but there's no similar requirement for representation when someone's trying to bully other people or organizations.
Even if there is a problem and the copyright license needs to say, "Does not cover model releases", that's a comment someone should make to the CC like "Hey, this isn't clear, how about specifying". By immediately being willing to go to lawsuit (ethically obligated) you show that your only concern is cash, not justice, not common sense, and in that you are an enemy of everyone else. A sucking parasite that adds nothing except lies and hurt.
I agree with you though. I write debugging software and tinker with games with it. IMHO the software clearly isn't a derivative work, despite the fact that it links with other software in a binary fashion. Similarly, a book report isn't derivative of the book it reports on, despite quoting it and referring to it in an exacting fashion.
I feel as within my rights to link to gnuGo as to Oblivion. Neither one is an essential part of my program, except in that the specimen is an essential part of a microscope.
In the case you mention, if you compiled your code and it included part of glib.c, then that work would be derivative, but the source code? No. The word 'readline' doesn't make it derivative, the linking and including does.
My feelings are influenced by the culture of lies evidenced by the moderator's behavior. He didn't have to say anything without checking, but to come back with a legal threat of his own implies that someone up the chain versed in law enough to make one of Microsoft's claims against reverse-engineering saw the issue. That same person would be able to understand their actions with the GPLed code.
Clearly someone up the chain decided to counter a legal comment with a legal threat. That threat didn't just pop unassisted out of some uneducated moderators keyboard.
Had no response been made or had the tech said "I dunno, I'll forward this to someone" it would have been polite to wait. Perhaps that person is sick. Maybe a call or two to inquire. But when the person responsible has clearly had time to investigate the issue enough to retaliate I think they've also acknowledged, in the negative.
Seems reasonable. All the profit you made while breaking the rules belongs to someone who followed them.
In cases where there are no damages we should apply the benefits as damages. You got $10 value from it? Then the damages are $10 - you might have paid that if you hadn't copied it.
How long should you wait when a company blows you off in their forums? When their legal representatives threaten to have you sued for EULA violation when you try to discuss the issue?
Personally, I think someone should lose a lot of money over this. It wasn't accidental and I've seen way too many of these reverse-the-blame-and-hide cover-ups to believe it doesn't go all the way to the top. If this was isolated, why were the phone calls not returned? If it was accidental, why did the support rep try to muddy the issue with reverse engineering?
They're nothing but thieves and they know it. Their responses prove it. They were so concerned about making their money that crime and supporting those crimes with lies seemed profitable.
The GPL doesn't require you to release your code. It merely requires you to do so to distribute other people's code.
If you choose not to abide by it, go home and stop distributing it. At that point, you have as much right to the GPLed code as you do to Microsoft Vista.
The contract argument is wrong. Nothing printed on the back of a ticket or anything is a contract. It couldn't be, you got it when you bought the ticket, how could you have agreed to it before then?
There is a contract of sale, but the ticket and what's printed on it, isn't it. That'd be like a EULA - hidden conditions, crouching liability.
Actually, it's not clear that copying intellectual property hurts its creator.
The fact is that copyright and physical property are nothing alike. You can't just forbid people to copy intellectual works - they've already started by watching them. Are the quotes they remember a violation?
It still seems like Approval should devolve into homogeneous parties, not to vastly different parties. Vote stealing/masking issues aren't as prevalent so similar candidates should often all be acceptable. Usually people can be political enough to understand "anyone but the wrong party", which provides them a backup if their ideal first choice doesn't win.
I feel the same about IRV as you about Approval. In BC Canada we had a referendum on switching to IRV. I was for it, but wished that it was an open question as to which one to use. The vote didn't pass, but narrowly, so we're trying again in a few years.
That makes a difference. We're picking MPs/MLAs, perhaps with proportional representation, not a single president which seems inherently first-past-the-post.
Thanks for the ideas as to how to make Condorcet sound better, the "complex" counting put me off because of how easy Approval is, but I guess most people won't see it.
Perhaps the greatest value of the US Constitution (in original form) is to remind us of what were once reasonable expectations of government.
As for the abuses of power, the problem is that we do everything in secret. If Guantanamo was regularly monitored and nobody was abused... false arrests happen in civilian life as well. The problem is that as soon as people get arrested for emergency reasons it always becomes a secret. No lawyers, no contact, no laws.
It's the revisionism and censorship that bother me the most. We revise the constitution so that we can say we're following it. We hide the prisoners that we're saving the world by capturing. Censoring any records of their great evil, inventing it ourselves as justification.
IMHO, because of how people who use it are self-hosted in the language, like Squeak. That means there's a very steep learning curve in the sense that everything is new. Nothing is very hard, but it's all very different.
