Silverglate should have a great deal of appeal here. He was deeply involved in the ACLU, was a founding member of FIRE, and was the first litigation counsel for the EFF.
If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism. Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.
I disagree. Bin Ladin said the US must remove our troops in Saudi Arabia. The troops were there to contain Saddam's regime.
So we complied with bin Ladin's request.... By invading Iraq....
Why would this be any different?
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Look: If you want economic security as your top priority, don't be self-employed. Starting a business or going out on your own universally means that one must be willing to accept a lack of security. And for all that you have to work harder than anyone else.
Furthermore, every new business fails. It isn't a question of if you will run out of money. It is a question of when. More money doesn't solve that problem. What separates out a successful from an unsuccessful business is that the successful one manages to keep going through the failure and eventually arrives at success. If you don't have the fortitude to do it, don't.
There are a lot of benefits to starting such a business, though. They include freedom and the possibility in time to earn more than you would working for someone else. I prefer this route, but I would certainly not recommend it to everyone.
Most self-employed folks get health insurance sometimes and not others. I am no exception.
We dropped health insurance at one point because the insurer raised rates from $800/month to $1200/month just due to market pressures. This was after they used the "reasonable and customary" way out of paying about a third of what I expected them to pay. Looking at the cost/benefit, we decided that it would be far better to just drop the health insurance for a while than to keep it. Almost all the time we have had medical care required we have paid out of pocket anyway.
I agree we need health insurance reform, btw. However, the current proposals would make the situation worse rather than better for many self-employed folk such as myself and there are a number of much more urgent reforms that need to happen first.
Why is it we in the US require more transparency regarding costs of car repairs than we do non-emergency health care?
Small punctures are usually not enough to immediately cause decompression. For example, there was a SW Airlines flight recently that had an engine explode at cruise, sending fan blades through the fusilage skin (but not into the cabin). Also such a bolt would be easily detected by x-rays and/or metal detectors.
It depends to some extent on a large number of things including:
1) how much damage occurs. 2) What structures are damaged besides the skin.
In general, detonating it at one's seat on landing would be the least effective way I can think of and this suggests a real lack of training and coordination.
I have said it before and I will say it again: most terrorist attacks cause damage and loss of life in proportion to the planning and coordination involved. A single person acting alone and in a hurry will almost never cause much more than some property damage (see the Jakarta Airport bombing a few years ago which killed 0 and injured 2). This is why security measures don't generally need to be rushed.
Heck, I drove 20 hours to a customer's site once because air travel would have been too difficult given the circumstances. Driving wasn't too bad, on the other hand.
If you read the article and scroll down, you will see the bit about wanting security measures to be unpredictable and that different airports would have different security measures.
This just blew the cover off any illusion of a professional response. Weakest link anyone?
Car crashes killed 20% more people on US soil than terrorists did during the month of September 2001. And the numbers there were not higher than usual.
We go through a 9/11 ever month on our roads and folks give it no thought.
I would think it would be less likely to be a problem close to the ground.
Basically, a small explosion at cruise phase could trigger explosive decompression which can lead to an inflight breakup, even if the damage to the hull is surprisingly minor. Close to the ground, assuming control systems survive the blast, there is less risk of catastrophic failure induced by the blast (difference between popping a large balloon that is quite full and cutting a hole in a cardboard tube).
If control systems are taken out and the hull survives, cruise phase would be a lot less damaging because it would provide a greater chance for the crew to think of some way to recover.
I don't however disagree with the overall notion that knowingly supporting a criminal enterprise is punishable.
Nor do I. I just don't think providing hosting for a normal fee, a lease for storefront space, etc. is "supporting."
On the other hand, if you show you are endorsing infringing uses, or building a service specifically targetted towards infringing uses, that is pretty clear.
In short I would apply the same lines as found in Betamax and Grokster to services and to contributory infringement of trademarks. That seems the best way to go in my opinion.
You'd be correct, but again you're not separating the service from the materials. To use a cassette analogy, this would be closer to Walmart stocking the copied tapes, even after they had been told to stop.
Ok. Let's look at the problems that occur with this distinction though, i.e. the rented store front vs the neutral product sale. If you are saying that a lessor should be able to be held liable for contributory infringement of trademarks by a lessee (who is using the lease to bring an infringing good to market) and must evict to avoid liability, and that the bar should be "we told you to stop you didn't evict him" then this places too much power in the hands of plaintiffs who can, effectively, shut businesses down without court oversight while trying to get things resolved.