Switching from Perl to Ruby on the other hand... Ruby accepts perlisms, is written in standard text files, etc.
Of course it lacks everything that Squeak comes with, but if you've never had more how do you know what you're missing?
You were the one saying you felt the need to sue someone totally unrelated... Taking a totally unreasonable viewpoint just because it might fool a judge is still a lie.
And I understand that this is a copyright issue. That's why all the side issues are insane. It's a copyright license. It licenses copyright. That's all. It couldn't give a model release, as it's not that kind of license.
I can clearly say "I disclaim all my rights in X" without saying "and nobody else has any either."
You claim to be a lawyer but don't understand the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Current government not serving your needs?
:)
Would your precious libertarian government do half as well? I highly doubt a government without a paramilitary police force could enforce drug laws so well! Without an international anti-drug campaign (and a war to spur on the drug industry, how ironic) we won't be able to spend billions making a tiny dent in the supply of drugs! Without a moralistic government preaching to us, we might not even understand how all this is for our own good!
Another bonus, we've got as many CIA agents as you'd like to have government officials. They found proof of weapons of mass destruction that the whole rest of the world couldn't find. Try that with your precious reduced government.
And finally, good luck raising a citizens army to go enforce arbitrary justice on the rest of the world. Your crappy libertarians would be too busy trying to avoid war for themselves that they might not even fight!
And of course it's painfully obvious that application X which has been working just fine will stop working as soon as you start the install for application Y, until it's fully installed and MS is happy with its license.
That X and Y are part of the same suite doesn't matter. X worked. He installed Y, X broke.
Sure, if he'd finished the tedious licensing process he'd have again been able to use X. But why is it acceptable that X failed even for a second?
I've left installers running for days because I haven't gotten back to that task, still asking for the install-dir, the cd-key, etc. What if I wanted to use Office in that time?
"What's that boss? Drop what I'm doing and change that document? No can do..."
Oh yes, all analogies must be exactly the same in scope.
Idiot.
You've laid your fallacies out so handily, I shall defeat them in the same order.
1) The president has no authority to act outside the constitution, regardless of war.
2) I didn't say the Geneva convention applied. I said the constitution did.
3) Nowhere in there does it say it only applies to Americans, or only within the USA. Just that it's for the benefit of we-the-people of the USA.
It's obviously in our best interest to setup a system where our government is limited in its actions. Not just to us, but to foreigners who might equate our governments actions with ours. Our country is weakened if nobody will deal with us because we're all liars and back-stabbers who use any little excuse to hold people in brutal shitholes and torture them.
You may have read the constitution, but not with a critical eye. Moreover, you're responding to me with points that are totally irrelevant. Notice how I didn't bring up the Geneva convention, but you expected that I would and didn't stop to check once you saw POW. This "proves" that you're just a republitard beating the same talking points into the ground.
Like any subsidies. But that's a problem of greed and politics - I'll reply with a solution to that in a bit. This post is just too small to contain my proof.
While government planning is synonymous with horrible failure (USSR), some planning is essential. It takes time for farmers to move and get productive. If everyone took off for the cities we'd have less food production until some moved back for the now-higher paying work. With a little bit of foresight we can lessen the impact of the huge spike in food prices and the unemployment you'd get if large crowds moved into the city at once.
Similar to farm subsidies... They aren't meant to go on forever, just to keep people farming through the rough times so that they'll be there when we need them. Theoretically they will stop when we no-longer need the reserve capacity.
This means seeing your needs not just as eating today, but as eating through a disaster. If we had enough food for 103% of the population we'd starve (or go broke importing more) if there was a shortfall. If we produce %200 then half gets wasted and people go broke, etc... Unless we pitch in and pay this preparedness cost.
I think the length of these plans should be about five years. Enough time for a farmer to find a new job without hurting the local job-market by creating a glut of labor and time for the first signs of trouble (ie, needing more food production) to occur along with the market-driven response. Also, they should only be when the cost to everyone of the hardship is high enough. (Starvation, etc...)
The president has no power here either. There's no war. These aren't POWs.
The constitution clearly lists many things our government is not allowed to do, and they are doing these things.
No arrest without due-process, no being compelled to testify against yourself, no unreasonable search and seizure. These don't say "... to USA citizens". These things are clearly illegal (as we the people gave our government limits) and yet our government is doing them.
Six years of voting machines and you still think Bush is an elected president... Either way though, his actions are unconstitutional and he needs to be arrested.
Unfortunately, you live under the shadow of the most oppressive dictatorship the world has seen and the USA is pissing away whatever ability it might have had to help. Oh, sorry, I mean that China really loves you and has your best interests at heart. Come home to your brothers!
Perhaps we should just get together and buy a chunk of Canada the size of Taiwan?
You do know that few of the Guantanamo prisoners were captured in combat (or even near it). Most of them were turned in by their countrymen for bribes.
Now, think about who you'd turn in for money. The actual freedom fighter who could strike back at the imperialist pigs, or the annoying guy down the block who plays his stereo too loud and threatened you for calling the cops?
If these really were combatants, it would be cut and dried. They'd go home when the fighting ends. But they aren't, and often there never was fighting near them. Some detainees are Pakistan and were picked up there. Either the USA followed them a long way home with a drone from Afghanistan, or they weren't actively fighting.
You gave them the right by being born here and not immediately decided to go found your own country somewhere else. :)
I don't see how the GPL because a contract-law dispute there. If you aren't distributing GPLed code, you can ignore it entirely.
I came back up the thread. You reacted badly to my post so I wanted to see what everyone else though.
Four responses, the softest was "if you're require to act that way, the system is broken"
Here you are saying that if you asked for help, you'd hold the person to some standard of work. You try to make it sound like the "friend" would have promised good work, where in the original post the phrase was "asked me for help".
This is a lawyerly attempt by you to lie. The post was about helping a friend when asked, not about someone claiming great skill and abandoning failed jobs.
As for the rule of polite society that calls for burning your house down... It's *exactly* the same rule that ethically obliges you to take away someone else's house on shaky ground. Neither CC, the photographer, nor the hypothetical helpful handyman provide any guarantee of service or product. Free things generally don't come with a guarantee and even children understand this.
Besides, if you were representing someone sleazy and your house does did get burned down for your lies, just sue your client. You'd have made them a lot of money by then, and your actions were their fault. You yourself said you felt OBLIGATED to do what they wanted. So no big deal.
You indicated that you were willing to lie for your clients. How do you think we should feel?
Do you think we should see you as a defender of truth and justice? Hmm, Mr. Liar? Mr. Ethically Compelled To Sue Innocent People?
No, I insist on calling this a copyright issue because that's all the photographer disclaimed.
It wasn't a model release. Using that photo for advertising purposes required the model's permission. No other forms are good enough. It's not like with six photographer's releases you cancel one model-release or anything. No model release - no advertising usage.
You're saying that the stupidity on Virgin's part could be in part the responsibility of the photographer, and therefor the organization that wrote his license for misleading him and everyone.
That is just plain wrong. When I buy things I'm given full right to use them in any way I see fit. No store makes me sign a murder-waiver. Nobody explains how I'm 100% free to use my fork, except that other people's food and eyeballs are not to be poked, etc, etc..
Nothing the photographer writes can equal a model release from the subject, so nothing the photographer writes can do this. There's no CC license I can put on a picture that lets people kill the subject. In a similar fashion, nothing I do in a license can give anyone else any permission to violate their rights.
You think I'm attacking you to win the argument. No. I'm attacking you because you said "I think I am ethically obligated to pursue that claim." No matter how stupid some claim is there's always some lawyer insisting that it's not their client's fault, and not their fault... it's society's fault. "That may be a long-shot, and may not be legal, but my client wants to try..."
You're willing to lie for money. To take some semi-plausible story "that license deluded me into thinking I didn't have to follow legal procedures!" and turn it into a lawsuit against the person who gave away the photo, and the company that wrote the free COPYRIGHT license is just sick. You justify this to yourself no-doubt with the idea that everyone deserve legal representation and someone needs to impartially give it to them. That's where this lawyerly supporting of lies falls down. If someone was accused of something by the state they should be represented, but there's no similar requirement for representation when someone's trying to bully other people or organizations.
Even if there is a problem and the copyright license needs to say, "Does not cover model releases", that's a comment someone should make to the CC like "Hey, this isn't clear, how about specifying". By immediately being willing to go to lawsuit (ethically obligated) you show that your only concern is cash, not justice, not common sense, and in that you are an enemy of everyone else. A sucking parasite that adds nothing except lies and hurt.
Well, in this case they were using GPLed code.
I agree with you though. I write debugging software and tinker with games with it. IMHO the software clearly isn't a derivative work, despite the fact that it links with other software in a binary fashion. Similarly, a book report isn't derivative of the book it reports on, despite quoting it and referring to it in an exacting fashion.
I feel as within my rights to link to gnuGo as to Oblivion. Neither one is an essential part of my program, except in that the specimen is an essential part of a microscope.