For example, suppose I start a business called Intelcom focusing on intelligent mobile devices. I get a loan from a bank and purchase an office building. Intel Corp decides they want to enforce their trademark against me and tells the bank to stop providing the credit or else they will get sued too. Should the bank be required to call the loan early and repossess the office building if I can't quickly find another loan? After all, it too is a financial service which is facilitating, in their mind the trademark infringement.
The issue here is that this makes trademark disputes extremely dangerous to businesses since legitimate businesses may be blocked from critical infrastructure. I don't think this should be something left to tortuous interferance claims either. I think the simpler solution is to require active collaboration or endorsement to a contributory infringement claim regarding trademarks.
I am not sure it matters. In both cases, you have someone profiting by selling services that he/she arguably knows or should know are contributing to trademark infringement. I am not sure why selling paints should be different than renting out the billboard, if we are trying to apply the same principles that seem to occur in contributory infringement for copyrights. In both cases the businesses are enabling the infringement and profiting from it. I.e. I don't see web hosting as different from video casset recorders in terms of general safe harbor.
I personally think the bar should be VERY HIGH for contributory infringement for trademarks (and similar to the bars for copyright infringement). I.e. if you sell a neutral good or service to all who come and use it, and you are not generally responsible for the final product, then you shouldn't be liable for contributing to the infringement. On the other hand, if your service is not neutral (for example you advertise its infringing uses as in Grokster) or you do have final control (i.e. as graphics design services) then the bar should be lower.
In short I think the same principles applied regarding contributory liability for copyright infringement in both Betamax and Grokster should guide ideas regarding contributory liability for trademarks.
Consider the following hypothetical:
Dear Mr Smith;
Be believe that Joe's Billboard Shop is infringing on our trademark, namely the wordmark "JBS." If this continues, and if he continues to rent from you, we will hold you liable for contributory infringement.
Sincerely, Mr Brown, General Counsel for Jake's Billboard Shop
We believe your customer, Mr David Jones, is using your paints to create signs which violate our trademarks. You are to cease and dissist from providing him with such paints or we will sue you for contributory infringement.
Sincerely: so-and-so, Lawyer for Acme Industries, Inc.
Anybody who knows about computers has to be kept away from them, else they might cast spells on the rest of us.
Quite right. Chances are he even has daemons haunting his computer which send him emails from time to time....
I here there is this one called the Inet Daemon. Inet stands for internet. It lives in the internet and feeds off the souls of sysadmins. Then there is the Telnet Daemon that manifests as TTY devices-- this one is fairly innocuous though unless it is paired with the guard-dog of Hades: Kerberos.....
If you throw a cable off a bridge and start to winch it up, the gravity adds tension to the cable and prevents snarls.
In zero g, with no air resistance, all you have is Newton's First Law working against you. Worse, any tension in the tether (from, say, rotation) ends up propelling the tether back towards you.
I see two solutions to this problem and neither one is trivial. The first is replacing a tether with a folding arm. The big issues with this are obvious. However, a folding arm might do well to CONTAIN a tether, providing some regidity.
The second soluton would be have the tether end begin propelling itself away from the craft prior to disengagement by emitting nitrogen gas or something. This strikes me as a very bad idea.
Really the only solution I can think of is a folding/locking arm which would house a tether and provide control for retracting it. This is still not without problems, some of them serious, but it avoids the snarl problem.
Someone modded THAT interesting? Slashdot mods must be extra dense today. I can immagine funny, or even overrated, but interesting? What's next? Someone rating that bad pun "insightful?"
(hint: "A salt-end battery" vs "Assault and battery")
The prosecutor argued that there were other included charges, which lead to the misdemeanor convictions (i.e. that unauthorized access in furtherance of a tort included unauthorized access) and so these were added. So the indictment listed four counts, but she was acquitted of five counts and convicted of three misdemeanor ones.
The jury didn't convict because Ashley Grills, the prosecutor's witness, testified that she (not Drew) sent the most hurtful of the emails. She testified she sent the message saying "The world would be better off without you." And she testified Megan replied "You are the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over."
The jury basically felt there was reasonable doubt in Lori Drew's role in the infliction of emotional distress.
But the jury acquitted Drew of the three felony charges (and 2 more conspiracy charges) involving unauthorized access to a computer in furtherance of intentional inflection of emotional distress.
Slashdot Mirror
I would point you to Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate.
Silverglate should have a great deal of appeal here. He was deeply involved in the ACLU, was a founding member of FIRE, and was the first litigation counsel for the EFF.
If it was part of this nutjob's manifesto, now if Congress repeals the law it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism. Since the government never ever wants to appear to be that way, this law will now have to remain on the books forever.
I disagree. Bin Ladin said the US must remove our troops in Saudi Arabia. The troops were there to contain Saddam's regime.
So we complied with bin Ladin's request.... By invading Iraq....
Why would this be any different?
Look: If you want economic security as your top priority, don't be self-employed. Starting a business or going out on your own universally means that one must be willing to accept a lack of security. And for all that you have to work harder than anyone else.
Furthermore, every new business fails. It isn't a question of if you will run out of money. It is a question of when. More money doesn't solve that problem. What separates out a successful from an unsuccessful business is that the successful one manages to keep going through the failure and eventually arrives at success. If you don't have the fortitude to do it, don't.
There are a lot of benefits to starting such a business, though. They include freedom and the possibility in time to earn more than you would working for someone else. I prefer this route, but I would certainly not recommend it to everyone.
Most self-employed folks get health insurance sometimes and not others. I am no exception.
We dropped health insurance at one point because the insurer raised rates from $800/month to $1200/month just due to market pressures. This was after they used the "reasonable and customary" way out of paying about a third of what I expected them to pay. Looking at the cost/benefit, we decided that it would be far better to just drop the health insurance for a while than to keep it. Almost all the time we have had medical care required we have paid out of pocket anyway.
I agree we need health insurance reform, btw. However, the current proposals would make the situation worse rather than better for many self-employed folk such as myself and there are a number of much more urgent reforms that need to happen first.
Why is it we in the US require more transparency regarding costs of car repairs than we do non-emergency health care?
Small punctures are usually not enough to immediately cause decompression. For example, there was a SW Airlines flight recently that had an engine explode at cruise, sending fan blades through the fusilage skin (but not into the cabin). Also such a bolt would be easily detected by x-rays and/or metal detectors.
It depends to some extent on a large number of things including:
1) how much damage occurs.
2) What structures are damaged besides the skin.
In general, detonating it at one's seat on landing would be the least effective way I can think of and this suggests a real lack of training and coordination.
I have said it before and I will say it again: most terrorist attacks cause damage and loss of life in proportion to the planning and coordination involved. A single person acting alone and in a hurry will almost never cause much more than some property damage (see the Jakarta Airport bombing a few years ago which killed 0 and injured 2). This is why security measures don't generally need to be rushed.
Heck, I drove 20 hours to a customer's site once because air travel would have been too difficult given the circumstances. Driving wasn't too bad, on the other hand.
If you read the article and scroll down, you will see the bit about wanting security measures to be unpredictable and that different airports would have different security measures.
This just blew the cover off any illusion of a professional response. Weakest link anyone?
The real appropriate response would be to make al travellers fly naked.
That will stop similar terrorist attacks.
Car crashes killed 20% more people on US soil than terrorists did during the month of September 2001. And the numbers there were not higher than usual.
We go through a 9/11 ever month on our roads and folks give it no thought.
I would think it would be less likely to be a problem close to the ground.
Basically, a small explosion at cruise phase could trigger explosive decompression which can lead to an inflight breakup, even if the damage to the hull is surprisingly minor. Close to the ground, assuming control systems survive the blast, there is less risk of catastrophic failure induced by the blast (difference between popping a large balloon that is quite full and cutting a hole in a cardboard tube).
If control systems are taken out and the hull survives, cruise phase would be a lot less damaging because it would provide a greater chance for the crew to think of some way to recover.
I don't however disagree with the overall notion that knowingly supporting a criminal enterprise is punishable.
Nor do I. I just don't think providing hosting for a normal fee, a lease for storefront space, etc. is "supporting."
On the other hand, if you show you are endorsing infringing uses, or building a service specifically targetted towards infringing uses, that is pretty clear.
In short I would apply the same lines as found in Betamax and Grokster to services and to contributory infringement of trademarks. That seems the best way to go in my opinion.
You'd be correct, but again you're not separating the service from the materials. To use a cassette analogy, this would be closer to Walmart stocking the copied tapes, even after they had been told to stop.
Ok. Let's look at the problems that occur with this distinction though, i.e. the rented store front vs the neutral product sale. If you are saying that a lessor should be able to be held liable for contributory infringement of trademarks by a lessee (who is using the lease to bring an infringing good to market) and must evict to avoid liability, and that the bar should be "we told you to stop you didn't evict him" then this places too much power in the hands of plaintiffs who can, effectively, shut businesses down without court oversight while trying to get things resolved.
For example, suppose I start a business called Intelcom focusing on intelligent mobile devices. I get a loan from a bank and purchase an office building. Intel Corp decides they want to enforce their trademark against me and tells the bank to stop providing the credit or else they will get sued too. Should the bank be required to call the loan early and repossess the office building if I can't quickly find another loan? After all, it too is a financial service which is facilitating, in their mind the trademark infringement.