In the case you mention, if you compiled your code and it included part of glib.c, then that work would be derivative, but the source code? No. The word 'readline' doesn't make it derivative, the linking and including does.
My feelings are influenced by the culture of lies evidenced by the moderator's behavior. He didn't have to say anything without checking, but to come back with a legal threat of his own implies that someone up the chain versed in law enough to make one of Microsoft's claims against reverse-engineering saw the issue. That same person would be able to understand their actions with the GPLed code.
Clearly someone up the chain decided to counter a legal comment with a legal threat. That threat didn't just pop unassisted out of some uneducated moderators keyboard.
Had no response been made or had the tech said "I dunno, I'll forward this to someone" it would have been polite to wait. Perhaps that person is sick. Maybe a call or two to inquire. But when the person responsible has clearly had time to investigate the issue enough to retaliate I think they've also acknowledged, in the negative.
Seems reasonable. All the profit you made while breaking the rules belongs to someone who followed them.
In cases where there are no damages we should apply the benefits as damages. You got $10 value from it? Then the damages are $10 - you might have paid that if you hadn't copied it.
How long should you wait when a company blows you off in their forums? When their legal representatives threaten to have you sued for EULA violation when you try to discuss the issue?
Personally, I think someone should lose a lot of money over this. It wasn't accidental and I've seen way too many of these reverse-the-blame-and-hide cover-ups to believe it doesn't go all the way to the top. If this was isolated, why were the phone calls not returned? If it was accidental, why did the support rep try to muddy the issue with reverse engineering?
They're nothing but thieves and they know it. Their responses prove it. They were so concerned about making their money that crime and supporting those crimes with lies seemed profitable.
The GPL doesn't require you to release your code. It merely requires you to do so to distribute other people's code.
If you choose not to abide by it, go home and stop distributing it. At that point, you have as much right to the GPLed code as you do to Microsoft Vista.
The contract argument is wrong. Nothing printed on the back of a ticket or anything is a contract. It couldn't be, you got it when you bought the ticket, how could you have agreed to it before then?
There is a contract of sale, but the ticket and what's printed on it, isn't it. That'd be like a EULA - hidden conditions, crouching liability.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/22/why-knockoffs-are-go.html
Actually, it's not clear that copying intellectual property hurts its creator.
The fact is that copyright and physical property are nothing alike. You can't just forbid people to copy intellectual works - they've already started by watching them. Are the quotes they remember a violation?
It still seems like Approval should devolve into homogeneous parties, not to vastly different parties. Vote stealing/masking issues aren't as prevalent so similar candidates should often all be acceptable. Usually people can be political enough to understand "anyone but the wrong party", which provides them a backup if their ideal first choice doesn't win.
I feel the same about IRV as you about Approval. In BC Canada we had a referendum on switching to IRV. I was for it, but wished that it was an open question as to which one to use. The vote didn't pass, but narrowly, so we're trying again in a few years.
That makes a difference. We're picking MPs/MLAs, perhaps with proportional representation, not a single president which seems inherently first-past-the-post.
Thanks for the ideas as to how to make Condorcet sound better, the "complex" counting put me off because of how easy Approval is, but I guess most people won't see it.
Where have you seen Approval not working?
Thanks. It might help. Certainly a lot of Smalltalk features like named parameters are things I keep implementing in Ruby.
Perhaps the greatest value of the US Constitution (in original form) is to remind us of what were once reasonable expectations of government.
As for the abuses of power, the problem is that we do everything in secret. If Guantanamo was regularly monitored and nobody was abused... false arrests happen in civilian life as well. The problem is that as soon as people get arrested for emergency reasons it always becomes a secret. No lawyers, no contact, no laws.
It's the revisionism and censorship that bother me the most. We revise the constitution so that we can say we're following it. We hide the prisoners that we're saving the world by capturing. Censoring any records of their great evil, inventing it ourselves as justification.
IMHO, because of how people who use it are self-hosted in the language, like Squeak. That means there's a very steep learning curve in the sense that everything is new. Nothing is very hard, but it's all very different.
Switching from Perl to Ruby on the other hand... Ruby accepts perlisms, is written in standard text files, etc.
Of course it lacks everything that Squeak comes with, but if you've never had more how do you know what you're missing?
You were the one saying you felt the need to sue someone totally unrelated... Taking a totally unreasonable viewpoint just because it might fool a judge is still a lie.
And I understand that this is a copyright issue. That's why all the side issues are insane. It's a copyright license. It licenses copyright. That's all. It couldn't give a model release, as it's not that kind of license.
I can clearly say "I disclaim all my rights in X" without saying "and nobody else has any either."
You claim to be a lawyer but don't understand the difference.