The issue here is that this makes trademark disputes extremely dangerous to businesses since legitimate businesses may be blocked from critical infrastructure. I don't think this should be something left to tortuous interferance claims either. I think the simpler solution is to require active collaboration or endorsement to a contributory infringement claim regarding trademarks.
I am not sure it matters. In both cases, you have someone profiting by selling services that he/she arguably knows or should know are contributing to trademark infringement. I am not sure why selling paints should be different than renting out the billboard, if we are trying to apply the same principles that seem to occur in contributory infringement for copyrights. In both cases the businesses are enabling the infringement and profiting from it. I.e. I don't see web hosting as different from video casset recorders in terms of general safe harbor.
I personally think the bar should be VERY HIGH for contributory infringement for trademarks (and similar to the bars for copyright infringement). I.e. if you sell a neutral good or service to all who come and use it, and you are not generally responsible for the final product, then you shouldn't be liable for contributing to the infringement. On the other hand, if your service is not neutral (for example you advertise its infringing uses as in Grokster) or you do have final control (i.e. as graphics design services) then the bar should be lower.
In short I think the same principles applied regarding contributory liability for copyright infringement in both Betamax and Grokster should guide ideas regarding contributory liability for trademarks.
Consider the following hypothetical:
Dear Mr Smith;
Be believe that Joe's Billboard Shop is infringing on our trademark, namely the wordmark "JBS." If this continues, and if he continues to rent from you, we will hold you liable for contributory infringement.
Sincerely,
Mr Brown, General Counsel for Jake's Billboard Shop
To John's Paint Store:
We believe your customer, Mr David Jones, is using your paints to create signs which violate our trademarks. You are to cease and dissist from providing him with such paints or we will sue you for contributory infringement.
Sincerely:
so-and-so, Lawyer for Acme Industries, Inc.
Same? Different? On what basis?
I wonder what the prospects for an appeal look like.
Anybody who knows about computers has to be kept away from them, else they might cast spells on the rest of us.
Quite right. Chances are he even has daemons haunting his computer which send him emails from time to time....
I here there is this one called the Inet Daemon. Inet stands for internet. It lives in the internet and feeds off the souls of sysadmins. Then there is the Telnet Daemon that manifests as TTY devices-- this one is fairly innocuous though unless it is paired with the guard-dog of Hades: Kerberos.....
Um.... I don't think you understand the problem.
If you throw a cable off a bridge and start to winch it up, the gravity adds tension to the cable and prevents snarls.
In zero g, with no air resistance, all you have is Newton's First Law working against you. Worse, any tension in the tether (from, say, rotation) ends up propelling the tether back towards you.
I see two solutions to this problem and neither one is trivial. The first is replacing a tether with a folding arm. The big issues with this are obvious. However, a folding arm might do well to CONTAIN a tether, providing some regidity.
The second soluton would be have the tether end begin propelling itself away from the craft prior to disengagement by emitting nitrogen gas or something. This strikes me as a very bad idea.
Really the only solution I can think of is a folding/locking arm which would house a tether and provide control for retracting it. This is still not without problems, some of them serious, but it avoids the snarl problem.
Probably the same one who modded my "a salt-end battery" joke informative.
Modding has gone even further downhill here in the last year.
Someone modded THAT interesting? Slashdot mods must be extra dense today.
I can immagine funny, or even overrated, but interesting? What's next? Someone rating that bad pun "insightful?"
(hint: "A salt-end battery" vs "Assault and battery")
How would you carry this cannon in a concealed manner while walking the streets alone at night?
I hear that they're often loaded with a salt, and frequently used in bar fights.
Only on one side. That is why it is called "a salt-end battery."
(go ahead and mod me down if you want for making bad jokes)
You can see the IIED part on page 9.
The prosecutor argued that there were other included charges, which lead to the misdemeanor convictions (i.e. that unauthorized access in furtherance of a tort included unauthorized access) and so these were added. So the indictment listed four counts, but she was acquitted of five counts and convicted of three misdemeanor ones.
The jury didn't convict because Ashley Grills, the prosecutor's witness, testified that she (not Drew) sent the most hurtful of the emails. She testified she sent the message saying "The world would be better off without you." And she testified Megan replied "You are the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over."
The jury basically felt there was reasonable doubt in Lori Drew's role in the infliction of emotional distress.
But the jury acquitted Drew of the three felony charges (and 2 more conspiracy charges) involving unauthorized access to a computer in furtherance of intentional inflection of emotional distress.
I am sure that's why China stole all the schematics, right? ;-)